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.

[Alberta's Child]

Under the scenario I described, Forrester would run against Lautenberg (or someone else) in a "special election" that could be held as early as November 6th.

It's an idiotic shot in the dark on their part, but look how much mileage the Democrats got in their court hearing today despite a ballot deadline that even a 5 year-old could understand.

[William McKinley]

Yeah, the pubbie lawyer tipped that off by his post-hearing comments, when he hightlighted to the press the "federally protected rights" of military absentee voters.

[CyberCowboy777]

If the Dems lose the case in the NJ Supreme Court, Torricelli is going to resign and McGreevey is going to name Lautenberg as his replacement and then call for a special election, possibly in one year.

That violate the US Constitution (Article 2 section 6 I think....), which mandates a Senate Election every 6 years.

[r9etb]

How bad must the other "close" races look for them to try to pull this pathetic stunt??

Well, I agree that it's pathetic, and that the big-name Dems are concerned about it, but I think they were mostly concerned about coat-tail effects.

The likelihood is that the current condition of razor-thin majorities will hold after this election, so Torch's seat is also important. If Torch is out, he has no coat-tails left.

From what I've heard from the Jersey FReepers on the matter, there's only one reason NJ cannot be called a yellow-dog state: because they'd vote for a democrat dog even if it was dead and its fur had all rotted off.

IOW, Torch was the problem. Any non-Torch democrat has a good chance to win.

[Dr. Frank fan]

That's *five* choices that I count.

Don't forget Torricelli himself. The fact that he is "pulling out" of the race doesn't mean his name is not on the ballot (does it?) Anyone who wants to could still vote for him. Heck, he could win.

(Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

[Liz]

71% - 27% .Forrester in the lead

[William McKinley]

The Libertarian candidate had his views presented at the hearing. He stated that this isn't about giving the voters a fair choice, but rather about a corrupt Democrat party finding any method possible to cheat.

I wonder if Mike Fisher might, depending on the outcome, bow out against Rendell in Pennsylvania and let Schweikert (sp?) run. Rendell beats Fisher in the polls handily, but trails the current governor by 20 odd points in hypothetical matchups.

[Liz]

Floriduh redux.

[dawn53]

There was a poll up at the WNBC website earlier today asking who should replace Toricelli. I think the poll went 89% for NO ONE, and little smidgens for other names listed.

They closed down that poll, (wonder why, LOL) and now they've got one running asking who you would vote for Forrester or Laudenbach. Forrester is way ahead on that one too.

Here's a link to the poll it's under the Republicans file appeal box. The poll is entitled "Who would you vote for."

LINK to POLL

[Alberta's Child]

The Republican Party can very easily make this into a Federal case.

Torricelli was chosen as the Democratic candidate in a primary election in which large numbers of blacks, Hispanics, gays, disabled people, females, etc. voted for the candidate. The Democratic Party has decided, on their own, that they are going to replace this candidate with one of their own choosing. This represents a clear violation of the 14th Amendment and of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

BTW, this is precisely the strategy I intend to use when I pursue my legal challenge. You see, I'm going to register as a Democrat tomorrow . . .

[Liz]

Yes but the US Constitution speaks to the issues of electing Senators, term of office, etc.

[thinktwice]

Democrats remind me of snails: they don't mind leaving slimey trails behind them.

Am I being too hard on snails?

[Alberta's Child]

I'll drink to that!

:-)

[William McKinley]

I agree with former Judge Napolitano on Fox. This will be back at the SCOTUS just like Florida, and the decision there will be the same five voting for the Republican view, just like Florida.

[Cosmo]

hilarious! thanks.

[San Jacinto]

I am not all together sure if they get the vote from the NJSC, we should just let Lautenberg be on the ballot. ... We could just ride that instead of them making us look like the bad guys by goin to the SCOTUS.

I agree with those sentiments. The race becomes Forrester's to lose, and he might do so with an ill advised trip to SCOTUS.

[Liz]

That's the one we are using on this thread posted above.

[Alberta's Child]

More likely, McGreevey will call for a special election that would be scheduled the week after the first one. The timing of the election is not important. What they want, of course, is an election in which the Democratic candidate is someone other than that great Roman Senator, Maximus Rectus Torricellius.

[BikerNYC]

I agree. It can easily be done (unfortunately). 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 themsleves to determine when and how names appear on a ballot.

[Dog]

Thanks for the ping Fred....

I think what will get the USSC involved is the military ballot issue.

1600+ absentee ballots have been returned(people have voted already) that could get the NJSC in some hot water also.