Fox News says Supreme Court Allows Lautenberg!

[Howlin]

It's done!

[billbears]

election of Senators

Election yes, primaries no. We will just have to disagree

[mwl1]

Yes, let her know that you are voting straight Republican, from Senate to dogcatcher.

[steveegg]

I should have specified the case that concurring opinion was from; Bush v Gore.

[Howlin]

LOL........"senior moment"......I love it!

[hchutch]

It's a bit of a two-minute drill for Forrester, but it's very doable, IMHO.

If Forrester can go on Howard Stern, I think he could win big. And then he requested assignment to the Senate committee that ovrsees the FCC. Might it be the type of thing some conservative would rather avoid? Probably.
But the other option is to let Lautenberg win.

So, you are the campaign manager: You've got to make the call - ten minutes on Howard Stern's show to win the election, or do you play nice, and probably end up losing?

[bushfamfan]

Well, so much for the Supreme Court. A state Supreme Court and any other court can break their own laws and nothing will be done about it because they don't want to get criticized. This is sickening and it's because of their fear of being labeled partisans and it's funny how Demonrats/liberals aren't concerned in the least. The Supreme Court that could've made a difference and pointed out the clear partisanship of the New Jersey court chose to sit by and do NOTHING. We will all suffer. It's spiraling out of control and these liberals will make us all suffer with their harmful politics and policies.

[desertcry]

They win again No, everybody losses on this one. The SCOTUS allowed the Pandora's box to remain opened. This most deadly act by the sconj of stabbing the rules of fairness in the back will have very long term, if not permanent impact on all of us USA citizens. If those who interpret the laws are allowed to pervert the laws, are the Legislative, and Executive bodies relevant?

[patriot_wes]

Does anyone have the exact reading of the NJ law?

[Congressman Billybob]

Billybob checking in with an apology.

I apologize for believing that just one more Justice would join "the faithful three," Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, to make the Supreme Court take this case. As you know, it takes only four Justices to cause the Court to take a case.

I did not believe that the Supreme Court could be this dumb, this incompetent, this ignorant of the meaning of their oaths of office.

I apologize for my belief that the Supreme Court would defend the Constitution in this case, as it did in the Florida case.

Billybob

[Brytani]

Not only did the USSC refuse to stand up to their oath and their duty to uphold the constitution, they have allowed the democrats to screw out military over once again. I find that, in a time of war, to be reprehensible.

I didn't think they would issue the injunction the GOP was asking for, I did however believe they would hear the case. The constitution is clear on this matter, the legislature of the states decides election law not the judiciary.

So now we are left with the federal court cases, as of now nothing has been decided (that I've heard) if they spit on our military and the constitution our country is lost. More reasons then ever to elect strict constitutionalists to the bench, something that will never happen with the democrats in power.

God help us.

[mwl1]

Agreed, Forrester needs to go on the offensive now -- at least he knows he has an opponent -- it is very difficult to run against no one -- he should do Larry King, Imus, anyplace he can get himself booked.

Overall strategy:

1. The dismal Lautenberg record -- taxes, national security especially.

2. Lautenberg is old and tired --- use the clips of his retirment speech -- NJ voters will be really voting for candidate X and the governor is likely to appoint himself to the seat when Frankie retires

3. the corrupt politics of the Torricelli-Lautenberg machine -- "send 'em a message" and the "bait and switch" strategy

4. Forrester positive vision

And get the president and vice president of the united states into NJ again asap.

[hchutch]

All that will help, but Forrester has to pull out all the stops. That includes going on Howard Stern's show, it means the RNC has to stay involved. We can;t quit, or else the Dems will win.

[Shethink13]

Either allow the states to nominate Senators through the legislature or all gloves are off and both branches at the state level have the capability of changing it to their whims as well

What are you talking about? As much as we don't like it, US Senators are elected by a popular vote of their respective states. Right now, we don't really have the luxury of choosing how we want them elected. The fact that they are US Senators, and not state senators, means that their decisions affect everyone in every state. If we were discussing a Governor's race or a STATE senators race, I would agree with you.

[mwl1]

Yes, and either way we need for them to have to spend a fortune to hold that seat. The whole thing sucks.

But I do believe this will put Georgia into much more aggressive play.

[steveegg]

IMHO, the SCOTUS had to weigh two issues: to what extent the NJSC's ruling had infringed upon the Constitution versus the states' rights issue.

I had believed that, because the Constitution's specific mention of the NJ legislature as the maker of the rules, and because the NJ legislature declined to delegate a role to the NJ judiciary to determine what should be done in case of a ballot vacancy (indeed, they specifically set up a procedure to fill a ballot vacancy that excluded the courts), there was no role whatsover for the courts to do what they did.

