Posted on 10/02/2002 2:09:54 PM PDT by Liz
No word on NJSC decision - expected - later - but Pubbbies are going to the USSC.
That line hasn't worked yet. Bush would clobber Gore in a head to head today despite the 'selected not elected' line. Only hard-core liberals use it. The GOP can not be afraid to stand up and fight. I really don't understand this fear, especially when the law is on their side.
A good use of "scare quotes" in that, since ballots are already coming back in, Torricelli didn't pull out, he conceded.
That's a BIG difference.
-PJ
The Republicans are getting ready to go up (as are the Democrats, in case they lose). And on the sidelines, folks like me are drafting their briefs in favor of the parties. Mine will, of course, be in favor of Doug Forrester and the third-party candidates.
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."
Amen.
The Dumb@ssocrats get away (again) with corruption at the ballot box, their bought and paid for Kangaroo Court giving its blessing. The SCOTUS declines to hear the case because it's a "matter of state law." Lautenberg runs and beats Forrester..............and we beat Wellstone, Tim Johnson, Ma Carnahan, and a couple of other DemoLosers--WE TAKE BACK THE SENATE, ANYWAY.
It could still happen, and winning back the Senate that way would be especially delicious.
Given the high percent of blacks who voted in the Democratic primary, I hope the Republicans considered that as part of their argument (i.e., that it was a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act). Boy would that gall the Dems!
I wonder if they are going to the 3rd Circuit to ask for some kind of an injunction? If so, I believe they would have to do it now before the NJSC actually rules.
I've seen your comment twice now and I cant tell what to make of it, real or tongue in cheek? Can you explain?
Non-politically, I like your home page pictures. :^)
It would be a two punch fight. You hit the Dems and they hit the floor.
It may be a Constitutional issue if they change the law after an election and seek to effect that past election.
It seems to me NJ voters already voted on whom they wanted in the general election.
I beilieve by law the NJ Supreme Court is made up of 3 Dems and 3 GOPers with the 7th the choice of the Govenor.
Rule of law seems to "favor" the republicans only because we follow the law. Period. It only seems to not favor the Dems because it is they who are always trying to bend the rules to their favor. I'm serious.
The 2000 presidential election wasn't "decided" by the US Supreme Court. The law in Florida as legislated by their general assembly established the rules for balloting, for recounts, for the certification of the votes, and all of the other minutia of an election. The Democrats wanted to do selective recounts in 4 heavy Democrat counties (forget about legal issues...does that even sound fair? why in hell did they try to do that???) so they petitioned the Florida Supreme Court and made up some bullshit reasons to be able to do that and the Florida supremes went along with it, and basically nullified the law as it was written by the lawmakers.
The only problem with that, is that a judiciary is not supposed to make the law. The US Supreme Court stepped in and by a 7-2 vote (not a 5-4 vote and often reported) pointed out that the US Constitution says that the states can basically do what they want, but they are supposed to have a Representative Republican form of government. That means that a legislature makes the laws, the executive enforces them, the judges weigh them with respect to the constitution and to prior case law. The US Supremes ruled 7-2 that what the Florida Judges did was in violation of the US Constitution by not acting like a Republic.
The 7-2 vote slapping the Florida Supremes and the Democrat petitioners for not following the law was followed by a 5-4 vote that said basically that it was too late to do anything about it; the votes can be certified by the State and submitted to the Electoral College.
Flash forward to now. The law of New Jersey says that in an election, political parties can organize and their members can select a candidate to represent the party in the general election. It also says that after the primary that the party can replace the candidate if it chooses if they do it at least 51 days before the election.
So what do we have here? The Democrats think they are going to lose this one, so they want a do-over and the leadership wants to select a new candidate (not the rank-and-file Democrats selecting, like in a primary, which they already had). So even though the law states clearly what must happen, they want to make up some froufrou reason and they basically want the NJ SC to make new law like the Dems did in FL. And I think the NJ SC will go along with it. One can only hope that the USSC puts a stop to it again.
That's why they are evil. They don't like to follow laws unless the laws favor them (like campaign finance "reform").
And the only reason the law somehow seems to always "Favor" the Republicans is simply because our guys follow the law and don't try to change it.
So basically, it boils down to the fact that when a State Supreme Court is making law, that means they aren't behaving like a Republican government and are in violation of the US Constitution.
What makes this a Constitutional issue is that some votes have already been cast by absentee votors. Those people may not be available to get new absentee ballots and re-cast their votes. In that case, they are being denied the right to have their vote, legally cast under the laws of the state, counted. That is a violation of the 14th amendment (a federal cause of action).
I heard Charles Krauthammer last night make this distinction (that was missed by the others):
If Torricelli resigns, McGreevy appoints a replacement who fills his seat immediately -- this point is not in dispute. But, what if McGreevy doesn't just cancel the election, but cancel it and then put it back on November 5 as a "special election" to permanently fill the seat? Nothing would really change except that the slate of candidates is now re-opened to anyone because this is now a special election to fill a vacant seat, not a general election.
Sneaky, but within the law.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.