A PRESCRIPTION FOR CHAOS

New York Post ^ | 10/03/02

[kattracks]

October 3, 2002 -- In a bizarre ruling, the Democratic-controlled New Jersey Supreme Court has declared the state's election law irrelevant.

The seven justices decided unanimously that the voters' right to have an electoral choice supersedes an unambiguously constructed law that defines when a candidate can withdraw from a race.

[Salvey]

simple fairness mandates that the GOP press its case fully and aggressively.

Don't hold your breathing waiting.

[monocle]

The New Jersey Supreme Court is the model the Democrats have in mind for the federal judiciary and the action or inaction of the Judiciary Committee bears this out.

[knowtherules]

What is the Federal question?

[ffrancone]

HOWDY PARTNER!
WOULD YOU HELP ME TAKE BACK THE SENATE??

PLEASE LOG ONTO:

TakeBackCongress.org

A resource for conservatives who want a Republican Senate

[Congressman Billybob]

"What's the federal question?" Try the First Amendment for starters. Throw in the 14th Amendment. Add the "Time, Place and Manner" clause of Article I. Plus the 35-day military ballot requirement. Almost all the same issues that were present in Florida in 2000, are present in New Jersey in 2002.

The NJ SC violated state law, which is normally a state question. But it also violated federal law, and the UN Constitution. Those are federal issues.

Trust me on this. A majority of my 16 briefs (so far) in the Supreme Court have been on election law, including Bush-Gore, Round I, in the Supreme Court. Mine was the only brief which asked the Court to do exactly what it did, unanimously, in Round I -- to "strike" or vacate the Florida decision and do nothing else. When Florida didn't get the hint, then the US SC laid down the law.

In the NJ case, the US SC won't offer any hints. If it wants to grant relief, it will simply reverse the NJ SC and order the election to proceed with Torricelli's name still on the ballot.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

Click for "Death as a Political Strategy"

[Ziva]

If the State of NJ can get reimbursed $800,000 by the Dem party for its thrown out election expenses, then Forrester should also get back the millions he spent on campaigning against the criminal Senator. Is there some legal grounds for "relief" for injury in this sense for the other political parties?

[Radix]

"simple fairness mandates that the GOP press its case fully and aggressively.

Don't hold your breathing waiting."



Maybe the Rebulicans might want to save this tactic for themselves to invoke at some other time. This entire event blows my mind. I was absolutely incredulous when I learned of the unanimous decision.

I Often wonder about those FBI files that were missing. I wonder about extortion and other things. This is big. How could they possibly rationalize this decision?

[LaGrone]

Last evening I watched the entire NJSC hearing on C-Span. What got me was the stupid questions the Justices were asking the lawyers. They never addressed the legality. All questions were about how to make the switch work. One brunette Justice asked "well if Torricelli could have withdrawn twenty days ago legally what difference does a couple of weeks make"?

Are the voters disenfranchised who voted for Torch in the primary if they put Lautenberg on the ballot?

By the end of the hearing I concluded that the Dems are setting the Republicans up by hoping it goes to the USSC in order to energize their base by saying the Republicans are allowing the courts to decide another election just like Fla 2000. Either that are those Justices are dumb as hell.

[Young Werther]

Question. Were the voters who placed the Torch on the ballot disenfranchised? If their votes didn't count then someone needs to ask the Demons why we vote at all?