Fox News says Supreme Court Allows Lautenberg!

[Howlin]

It's done!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

It Came from Beyond Retirement

LOL!

It will invade your home, steal your guns, take your cash! Aaaahhhhhh!

[Gamma-131-I]

I think there were a couple of petitions to the NJSC from some of the Republican legislators, but then they don't count much anyway, as far as the court was concerned so as you can see now, it didn't amount to much.

One of the two chambers is entirely controlled by Democrats and the other is too tight to fight for things, so I don't expect there will be much checking and balancing of the courts going on from the legistlature.

Gamma

[Gamma-131-I]

It wouldn't matter how airtight or well-defined the election laws were, if they went against what the court wanted to take place. They would find a way around them or simply invoke their "equity" powers as they did here. If the laws don't come out the way the court wants them then they are inherently "inequitable" and must be remedied.

Think of it. The NJSC granted the Democrat party judicial relief from their own actions!!!

If they were willing to do that, no law, no matter how it was crafted would stand in their way.

Gamma

[LaGrone]

Very well said! The NJSC did write election law. Also look at two consequences of the non-action by the SCOTUS. First the slap at the New Jersey Dems for discounting their primary vote for Torricelli. Second Forrester was totally shafted because however he had run his campaign up to that point he had a 10-12 point. His reward for that good campaign is that his opponent is pulled and replaced with a ringer. His entire campaign has to be retooled for a different candidate for the last month of the campaign while the ringer is known by all the voters; therefore, faces less of a hardship.

These reasons tell me the SCOTUS should have intervened. Unless something else will occur in the future to accomplish a reversal that I cannot realize at the present time.

[L.N. Smithee]

Seeing this happen and their getting away with it makes me appreciate Katherine Harris that much more.

[nonliberal]

*psst* The Constitution is whatever we say it is. Pass it on.

[Illbay]

Problem is, this is about more than just this race. As others have said, the Dems will be quite eager and willing to try pulling this frequently.

That said, please remember that there is no SCOTUS ruling that says "this is okay." They merely refused to review it. Who knows what their reasoning was; they typically don't say.

[steveegg]

Given that they DIDN'T deliver a smackdown, it's going to be used until and unless that smackdown comes. Don't forget that it's harder to reverse something that once was tolerated.

[Illbay]

No, you're wrong. The SCOTUS refused to hear the case, which means that the ruling stands.

[Illbay]

This is really worse than having not appealed to the SCOTUS. Now in the future the dems won't even have to consider the possibility of court intervention.

Wrong. The SCOTUS didn't rule on this, they simply refused to hear it. Who knows why.

They very well could consent to hear a future such case.

To make matters worse, now that this has the stamp of approval from the SCOTUS, ...

See above.

[steveegg]

Also, I have not heard if Trent will reorganize the Senate in the outside chance that Talent wins in MO. Will Trent push to have Talent take his seat on Nov. 6?

First, Talent would have to be seated. Cave-A-Lott has changed the RINO leadership election to early November just for this eventuality so he can remain as minority leader and can block any "early" entry of Talent.

[Gamma-131-I]

Oh that is too funny! I think that one would be right up there with the Sore Loserman stickers.

Gamma

[OldFriend]

Lott has promised that lots of repubs will be coming to NJ to support Forrester and the pres has said he may come again too............please try not to put negative things on the main board about our guys........it just gives aid and comfort to the enemy.......and they are the enemy of America.

[Bigun]

...this ignorant of the meaning of their oaths of office.

It seems there is a LOT of that going around these days! Witness the votes of 240 members of the United States House of Represenatives, 60 members of the United States Senate, and the pen of the President on a CLEARLY unconstitutional campaign finance reform measure!

[jmstein7]

Hear hear!

[BenF]

Well, it's up to the New Jersey voters to see if they truly want Loutenburg over Forrester

I live in NJ. I was talking to my sister in law today (a Democrat from birth) and she acknowledged that, if Lautenberg wins (Heaven forbid), he will shortly discover that the rigors of office are just too much for someone his age. He will step down and our Democrat governor will replace him.

If Lautenberg gets elected we will have proved beyond any doubt that we deserve Torricelli.

[Gamma-131-I]

I'm a little confused by what you wrote. I guess I missed something somewhere.

On what basis (other than because they can) would the Democrats dare to call for the Senate to not seat Forrester if he wins, despite everything they have pulled? Not that I think they wouldn't have the chutzpah to try it. After this mess, I have no idea if there is any line whatsoever they wouldn't cross. What are you seeing here?

Gamma

[dark_lord]

Forrester has to beat Lautenberg, straight up, in the general election. If he cannot do it, then let's quit bitchin. Lautenberg should be an easy kill (metaphically speaking.)

(1) Use his own previous speeches and remarks against him, like his comment on a former opponent being too old, and he is 6 years older than that opponent was at that time.
(2) Make a big deal about him being too "afraid" to debate.
(3) If he debates, stomp him like a bug.

If Forrester cannot beat Lautenberg, the Republicans don't deserve to win in NJ. Come on, a halfway bright cocker spaniel could beat Lautenberg!

[Howlin]

I agree. At the very least, we should play fair.

[steveegg]

I could've swore that is exactly what Forrester is fixing to do.