Skip to comments.
Supreme Court May Duck New Jersey Case
Bloomberg, no url
| 10/3/02
Posted on 10/03/2002 11:23:37 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
To: NativeNewYorker
Where the hell is judicial activism when you need it?
To: NativeNewYorker
The high court two years ago issued a 5-4 decision that cleared the way for Republican George W. Bush to defeat Democrat Al Gore and become the 43rd U.S. President.
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the vote 7-2?
3
posted on
10/03/2002 11:26:08 AM PDT
by
jf55510
To: jf55510
Technically yes, but "7" and "5" are just arbitrary numbers that don't mean anything.
(This post brought to you by the New Jersey Supreme Court Educational Foundation).
To: jf55510
There were a couple of votes in different issues with different margins.
To: NativeNewYorker; Dog
Members of the military also are filing a separate suit backing Forrester in federal district court in Trenton. This may mean that the problem can be solved without the SCOTUS agreeing to take the case. After the SCOTUS laid down the law in Bush v. Gore, the lower federal courts are perfectly capable of applying it to new cases.
7
posted on
10/03/2002 11:29:17 AM PDT
by
Mo1
To: NativeNewYorker
Notice the journalistic style on virtually all the articles you'll read about this usually read "Republicans say..."
It's not a Republican thing, folks. It's the LAW that says ya can't swap in a new candidate just because your guy is going to lose, but of course they won't mention the obvious. Nothing to see here, just move along.
To: NativeNewYorker
Republicans say Torricelli dropped out only because he was losing to Republican Douglas Forrester Excuse me! Didn't Torricelli say that himself? Didn't he say that he didn't want to be responsible for the DemocRATs losing the Senate?
9
posted on
10/03/2002 11:29:59 AM PDT
by
jackbill
To: NativeNewYorker
If they ignore it now, they'll just have to hear again during the next election- when the Democrats will uses the same dirty tricks to try and fix another election. Slap it down now to prevent this from happening in the future.
10
posted on
10/03/2002 11:30:27 AM PDT
by
rintense
To: NativeNewYorker
RINOS are worse than Dems. At least in Florida we could say Kangaroo Court and it looked like it. Here you have a RINO appointed court (6 of 7). Maybe Bush should ask Ms. Whitmann to resign now. Obviously anyone who appointed these six idiots is herself an incompetent. She should not head a federal agency, especially one as dangerous and out of control as the EPA.
Ideological Purification of the R party is key.
To: NativeNewYorker
Ironic really, considering that the New Jersey case presents a clearer violation of the law (in my opinion) than the Florida case.
12
posted on
10/03/2002 11:32:35 AM PDT
by
be131
To: NativeNewYorker
''The court really hated being involved in Bush v. Gore and doesn't want to send a signal that every political fight should be an issue for the court.'' OK. Fair enough. Then how about perpetrating a fraud on the voters of New Jersey?!
13
posted on
10/03/2002 11:33:19 AM PDT
by
CaptRon
To: jf55510
The Broward Counte election commission recounted the SC decision and came up with 7,234 to 0 in algore's favor.
To: NativeNewYorker
The SCOTUS should get involved because it's the right thing to do. I don't care what people think about them getting involved in Florida.
The fact is, this is an egregious flouting of the law by the NJ supremes and it must be corrected.
15
posted on
10/03/2002 11:37:00 AM PDT
by
1Old Pro
To: aristeides
After the SCOTUS laid down the law in Bush v. Gore The problem is that the SCOTUS opinion in Bush v. Gore tried to avoid "laying down the law". I believe that the unsigned controlling opinion said something along the lines of "The arguments in this case do not necessarily apply to any other case". They had to do that, because the logical extension of their argument was that Equal Protection was violated wherever different counties used different voting systems in the same state.
16
posted on
10/03/2002 11:37:43 AM PDT
by
be131
To: be131
Well, then the district court can apply the law laid down by the Eleventh Circuit in Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574 (11th Cir. 1995): changing the rules in mid-election violations constitutional equal protection.
To: jackbill
my thoughts exactly.
To: NativeNewYorker
I honestly don't understand the reluctance. The Supremes are appointed for life -- precisely for this reason. They should always make the RIGHT decision and not make decisions based on their own future popularity. They are supposed to be above such worries, right?
To: jackbill
Excuse me! Didn't Torricelli say that himself? Didn't he say that he didn't want to be responsible for the DemocRATs losing the Senate? The Democrats still have the one ace in the hole: Jumpin Jim could switch again, this time to the "darkside" Dems.
20
posted on
10/03/2002 11:45:42 AM PDT
by
Mark
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-33 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson