Posted on 10/02/2002 3:07:01 PM PDT by The Wizard
Well, If you need a sympathetic court, you can go to Jersey if you're a democrats
Not yet, and not actually eroded. Court rulings are law, and therefore they are the rule of law.
The issue will most likely be decided in the Federal courts, and should be on the way there by now if the Repubs have any legal sense at all. The rule of law provides for review of lower court decisions by higher courts. Since this concerns national elections, I'm fairly certain that the Federal courts will have jurisdiction in the matter, just like in Florida last elections.
What the Federal courts decide will be the rule of law, whichever way it ends up going.
O.K. In that sense, you're right. But what the hell good is the Constitution of the US or the Constitution of any state if the personal bias and whim of a politicized court system can merely change clearly worded law when they feel like it? When it came to the New Jersey unconstitutional AW ban, I'll bet it was these same miscreants who ruled that the gun law was "absolute" and must be strictly interprested. But when a rotten, commie-inspired criminal like the Torch decides the party might lose control of the US Senate, then, Bingo! the court obliges by "interpreting" New Jersy election law to suit the RATS.
Not yet, and not actually eroded. Court rulings are law, and therefore they are the rule of law. What the Federal courts decide will be the rule of law, whichever way it ends up going.
You are seriously misguided and misunderstand the point - this is a serious blow to Rule of Law because the courts are ignoring the plain words of the law. The law in question is in Title 19 of NJ statutes, 19:13-20. the deadline is clearly written as 5 days for ballot replacement.
In theory, the Judges should FOLLOW the law when they rule. That way, when you show up in court, you can expect to know where you stand, NOT based on who your friends are, but based on what the law SAYS and how it applies to this case.
If thugs come on the bench and make rulings up based on whim, fiat, or 'liberal interpretation' of whatever helps their guy out, then they are not giving out "law" they are giving out tyranny.
Your comment is nothing but a circular argument - the "law is whatever the highest court says it is" ... if that is the case, the Soviets in USSR era, the Chinese, and even Saddam's regime have some kind of "rule of law" based on whatever their highest kangaroo court decides to make it. But we dont want that kind of "rule of law" by Judicial tyrants!!! Say NO to Democr*ps!!!
It ain't over yet. Let the Feds decide whether the lower courts did or did not follow the law. This is Judicial Review which is the proper rule of law. If the law is clear, it will be upheld. Read a few appellate decisions, from trial to final cert, from cases involving interpretation of law and you'll see how this works. Not having read the decision or its legal reasoning, I think the law will probably be upheld as written in the end (again. I have not read the NJ decision so I am basing this on lack of information).
..."law is whatever the highest court says it is" ... if that is the case, the Soviets in USSR era, the Chinese, and even Saddam's regime have some kind of "rule of law" based on whatever their highest kangaroo court decides to make it.
I stand by my statement. In this system, the law is whatever the supremes decide it is. Thats a fact, not an argument, circular or otherwise. They are accountable to congress and the people by the impeachment process for their decisions. Since we have never impeached the supremes, the majority of people find this acceptable to date. As for Saddam, the Soviets, and The chinese ... Of course they have rule of law. What do you think they have? Anarchy? Their systems are different than ours and I am not referring to their rule of law. I am interested in the rule of law in the United States in our current time. What it is, how it works.
Yeah, but not until all methods of appeal had been exhausted, and the brits started firing first as well.
This one isn't over yet, and the working of the law is probably going to prevail (at least if I have read the law right, not having read it all).
The constitution provides a remedy for this. Impeachment and removal from the court. It is implemented by your elected representatives, so vote accordingly. The constitution also provides for review by higher courts, which can and will reverse faulty decisions (personal whims, judicial construction, lack of consideration of all facts and points of law, etc.) Don't give up on the constitution till if has failed in every remedy.
When it came to the New Jersey unconstitutional AW ban,
I am unfamiliar with NJ gun laws or the NJ constitutional provisions for firearms. Do you have a moment to educate me ? (although this thread probably isn't the place for it)
An interseting point.
Has anyone actually read the decision yet? I, like everyone else, seem to be forming an opinion about this ruling based on limited facts and the opinion of others.
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.