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

[Catspaw]

Don't recall who conducted the vote (believe ABC) but it was reported that 60% of the voters in NJ want a RAT on the ticket.

They have one--Robert Toricelli.

[kjam22]

It is a moronic argument the justice was making. And the guy should have said.... "well yeah.. a moron might read it that way"

[Teacher317]

Hopefully enough people will scream if they do not. Rush had better do a good job of getting the word out!

(Of course, the Justices will plead that, since they are being removed at this late time, they should be able to appoint their own replacements, giving this case a nice recursive loop.)

[ambrose]

Is failure to recuse in the face of a conflict of interest grounds for impeachment?

And who do you suppose is going to impeach them? The Democrat legislature? Haha. The Democrats can do what they want, when they want in NJ. Sad, but true. There is no rule of law, only the rule of power.

[coder2]

I agree, but that isn't going to happen

[tomkat]

might keep me poorer than i might otherwise be,
but the smugness it allows is worth every non-penny ...

[Ravenstar]

Yes and it can get them disbarred too.

Ravenstar

[rockinonritalin]

I found that line of questioning interesting. The justice said that the statute provides a "safe harbor" and leaves open the possibility for a remedy within the 51 days in the event of a catostropic event, like death or infirmity. It was funny that he didn't include as a catostrophic event the disclosure that one of the candidates is corrupt.

[KsSunflower]

This is nuts!! Torricelli is pulling out because he wants the dems to win.

Ask the dems...Are you saying that if candidate Torricelli is on the ballot and if he wins, he will not serve? If they say that he will serve, then the voters are not disinfranchised. IF they choose him, he will serve. Exactly, he is a valid candidate.

[LisaFab]

Thanks. I'm sure the pubs will apply to the SCOTUS, but will they take the case? It sure seems that if they try to have a sham election after the 35th day, federal election laws will have been violated.

[Charlie OK]

Have any of you considered the fact that even if, BIG IF, the Republicans succeed, that the media is going to paint this as "those dirty Republicans stole another election"? Of course this is going to happen! And there are enough morons out there that would get outraged at this.

We lose either way! 8^(

[agrace]

I know, that was utterly amazing. Hey brainiac, the reason it doesn't say what to do inside 51 days is because you get to do NOTHING!!!!!!

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe we need a temporary Republican/Libertarian coalition of convenience to win this seat.

That's agreat idea, but not just with those two. If Lautenberg is allowed to replace Torricelli on the ballot, then every one of these minor parties that is outraged by this travesty should have their candidates drop out. Then, they should all nominate Doug Forrester as their candidate for the U.S. Senate.

[MortMan]

The "3rd Republican Lawyer" is actually a female attorney for one of the minority party candidates.

[KsSunflower]

Exactly, isn't this pretty much an argument about what the words "shall not" mean??

[4CJ]

I hope SCOTUS slaps these morons.

[LetsRok]

What's with this mirage? What about the mirage in where Jim Jeffords was elected to be a Republican and then switched to Independant? Weren't the people deceived their also??????

[Dog]

What Federal Curuit is NJ in???

[twyn1]

"It's a mirage" says this justice after this guy states that Toricelli is still a valid candidate (which...under the law he IS) -- now this lawyer (??) guy says "so he can just drop out whenever he wants if a poll says you're unelectable" and then the chick justice comes back with "that's your interpretation"

[finnman69]

HERE COMES THE GREEN FREAK!