GOP asks Supreme Court to decide NJ ballot issue - GOP lawyers warn of election-year shenanigans

The Dallas Morning News ^ | October 4, 2002 | By DAVID JACKSON / The Dallas Morning News

[catch]

Best advice to the Forrester camp - if difficult to give - is to act as graciously as possible about a situation they cannot change, shake their collective heads at the underhandedness and chicanery of NJ Democrats, and run a positive, upbeat campaign totally ignoring Lautenberg. Best slogan would be something along the lines of "Vote Forrester - For the Future" (i.e., Lautenberg/Toricelli is the past).

[copycat]

They may CHOOSE not to take the case for any UNSTATED reason as they do with the vast majority of cases.

This case will be taken up. Only 4 judges need to vote YEA. Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, who was the most obviously miffed during Bush v Gore, will vote in the affimative.

[PhilipFreneau]

Analysts said the New Jersey Supreme Court is entitled to be the final arbiter of New Jersey law . . .

This position, held by Leftists of all stripes, essentially voids the Constitution. Those who take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies must consider Leftists their enemies in all cases.

[Greeklawyer]

Do you know if there is any truth to the FNC report that the USSC asked the Dems for a written response to the Rep. petition?

[Sabertooth]

Democrats noted that former Gov. Christie Whitman, a Republican, appointed six of the seven New Jersey justices who made the ruling.

But Ms. Whitman, now director of the Environmental Protection Agency, didn't give the court's handiwork a strong review.

"This shows that even very bright people can make serious mistakes," she said.

Or, since the NJ Supreme Court is made up of four Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent, perhaps this shows that Christine Todd Whitman is not a very bright person.

[hobbes1]

Pretty Bad, when a Dallas paper has to get ahold of some left wing A$$hole law professor that obviously does not comprehend the US Constitutions provisions about The legislature making Election Law and not the court.

It is a pretty Shallow and Facile analysis to yell Bush v. Gore, and not realise that this goes to the bery eart of the Concurrance, which had 3 signers, and this is a far more egregious case. In FLA, there was wiggle room, because the law ALLOWED for manual recounts. The law does not allow the replacement at this late date.

[RepubMommy]

the New Jersey battle affects only the residents of the state

Oh please. It's quite obvious the Demilibs knew this was where they were going to lose their on seat majority lead in the Senate. This most certainly is a national level concern and it stinks from McGreedy all the way up to The Midget.

[uncbob]

WRITE IN is always available for the Jersyites so this CHOICE is all BS anyway

[txrangerette]

There was a long thread on the FNC
report, last night, discussing what
it portends for whether SCOTUS will
take the case. Not a soul doubted
the truth of it, that's all I can
tell you. ALL the talk was that it
shows SCOTUS didn't reject the case
"out of hand".

FWIW, it makes NO sense that FNC is
going to say they did, if untrue.

[randita]

I know you didn't address me, but pardon me for interjecting.

There was a report on FNC that Ashcroft had asked the NJSC to answer why they disregarded the federal statues regarding military ballots (the 35 day rule). I didn't see the report about the SCOTUS asking the Dems to respond.

[SC_Republican]

I know this is a little off topic, but I notice this all the time.

You can see how subtly the Dallas News shows thier bias. The picture of Mr. Forrester show him scowling and almost mean looking. While the picture of Lautenburg and his cronies are all laughing it up and sort of makes you feel good.


Typical...

[PMCarey]

Best advice to the Forrester camp - if difficult to give - is to act as graciously as possible about a situation they cannot change, shake their collective heads at the underhandedness and chicanery of NJ Democrats, and run a positive, upbeat campaign totally ignoring Lautenberg. Best slogan would be something along the lines of "Vote Forrester - For the Future" (i.e., Lautenberg/Toricelli is the past).

Agreed! Let others bring the challenge, Forrester's best strategy is to be the happy warrior. "You wanna change the rules on me? Fine! I'll beat you anyway. Torrecelli last week, Lautenberg this week, and if you send out another guy next week, I'll beat him too. It just goes to show: one Republican is worth two Democrats."

[Zon]

"There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case," said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school. "But I said the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, so what do I know?"

Well, you certainly don't know the rule of law. It's yahoos like you, on their self-proclaimed pedestals that think whim-of-the-day opinion rules.

[MeekOneGOP]

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Do you suppose that SCOTUS will take the
case? They sure ought to.

[MeekOneGOP]

Yep! You're right. The media refuse to make an honest presentation of the facts.
It was 7-2.

[MeekOneGOP]

.....Let Forrester take his name off the ballot and the GOP install someone with a known "name" - i.e., Rudy G. What can the DNC going to do about it?

You know what? I've been wondering what the DIMocRATS would say/do if someone in the GOP decided "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" myself. I would imagine that they would scream their heads off and not even consider how hypocritical that would be. The DIMocRATic Party is the party of the Ethically Challenged.

In any case, I hope that SCOTUS does the right thing and pitches this in the dumper.

[goldstategop]

Yes they will. I wouldn't be surprised to hear something from the SCOTUS by today's end.

[MeekOneGOP]

Yep. The DIMocRATS are hypocrits AND ethically challenged.

[MeekOneGOP]

Yes they will. I wouldn't be surprised to hear something from the SCOTUS by today's end.

....crosses fingers.

[MeekOneGOP]

By they way---I wasn't addressing you Meek--I was addressing that Rutger's "professor of law."

I understood that.

You're right. This is another attempt to disenfranchise military voters, who vote predominately GOP.