Had the NJ Legislature either enabled the judiciary to do this, or had they done this themselves, then it would not have fallen under federal judiciary review on the grounds of Article I, Section 4. There may well be a "equal-protection" case, but at least at this point, that argument is far weaker than it was in 2000. Also, had a law change came about at the point in time that the Jersey Supreme Idiots threw out existing law, that would have fallen under the Constitutional protection against ex post facto laws (Article I, Section 10 with regard to states).

[agrace]

And Ted Glick, Green Party candidate in NJ, is a liberal's dream. Check out his stand on the issues.

[MeekOneGOP]

Well we knew they wouldn't take the case and the law has been ignored. Now NJ has to vote republican to show the courts that they can not do this.

Well, I was cautiously optimistic. Oh, well.

I sent this letter to the RNC:

To whom it may concern:

Richard Meek here, a long time Republican. I voted for Richard Nixon in 1972 when I was first eligible to vote. I proudly voted for President Bush too. He's doing a wonderful job !

I have been following the Torricelli-Lautenburg debacle in New Jersey. I find it disgusting that the SCONJ ignored the law of New Jersey to get their LOSER Torricelli off the ballot and a new Lautenburg on the ballot. And now SCOTUS won't see the case. Ugh !!

I'll make this short. I have found a GREAT graphic regarding this situation and am going to pass it along to you to use as you see fit. I think you'll enjoy it. I know I do. It's perfect !:

http://home.attbi.com/~mrgrumman/TorricelliQuitter.gif

I'm hoping you might be able to use this in the campaign to beat Lautenburg.

Thank you for taking time for me. I hope this is helpful.

Here is what that gif is.....

[LionelHutz]

I hope the GOP also uses this tactic.

Guess what? They already did. In fact, Forrester made this exact same argument back in April to get on the primary ballot.

from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/05/nyregion/05JERS.html

"Mr. Genova also uncovered a legal memorandum from Mr. Forrester's lawyer written in April, when State Senator Diane Allen, one of Mr. Forrester's opponents in the Republican primary, was trying to block him from taking the ballot position of James W. Treffinger. Mr. Treffinger, the Essex County executive, had resigned from the race because of scandal three days earlier, or 40 days before the primary.

Senator Allen maintained that moving Mr. Forrester's name to Mr. Treffinger's place on the ballot would come too late under Title 19 of the state election law, which sets a deadline of 51 days before an election for ballot substitutions. It is the same argument that Mr. Forrester's lawyer, Peter G. Sheridan, made before the State Supreme Court on Wednesday, opposing Mr. Lautenberg's placement on the ballot. The Democrats said that the deadline was merely a guideline.

In April, Mr. Sheridan read the law the way the Democrats do today.

"Strict compliance to statutory requirements and deadlines within Title 19," Mr. Sheridan wrote, "are set aside where such rights may be accommodated without significantly impinging upon the election process.""

Or how about Katherine Harris "backdating" her resignation because she didn't file it in time so she could run for Congress?

Or the 1990 Minnesota governor's race when the Sec. of State held up printing ballots while the GOP switched candidates 8 days before the election.

Or how about the constitutional requirement that the POTUS and the VP come from different states, leading to Cheney's last minute switch in residency from Texas to Wyoming?

Or how about NJ governor's race last year, when the GOP legislature avoided this problem by simply voting to change the deadline. I guess that one followed the letter of the law, at least.

[Kenny]

Here's what I see happening:
The Dems have been able to launch a major campaign against Forrester and it's been free! The media have covered this circus in a big way showing Dems saying things like "Forrester could only campaign as not being Torecelli", etc. They also screamed that Forrester was trying to stop the ballot switch because he didn't want the N.J. sheep to have a "choice". They claimed he could only win if he had no real opponent. The N.J. sheep have digested this propaganda thus Forrester's negatives are up and he now trails in polls. I think that this free press was a major part of their plan all along. That coupled with the fact that Lautenberg is coming into this race squeaky clean (because no one has been campaigning against him) and it's no wonder the polls are the way they are.

[Congressman Billybob]

I like your reasoning, but sadly the answer is no. The reason for the "Rule of Four" for the US SC to take a case is the wise presumption that the briefs and the arguments might produce a fifth vote.

But now that the case has been refused, there is NOTHING to come up later in the fullness of time, for a reasoned decision. Your reasoning is precisely why I predicted that four Justices would make the Court take this case NOW. Then it could be decided AFTER the election.

That door just slammed shut. I am ashamed of my profession in the law, and I am ashamed of the Court where I have practiced since 1972.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"