WNBC-TV: Republicans to appeal Torricelli issue to the US Supreme Court

[Liz]

No word on NJSC decision - expected - later - but Pubbbies are going to the USSC.

[krb]

Plus from what I've heard about the many appeals options the Pubbies have, it doesn't sound like they are considering the same arguments they used in Florida. Looks like we have more options this time.

[Agrippa]

One good way of making this into a federal case is to rely on the reasoning of the concurring opinion in Bush v. Gore.

Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution states that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." The Bush v. Gore concurring opinion states that where the Constitution entrusts election regulation to the state legislature (as the Times, Places and Manner Clause plainly does), a state court cannot lawfully depart from the legislative scheme. These sentences from the concurring opinion best capture the heart of this rule:

"[T]he text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on an independent significance. . . . [T]he clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail."

While it doesn't have the force of law, the concurring opinion should have strong persuasive effect in a federal district or circuit court and even in the U.S. Supreme Court itself. It provides a clear consitutional basis for federal court review of the relevant New Jersey election statute, which plainly forbids a swap of candidates within 51 days of the election.

Surpisingly, this reasoning was cited at the oral argument today. I hope Torricelli's lawyers are on the ball on this one.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Senate seat is a federal office.....ergo there are constitutional issues involved in excess of state election law issues.

Of course prior to the 17th Amendment I think it was entirely a State matter how senators were chosen. I actually think we should want the senator to be the running mate of the governor--so that the governor bears some responsibility for how the Senate lets the Federal government (including the judiciary) treat the state government.

[Lynne]

Didn't McGreevy just overturn that old tradition by nominating a D for an R seat?

[fight_truth_decay]

Will be overturned by the Supreme Court..that is exactly what the Republicans said..if this passes then when a Republican is running behind in a race by September, they too can use this ruling to replace and there goes our Democratic election process..for instance Simon in Calif..he could be replaced with "Arnold"( a Repub. in a Kennedy Democratic family..who they say if he was on the ballot would beat Davis..Tag Team Wrestling enter Politics!

[Freeper 007]

He was unopposed in the primary.

[syriacus]

http://www.wnbc.com/news/1693980/detail.html

Who would you vote for in New Jersey's U.S. Senate election?
Choice Votes Percent of 673 votes
Douglas Forrester (R) 523 78%
Frank Lautenberg (D) 121 18%
None Of The Above 18 3%
Other 3 0%
I Don't KNow 8 1%

[supercat]

States should be left to themsleves to determine when and how names appear on a ballot.

Subject to the requirement that states are required by the U.S. Constitution to provide their people with a Republican form of government. Unless the Constitution of the State of New Jersy explicitly states that the Supreme Court of that state is free to ignore its constitution and laws when making decisions regarding election issues, the Supreme Court of New Jersey would deny its people the right to a republican form of government to the extent that it seeks to circumvent such laws.

[BikerNYC]

Depending on who you ask, the Supreme Court of NJ, or any state, on a regular basis, ignores its state constitution and creates laws, not only on this but on any number of subjects.

If the state legislature believes that the Court is intentionally acting outside of its authority and not following the laws as layed down by the legislature, the remedy is to impeach the members of the court.

We don't invite the federal government in every time something does not go our way on a state level. Or do we? Do the ends justify the means?

[marajade]

Its an internet poll...

[No Income Tax]

All I am saying is that this is another area where the feds are encroaching on to a state's authority. States should be left to themselves to determine when and how names appear on a ballot.

The state supreme court invited the USSC in with this ruling. The New Jersey legislature established the deadline. The New Jersey Kangaroo Court said to heck with the state law--we'll make our own law. Had Torricelli done this three weeks ago, they would have met the statutory deadline.

If you don't like the rules, change the law. This is a nation of law, not of men. Unfortunately, most people in this country have no clue about the United States Constitution.

[BikerNYC]

The New Jersey Kangaroo Court said to heck with the state law--we'll make our own law.

Like I said, kangaroo state courts all over the country make their own law all the time. That doesn't mean that the federal government, a government of limited powers, gets to intervene in all of those disputes. It's up to the citizens in the state and the state legislature to do something about their run-a-way court.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

He was unopposed in the primary

. . . meaning that Lousenberg didn't have the character to oppose him when it mattered. Now that Forrester has exposed his corruption, Lousenberg expects to gain the fruit of Forrester's work and risk.

[plain talk]

Like I said, kangaroo state courts all over the country make their own law all the time

That doesn't make it right. This is where blind allegiance to States rights ideology falls apart and some common sense has to come into play. When a State Supreme Court blantantly twarts a clearly specified law for political purposes like this (and like the FL 2000 election) and which can affect the outcome of contorl of the U. S. Senate (or Presidency), the USSC should step in and slap them upside the head.

[BikerNYC]

And that argument is what lets the USSC come in anytime they want.

[tellw]

It's not the USSC that is "stepping in anytime it wants." The USSC steps when someone petitions the court for a judicial intervention.

Also, states do not have rights...states have POWERS. The Supreme Court has the power to overturn state actions when it agrees with a petitioner bringing a case. I think Forrester and all the other candidates have a perfectly valid 14th Amendment case to bring. His right to equal protection under the law as a political candidate has been violated by New Jersey state action. He and the other other candidates complied with the law to become candidates on the ballot. Frank Lautenberg has not. To give Frank Lautenberg ballot placement denies legal equality to the other parties.

[BikerNYC]

A right is the legal power to do something, no?

Yes, the Supreme Court can decide it can do whatever it decides it has the power to do. All I am saying is that I do not believe the Constitution gves the Federal government the power to tell states when candidates can and cannot be placed on a ballot. That is a state "power."

[syriacus]

Its an internet poll.

It sure is.