[Faith]

How would that play out if the SCOTUS takes the case but renders the decision after the election? Please tell us more.

[Congressman Billybob]

I now expect the US SC review of the NJ Torricelli decison to play out exactly the same as my efforts for John Anderson, independent candidate for President in 1980. I advised Anderson in advance of his decision to bolt the Republicans and run as an independent, to make his decision by 23 April, 1980, and that all the ten state laws which made it illegal for an independent to run as of then, would be struck in court as unconstitutional.

Anderson made his jump on that date. All those state laws WERE struck. Anderson lost the election, receiving about 5% of the vote. Here's the parallel:

The US SC took up the question of whether the state laws violated the First Amendment rights of Anderson and his supporters AFTER the election. It was not until 1983 that the US SC ruled that Anderson was correct, and those state laws were unconstitutional.

I now expect the US SC to do much the same thing concerning the Torricelli case from NJ. I expect them to decide the case AFTER the election, against Torricelli (and all other state courts which might consider rewriting their state election laws), and to do so well before the 2004 election, to cut off at the pass any future decisions like Fla and NJ.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

Click for "Death as a Political Strategy"

[itsahoot]

How would that play out if the SCOTUS takes the case but renders
the decision after the election?

Try this scenerio for a fit. The SC puts the Torch back on the ballot
This outrages the Dems, and they vote the Torch in. The other way around if they elect the Lout, and he resigns, then The Torch
would only have a two year term, the other way he gets six years.

Don't forget they run dead people so their constituents can participate.