Replies

Well, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices didn't apparently see it that way did they? This includes Thomas and Scalia. This is different than Bush v Gore because that was a federal election affecting citizens of all states, not just Florida. In this case, theoretically as the Constitution would have it, the only citizens affected were those of the state of New Jersey

Your arguments have taken every power out of the hands of the states why not one more? When will it be enough? Was the decision made by the NJ SC correct? No, it was not. However this is an issue for the state courts. In the long run, this decision works towards the rights of the states and how they run their internal affairs, something I thought conservatives still cared about

This is different than Bush v Gore because that was a federal election affecting citizens of all states, not just Florida.

Um, the actions of federal senators do affect citizens of all states. In only the Lautenburg amendment to the Brady law only affected NJ!!

Yeah, I would have been shocked if SCOTUS had taken this. Most people don't seem to understand that there are many cases where there clearly is federal question jurisdiction, where the lower court made an incorrect decision, and where SCOTUS still doesn't take the case. For all the bellyaching, the voters of NJ still get to go to the polls and vote for a candidate. Sure, it was a crappy, politically-motivated decision. But I didn't think that it encompassed such a key issue that SCOTUS would accept it for review.

But, the lumpheaded Republicans in NJ appealed it any way. So now, you've given the Dems the ability to claim that what the NJSCT did was okay, and that the Republican whining was unjustified. A terrible political move by Forrester's campaign.

"Was the decision made by the NJ SC correct? No, it was not. However this is an issue for the state courts." Agreed.

The distinction between Floriduh and N.J. is key. In Floriduh, the FLSC issued a rule resulting in identical ballots for President cast in different Floriduh counties would be counted in different ways. That violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law.

In contrast, the NJSC was at least ostensibly interpreting the statute enacted by the legislature to include an implied, equitable exception to the change of candidate deadline. That is a state issue for state resolution.

The decision was wrong. The remedy is for the New Jersey legislature to impeach the Court or to pass a law clarifying the statute.

The U.S. Supreme Court cannot constitutionally act as a national court correcting the bad decisions of the state courts on matters of state law, and believe me there are a LOT of those bad decisions. It is up to the citizens to reign in trial lawyers and judges who think that instead of interpreters of the law they are lawmakers.

It would be just as wrong to set up a dictatorial Supreme Court to clean up the mess in the state courts as it would be to set up a dictatorial President to do the same.

Well, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices didn't apparently see it that way did they? This includes Thomas and Scalia. This is different than Bush v Gore because that was a federal election affecting citizens of all states, not just Florida. In this case, theoretically as the Constitution would have it, the only citizens affected were those of the state of New Jersey

First, it is unknown who voted what way on SCOTUS. Therefore, your blanket statement regarding Justices Thomas and Scalia (it would also seemingly apply to Chief Justice Rehnquist, which would be the three that signed a concurring opinion that further argued that Bush v Gore violated the Constitution with regard to who sets the rules for the citizens' vote Electoral College election, which has NO federally-authorized Constitutional "oversight" outside of due due process clause of the 14th Amendent and the Amendments that give blacks, women and 18-year-olds the right to vote) is irresponsible at this time.

Second, using your logic, the citizens' vote for the Electoral College election is not a federal election that affects the citizens of all states, It's the Electoral College that actually elects the President; the "election" in November merely chooses which slate of Electors participate.

Your arguments have taken every power out of the hands of the states why not one more? When will it be enough? Was the decision made by the NJ SC correct? No, it was not. However this is an issue for the state courts. In the long run, this decision works towards the rights of the states and how they run their internal affairs, something I thought conservatives still cared about.

This is a decision that, Constitutionally, the New Jersey judiciary had NO right to make. Had the NJ Legislature passed a special law in this case, then the merits of the case could be argued by the Senate in the immediate aftermath and by Congress in the long term.

Going furhter, should the State of North Carolina, if it did not have a state Constitutional clause that affirmed the right to bear arms, be allowed to grab every gun in the state? Should it, if it did not have a state Constitutional clause that prohibited the forced quartering of soldiers during peacetime, be allowed to force you to take in a soldier in peacetime? Should it, if it did not have a state Constitutional clause that prohibited the taking of private property without just compensation, be allowed to take private property without just compensation?