[gridlock]

People still have a choice between candidates from the two major parties. They can vote Republican for Forrester or they can vote Democratic for Torricelli. It just so happens that Torricelli is losing, but that should not be against the law.

There is absolutely nothing keeping Torricelli from fulfilling his committment to the Democratic Party and the people of New Jersey except for the fact that he does not want to. Well, that's just to bad for Robert Torricelli. He does not have that choice.

The court action that infringes least upon the rights of the people is to deny this one person the right to withdraw his name from the ballot. Then everybody else is still whole. Everybody still has the right to vote for either major party or whomever they want via write-in.

Since Robert Torricelli has made repeated committments to run for Senator, raised and spent millions of dollars based on his promise to run for Senator, and stated in hundreds of public forums that he intends to run for Senator, it seems reasonable that the court would require him to honor his pledge and actually run for Senator.

This is the least intrusive option for the NJ Supreme Court and should be an absolute no-brainer. Plus, it has the added advantage of being in compliance with NJ Law.

[hobbes1]

A justice just pointed out why Torch dropped out.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Plus, it has the added advantage of being in compliance with NJ Law.

What a concept.

[TheConservator]

The Rat lawyere is getting hammered. This sounds to me like much more than justices tossing a lawyer friendly questions to help them flesh out their case. Many of the justices sound extremely skeptical that they can grant relief without turning the process into a farce.

[sanchmo]

People still have a choice between candidates from the two major parties. They can vote Republican for Forrester or they can vote Democratic for Torricelli. It just so happens that Torricelli is losing, but that should not be against the law. There is absolutely nothing keeping Torricelli from fulfilling his committment to the Democratic Party and the people of New Jersey except for the fact that he does not want to. Well, that's just to bad for Robert Torricelli. He does not have that choice.

A couple of minor (& technical) corrections:

New Jersey voters have many, many more choices than just Torricelli or Forrester. They can vote for Torricelli or Forrester on the ballot, or for any of the other candidates (Green, Libertarian, etc) on the ballot, or they can write-in any other living New Jersey resident including Lautenberg, Menedez or even Bruce Springsteen. Lautenberg can even try a write-in campaign - there's nothing to prevent him from trying or winning. This case is not about who NJ voters can vote for. It's about whose name appears on the ballot. And the deadline for the final look of ballots has passed.
Tough #$!+ DemonRats.

Torricelli - just like anyone else who receives votes, including other Dems - does have a choice. If he wins the election he can accept, refuse, or resign at a later date. And any other candidate has the same options. In addition, someone does not have to be a declared candidate to receive votes, nor does he/she have to have his/her name on the ballot to win the election.

However, having the name pre-printed on the ballot is a substantial advantage, and therefore enforcing deadlines for these ballots is important.

NJ voters would not be "losing a Democratic candidate." If anyhing, it looks like they've just gained another handful!!

[monocle]

Torricelli has not even hinted that if he were re-elected he would not serve. Therefore, the Court could order Torricelli to remain on the ballot based on his implied promise upon being nominated.