[Senator Pardek]

How can this affect the NJSC's ruling, which is the final say on if the Dems can break the law?

[AdA$tra]

How can this affect the NJSC's ruling,...

It is a good way of forcing SCOTUS to get involved. They were otherwise poised to sit this one out.

[Salvation]

How can this affect the NJSC's ruling, which is the final say on if the Dems can break the law?

It was my understanding that it was the ballots to military that are protected by federal law.............................hence, the federal lawsuit.

Is this correct?? Anyone out there??

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

How can this affect the NJSC's ruling, which is the final say on if the Dems can break the law?

It has no effect, except for PR. And PR at this level of understanding is not going to count much when millions of dims are going to punch the chad for Lautenberg on November 5. The NJ supremes have the last word on this -- another aggregious case of judicial activism which is, sadly, likely to become more prevelant in the future, thanks to the relentless efforts of the dims to subvert the law -- unless the SCOTUS steps in.

But I doubt that they will. Because of the tactic that the dims have mastered -- raising hell -- the SCOTUS will IMO not want to get involved in this fight, especially after the bad publicity that the dims ginned up following the FLA 2000 fiasco. This dims are banking on this big time with their NJ gambit. If the SCOTUS declines to intervene, they win -- unless enough 'pubs turn out on Nov5 to elect Forrester. If the SCOTUS overturns the SCONJ, the dims have an issue to make in the next cycle, assuming that they don't play their next card: Toricelli resigns and McGreevy appoints dimocrat x and schedules a special election. If Lautenberg takes the seat, he will "retire" within twelve months and the dims will appoint his replacement, probably menendez (sp?).

Any way you slice it, the dims have played this one pretty well. IMO, the only chance to defeat them will be if the 'pubs in NJ can muster an 85% turnout and elect Forrester. That would be grand.

PS: IMO, the duplicity of the dims in this circumstance should be used in every close race in the country. It would be great if the dims lost the senate even if they succeded with their NJ scheme.

[metesky]

Ya, just like our great Rat rep up here in Maine, John Baldacci, who is now the frontrunner for governor, told me in 2000 that SCOFLA would have the final say.

He won't even accept my email now.
;O)

[steveegg]

Road map time (again):

The United States Constitution specifically authorized the various states' legislatures to create the rules for the election of Senators, subject to (a) the Constitution itself (which trumps all) and (b) federal law (which specifically supersedes legislative law). Neither the New Jersey Legislature nor the US Congress has authorized the New Jersey judicial branch to allow or not allow ballot substitutions (indeed, the only role the NJ judiciary has, implicit at that, regarding this is to determine whether a candidate is qualified for office).

The entry of the Jersey Supreme Idiots, specifically their vacation of NJ election law with respect to the Senate election, is patently un-Constitutional. Toss in the fact that the balloting process has already started prior to the rules changes (a major argument of the majority of SCOTUS in 2000) and this should actually be an airtight case.

[Iwo Jima]

The United States Supreme Court is the final say on whether the Democrats or the NJ court can violate the Constitution or federal law. The DOJ can make inquiries to determine if it should bring a suit challenging this illegal and unconsitutional action. Hopefully, Ted Olson as Soliciter General would argue that case before the Supreme Court.

[mondonico]

How can this affect the NJSC's ruling, which is the final say on if the Dems can break the law?

The NJSC doesn't have the final say on if the Dems can deprive people of their right to vote in federal elections, does it?