[michaelt]

According to Eric Shawn on FNC, the NJSC decision basically says that they're doing this to preserve the two-party system - so both parties have a candidate.

Where in the law, where in the Constitution, does it say we have to have a two-party system? And where does it say that one of those parties has to be the Democrat Party?

The reason we have two main parties is because of the way we elect our representatives, not because its written anywhere.

And what about all the races that go uncontested in this country?

These idiot judges really reached. I guess I shouldn't be surprised......

[LS]

You hit it on the head. There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution, nor in any state constitution, that there should be two parties. Parties are not even mentioned in the Constitution. This is a red herring, and should be dismissed by the USSC.

[agrace]

I just read the opinion. They actually say that the intent of the law was "to preserve the 2 party system." Hopefully that statement will come back to bite them in the butt, since they just slapped every other party rep in the face.

[rstevens]

According to Eric Shawn on FNC, the NJSC decision basically says that they're doing this to preserve the two-party system - so both parties have a candidate

That doesn't make sense. Is NJ saying that all races must have opposing candidates? What about the case where an incumbent or a candidate runs unopposed? Will that now be against NJ election laws. That the NJ voters must have a dem and rep in all races? Seems like they have opened up a pandora's box that will come back to haunt them in future elections.