***Come one and all To The Law Free State: New Jersey***

Those were RINO justices. And this is NJ we're talking about, where most of the government could comfortably sleep on a corkscrew.

Those were RINO justices

Yup, apptd. by Guv. Witless. .....Witless Judges.

What the Federal courts decide will be the rule of law, whichever way it ends up going.

What bothers me the most is not just the arbitrary dismissal of Law as written by activist judges, legislating from the bench in contradiction to the Law as crafted by the branch with that duty, but also the bigger sense of who is mandated to have the prime role in elections and the laws that govern them.

Federal Law has been pretty clear for 200 years that the most democratic branch, the legilative, rather than judicial or executive, should be in control of Election Law and proceedures. The process the Florida Court, the NJ Court and the Democratic Party in general has resorted to is in promotion of anti-representative control of this process. It is Undemocratic.

I ran for office - Open Primary 2000, California Congressional district 13. I lost in the primary. But the point I want to make is this: I remember signing a paper promising to not drop out. I also had to take an oath. I'm sure the candidates in NJ primary had to do the same. Now the democraps are using the Constitution and the rule of law for TOILET PAPER. This is beyond disgusting. However, the Missouri democraps got away with a similar pile of crap (Carnahan). It wouldn't surprise me if this evil scheme works for the democraps. The NJ voters are probably that dumb! For victory & freedom!!!

"!!! Say NO to Democr*ps!!! "

I have a feeling we could say "no" until we're blue in the face and it won't change anything.

Carolyn

Some animals are better than others. We are not equal. Remember that and understand it. The consequences of this game is your freedom.

This could be the easiest election that the Republicans ever won. The Republicans need to make 1 simple advertisement.

A bunch of guys in a dark room, smoke, talking of how the terrible loss coming in the election. A guy walks in the room and removes his jacket, and rolls up his sleeves, starts to smile...and says...Boys, I can fix it so that our guy drops out, the state court approves an impossible change to the election law, and a new candidate appears out of thin air. And a guy in the back of the room will start laughing and say "Even the guys down in Jersey City won't believe that!"

The decision is available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/m-245-02b.pdf. While technically 7 pages long, there are just a few sentences actually explaining the decision - and the rationalization amounts to "it's not fair to Democrats, so we'll just ignore what the law says." This is the lamest judicial decision I've ever read. SCOTUS should have no problem taking the case and reversing SCONJ.

What bothers me the most is not just the arbitrary dismissal of Law as written by activist judges, legislating from the bench in contradiction to the Law as crafted by the branch with that duty, ...

You're absolutely right about this. The fact that they do this is bad enough, but the fact that they seem to have the attitude that this is their right, even their duty,, is downright frightening. As this attitude works its' way up the system to higher and higher courts by appointment of judges form lower courts to appellate positions , the problem will worsen till the whole system becomes worthless as a forum of law or justice. This makes the appointment process more critical than any other political activity (including elections on any level). Only the liberals seem to realize this, and they will use any method (recess appointments if nescessary) to get the activist judges into higher and higher positions on the appealate ladder.

Republicans are either totally unaware of the problem or, more likely, want the process to continue as it has and let the democrats block conservative and constitutional appointments on purpose so that they will get what they really want (liberal activist judges) and be able to blame it on the Democrats. It's called Good Cop/Bad Cop in the negotiating game, and it fools most of the people most of the time. Repubs have been in power since '94 and what has changed? Nothing, they couold blame it on Clinton and the democrats for 6 years and now blame it on them for blocking appointments.

So why don't the Repubs use the same tactics as the Democrats? Easy, because they don't want to. They want the liberal activist judges as much as the Dems, they just want to hoodwink their constituency into believing otherwise so they will keep getting their votes.

The answer lies in getting the republicans, and democrats too for that matter, to see the danger to our system if they don't change things. Getting the people to understand more about the working of the legal system and demanding that it be implemanted as it was intended, not just assuming that lawyers and judges are in charge and are the only ones who can understand it (impeaching a few judges would make a big difference). And appealing every single decision that strays from the strict interpretation of law to the highest court possible (no Judge likes to have decisions reversed and reversals by higher courts send a very strong message to activist judges).

I agree with your comments, wholeheartedly.

The Rule of Law as understood by the Old Whig tradition that founded this nation was something seperate from just the legal process. It contained the freedom from arbitrary power and equality under law, a blind justice.

Law applied in the manner of activist judges leads to arbirary application of punishment. The lowly, under the eyes of courts or society, get the heavy punishment and the alleged worthy do not.

Society then reacts with harsher laws through representative legislative power as they see the rule of law unevenly applied. Activist judges then further pervert the process by applying more, and more, arbitrary justice as they see it rather than adjudicating an offense under the law and established precedent.

Rationalistic Totalitarian Democracy, it was called by Hayek.