NJSC Dems can replace Tori's on ballot - Pubbies appealing

[Liz]

Pubbies may try for stay in circuit court.

[goldstategop]

Rush compared it on his show today to the Democrats silly law banning you from saying your piece of mind 30 days before an election. His point was the Democrats are all for obeying the law if they think it will kneecap their opposition but they're all for throwing it overboard if it places them at a disadvantage. The Democrats stopped believing in the Constitution and the rule of law a long time ago. They're not about to let it get in their way and with the help of friendly corrupt justices they're all too willing to embrace "the end justifies the means" philosophy to keep power. That and as Ann wrote in a brilliant article slamming their move to push Lautenberg on the ballot, killing millions of unborn babies is all that matters to them now. Onto the United States Supreme Court and pray the rule of law is upheld there.

[Carolinamom]

Judge Napolitano said they'd probably file this Friday in time for the Supreme Court Justices to consider on this coming Monday, the first day they will be in session. But he cautioned that their first day is very busy with other matters as well.

[texasbluebell]

Thanks for clarifying that!

[goldstategop]

LOL! Its a partisan decision created by a kangaroo court to help the losing side in a political contest. The fact its issued by the state's highest tribunal doesn't make it any less partisan and more to the point - its not really a precedent at all. Its a one-time rule created by and for Democrats. If Republicans came along with a similar argument for a losing candidate they wanted to replace, they'd be taken to the woodshed. But when it comes to breaking the law, rest assured the Democrats will get special treatment from friendly corrupt justices. Well today in New Jersey we found out the state's politics really does live up to its notorious reputation. Tony Soprano would have heartily approved of the way the Rats agony was "fixed" for them today.

[Alissa]

NJ is a lib state, but Forrester is moderate enough to appeal to many of their voters. Plus, I have to think a lot of the soccer mom types are going to see this for what it is -- a dirty trick.

As devious as the RATS are, I can assume they have already got a spiel formatted to sucker the soccer moms.

The Democrats are here to WIN - the Republicans haven't grasp this YET!! Unfortunately the Rats have already made sure they have the Judiciary on their side. Obviously the Judiciary is in cahoots otherwise, why would they be so POSSESSIVE of EVERY controversial nomination Bush has made? Of course this is their REAL power base.

And the bitches and bastards on the Senate Judiciary Committee have the AUDACITY to reject Bush's nominations for being too opinionated not their real records.

We FREEPERS have to PAY ATTENTION to the Senate Judiciary Committee from now on. This committee is dominated by the far left wing of the Democrats. It's disgusting!

[rintense]

This is nothing. Just wait until the 2004 elections. I'd expect that verbal yeas or nays will be accepted by then.

[rintense]

What's the equal protection issue?

This is only one part, but a very important part. Torch was chosen in a primary to be the Dem candidate. The voters did not choose Lautenberg. It was the Democratic party that chose Lautenberg, NOT the people. Therefore, the voters have not had equal protection. In fact, the voters have been usurped by a special interest group.

[Lynne]

Any argument to be made that the election has, in effect, already begun as military/absentee ballots have already been cast, therefore rendering it too late to change candidates?

[Peach]

Just wait until the 2004 elections. I'd expect that verbal yeas or nays will be accepted by then

That or a simple raising of hands. You're right - it's going to just get uglier.

[Howlin]

I agree with you........I believe his first poll with be through the roof!

[WOSG]

Here is a quote from a 1995 ruling that contradicts their ruling for today:

IN THE MATTER OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON MAY 10, 1994, FOR THREE POSITIONS ON THE SPARTA TOWNSHIP COUNCIL

In analyzing section 19:53A:5e(2), as when construing all statutes, our goal is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. Lesniak v. Budzash, 133 N.J. 1, 8 (1993). Because the regulation of elections is exclusively a legislative matter, courts, even when they question the wisdom of legislation, must respect the legislative scheme. Sharrock v. Keansburg, 15 N.J. Super. 11, 16-17 (App. Div. 1951). Tempering that respect is the canon of statutory construction that courts should construe liberally election laws to avoid depriving voters of the right to vote. Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J. 435, 440 (1952). Courts construe election laws liberally, however, not to achieve goals of their own but to effectuate the underlying legislative purpose.

It is clear that they CANNOT and SHOULD NOT undermine the 'electoral scheme' and should reflect the "underlying legislative purpose'. They have not done that here. They chose to ignore the legislative purpose and constructed a 'remedy' (have the Democrats pay for new ballots) that doesnt exist in the electoral scheme.

[aristeides]

Got a citation for that ruling?

[Smedley]

... They chose to ignore the legislative purpose and constructed a 'remedy' (have the Democrats pay for new ballots) that doesnt exist in the electoral scheme.

And no one is surprised.

[aristeides]

Will Forrester have to file before the election? You have 30 days after a lower court's decision becomes final to petition the SCOTUS for cert. When does the NJSC's decision become final?

[coder2]

LOL !!! Considering that I am a female, I don't think her glossy lips would have much of an effect on me...

[coder2]

Well at least I know that I'm not losing my mind !!!

At least not about this, that is...

[WOSG]

we need bumper stickers that say:

" Dont be a jackass, vote Republican!"

[Theodore R.]

In that John Cornyn is trailing in the U.S. Senate race (the New York Times calls it a deadlock), perhaps we TX Republicans could replace Cornyn with a more likely winner. Maybe Phil Gramm can decide to run again after all. Would the Democrats let us bring back Gramm to the ballot? Not on your life, they would complain to the highest heavens that the elections was being "stolen" from Ron Kirk!!!! As it is, Kirk may win it outright, for Cornyn is just not making the active push needed.

[hillaryisalesbo]

Bumper sticker response:

Why Do Democrats have to petition courts they control to get their way? I thought they believed in the "people not the powerful".

[WOSG]

Lautenberg voted AGAINST authorizing military action against Iraq.

Thank you, I was looking for that on the web ... Gulf war vote

Amazing how the arguments over that Gulf war are the same arguments used today by the 'lets talk with Saddam' crowd:

Failure to stand up to Saddam over the last decade brought us to the crisis we face today. But that is no reason to overreact to a situation that has been ignored for years. Our past misjudgments concerning Iraq have led us to the brink of war. But to prosecute such a war, at this time, would be our greatest miscalculation. We can be patient, and wait for Iraq to finally accede to United Nations demands without a shot being fired. We urge the Senate to reject the Orwellian argument that the only real hope for peace is for the United States to threaten war, and vote against this resolution.