NJ Supreme Court Hearing Live Thread

New Jersey Public TV ^ | 10/02/02 | TonyInOhio

[TonyInOhio]

New Jersey Public TV is carrying this hearing live. Click on Watch Live Online, and post what you hear, here.

Tony

[js1138]

Why do 35 days matter if 51 days do not?

Please, please, please ask the question -- "If polls taken next week indicate that the Republicans are losing, will the NJ court allow the Republicans to switch their candidate?"

[jdontom]

New witness from Libutarian party

[Trident/Delta]

Now they're talking about moving the certification date days after Election Day to accommodate the 35 days. It's Florida all over again.

I am now wondering. Could it be that all of the arguments et.al. that appear to be in the Dems favor are really a smoke screen that if the NJSC rules in favor of the GOP, that the SCOTUS (I am certain that the Dems would appeal) could see that the NJSC justices extened every possible courtesy and opportunity for the DEMS to make their case but still couldn't prove that a substitution was feasible. Judges or not, these legal weasels think this crap out far far in advance. It makes me wonder. Several of the statements that have been attributed to the justices are, on their face impeachable on appeal. THAT leads me to think that thee is massive CYA going on.

Semper Clandestine

[mwl1]

It was a rhetorical question. If the state dates don't matter, why should the federal dates? Our lawyers should point this out to the kangaroos.

[Virginia-American]

They're taking a poll ?! Can you spell ex parte ?!

[tomkat]

rush is only about two hours (+/-) behind the curve

and still he has the gall to charge $ for access to his site,
much of the material for which he prolly picked up here ...

what a country, huh ?

[Molly Pitcher]

Please, please, please ask the question -- "If polls taken next week indicate that the Republicans are losing, will the NJ court allow the Republicans to switch their candidate?"

THAT is precisely the kind of mind game that the court and all NJ voters should be presented with!

[cinFLA]

This lady is with it on the "clean hands" issue. Dems must come to the court with clean hands if they want a remedy.

[LisaFab]

These clowns don't even know NJ law, let alone federal law. Lawyer for the Libertarian candidate up now. She's a female and won't be flogged too bad even though she is anti-dem.

She just said the dems "flagrantly" flaunt election law. YES!

[RAT Patrol]

They had a choice in the primary. Too bad they chose a quiter and a cheater.

[agrace]

Oooo, Libertarian candidate comments good and harsh so far!

[Spunky]

I haven't called yet, but may call and say that I am heartbroken that Toricelli is attempting to withdraw, and could the court PLEASE make him stay in?

Why don't you call and say this is b*ll-sh*t as everybody knows if Toricelli was ahead in the polls he would still be running.

[gridlock]

I don't think the NJSC is taking a poll. I think they are genuinely accepting arguments in order to make a decision. Nothing wrong with that. Somebody might bring up a matter on the phone that they did not hear in court.

To ahead, give them a call. Make a good and novel argument that they may not have heard before. For instance, you could argue that 35 days would not have been enough time for the public to discern that Torricelli was dirty, and his replacement might be just as dirty, but would escape public scrutiny because of the shortened campaign. Or you could argue that replacing candidates at the last minute with ringers could become commonplace, and the primary process will be rendered meaningless.

Think of an argument, write it down, and give them a call.

Be nice, but forceful.

Leave your name.

[AFPhys]

Justice is calling the military deadline an "artifical deadline."

If they dare write anything analogous to that in their decision, the USSC will slam dunk them in a NJ second.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

She's not just the lawyer, she's the candidate.

[chris_in_nj]

Libertarian party candidate is doing great job explaining that the dems are "skiring the law for political gain".

[Fred Mertz]

I'm hoping you're correct. The justices ask all angles but rule by what's on paper/statute.

[blackdog]

RNC Lawyer, to Chief Justice...."My only concern your honor, is we need enough notice to advise all the dead voters as to exactly just who to vote for"? Most the dead ones were planning on a Torricelli vote.

[jdontom]

The reason we have laws is to protect citizens from the abuse of power from the partys.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

She's getting my vote. Has been all along.