I'm all for being sly and shrewd to get what you want politically. But this isn't politics, this is upholding the rule of law as it concerns elections. The people can read the law, they know what it's for. All we have to do is hold the Dems accountable to it.
With an unanimous verdict, the "robed judges" decided that the laws of the State of New Jersey could be construed to mean that 51 days really meant anything that was "reasonable."
And to think that according to Clinton, what is meant by "is," is whatever he means it to be.
Are we now in a new era where the rule of law as clearly stated by the legislature can be circumvented by a politicized judiciary simply to retain a "Democratic majority in the Senate."
Got to give the electorate a choice, you know! What about the choices that were made by the primary voters . . . are they now simply disenfranchised?
Why hold a primary election at all? Simply have the party bosses select a nominee and then replace that nominee with another more popular candidate several times up to the close of the polls on election day.
Or maybe, they should just forget all nominees and just vote for a party and let the party bosses decide whom to send to Congress.
In my opinion, the "robed judges" have totally undermined the concept of the rule of law and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey as well as that of the United States. Welcome to the "rule of power!"
This is what revolutions are ultimately made of! For when principles are no longer important to those in power but only the preservation of that power, eventually, the citizens revolt
The Torricelli case and the Mink case in Hawaii in which Representative Mink is now deceased but is expected to win show the total lack of principle relating to "electorate choice" that exists in the Democratic party.
The overriding consideration is not justice or reasonableness but simply a game of numbers.