Posted on 10/03/2002 3:03:53 PM PDT by Doug Loss
I don't know the pertinent NJ laws, but it seems to me that the NJSC has provided clear grounds for their impeachment for grossly violating their oaths of office. Is impeachment brought by the House of Representatives in the General Assembly? If so, are there enough Republicans and outraged Democrats in the NJ House to bring articles of impeachment against the justices? I'd think that many legislators would be incensed by this usurpation of their constitutional prerogatives. If I'm right about this, do any of our NJ FReepers know their state Representatives well enough to put this idea in their ears?
This is easy to add to all New Jersey threads. Cut out
<img src="http://www.freerepublic.com/images/demo.gif">
and paste it in you posts.
NJ law is - like the law in the rest of the USA ( plus, I guess, England, Canada,Australia, etc. )- in part Statuatory-( "black letter law" );and in part Common Law - ("case law" ). It's the same system that has been in effect since we first became a Nation.
Common Law - which is based on precedents,has often been a modifier of black letter law , although, on occasion, it has further codified the Statutes, by making them a part of the governing case law.
The precedents of Common Law have often been a defense mechanism against arbitrary and unjust laws, and, for that reason alone, are held in very high regard by the Courts.
Bottom line: Unless the Supreme Court of the US decides the NJ courts went too far in relying on precedent, the substitute candidate, Frank Lautenberg will be on the ballot.
"I read the NJSC opinion and it was pretty weak. Didn't even mention this statute...
A vacancy did not happen in this case. The Torch did not resign his senate seat. He is still representing NJ until the end of his term.
The ballot one called for a deadline of 51 ? days in order to have a name on the ballot. The NJSC had to deal with several issues to appoint its nominee. It had to remove Torricelli, it had to rewrite the budgets of the counties to pay for their costs, it had to rewrite the absentee ballot laws and it had to come up with new procedures as well as ordering the Governor to act.
In short they had to usurp the authority of the two other branches of Government in order to be the first SC to ever appoint there own candidate for office.
This isn't just a simple change in date, this is a SC taking upon itself to put a candidate of its own choosing on the ballot. This is a scary violation of the separation of power.
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.