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!!!
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.