Forrester Case Still Live in the Supreme Court

Special to Free Republic ^ | 11 October 2002 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

I have just checked to find out what documents were filed in the US Supreme Court by Doug Forrester. The lamestream media has blown it, big time. So has the Court's Press Office. Forrester has NOT filed anything new in the Supreme Court this week. On the other hand, the case is still live.

Last week, Forrester filed TWO documents with the US SC. One was the Request for Emergency Relief (which was denied not by Justice Souter alone, but by the whole Court). The other, however, was a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is the standard request for the Court to take a case in due course.

Somewhere between Justice Souter's office and the Clerk's Office they LOST TRACK of the Petition for Cert. The Press Office released the FALSE information that only the Request for Emergency Relief had been filed. A lawyer for the National Republican Senatorial Court had to trot over to the Court and point out that there were TWO documents filed, not just one.

Late yesterday, the Court "FOUND" the Petition for Cert, which has NOT been acted upon. The Clerk docketed that paper. The press noticed the docketing, and assumed that Forrester had filed a new case. This was a false conclusion, based on the Court's Press Office getting things wrong at the beginning.

Bottom line: the status of this case in the Supreme Court is exactly what I surmised. The case is dead for emergency relief, but it is very much alive for decision in due course (meaning about eight months from now).

The US SC does not have a set deadline to decide whether to take any case. They certainly will not decide whether to take this one until they see the election results in New Jersey. If Forrester wins, I think it highly likely that four Justices will vote to take the case (that's all it takes), and that will be done. The case will be briefed, argued, and decided.

If Lautenberg wins, the Court will have painted itself into a corner. If they rule for Forrester, what is the remedy? Does the US SC dare issue an Order throwing out a Member of the Senate? To avoid embarrassing themselves, the Court would be unlikely to take the case in that situation.

What I have just said here is the plain unvarnished truth. Anything you read to the contrary in the lamestream media is hogwash. Trust me, I know these things.

[John Lenin]

bump

[steveegg]

Very interesting, but ultimately meaningless with the denial of the emergency relief request.

[hobbes1]

a Rico Lawsuit.

[RobFromGa]

Because the legality of the change is a matter of legal opinion. It is not cut and dried like bank robbery.

The law looks pretty "cut and dried" to me. 51 days...

[Zon]

Did you read the "article"?

"Last week, Forrester filed TWO documents with the US SC. One was the Request for Emergency Relief (which was denied not by Justice Souter alone, but by the whole Court). The other, however, was a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, which is the standard request for the Court to take a case in due course."

[Congressman Billybob]

Quite the contrary, my friend.

It's looking now like Forrester will send Lautenberg back to his rocker on the porch at the Home. The Court should STILL rule on the case. Shutting off nonsense like this in all future elections concerning the House, the Senate, and the President is an important function for the Court.

Look at the fact that the Democrats took two whacks at getting the Hawaii Supreme Court to rewrite the election laws there, in THIS election. Thank God the Hawaii Supreme Court decided to obey the law. How many future judges and courts in future elections will go the way of NJ and Florida, if the Supreme Court does not put a stop to it.

I cannot understand why you do not see that as a valuable result to obtain in the US SC.

Billybob

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

They said prior to this illegal switching debacle, 61% of Republicans planned to vote. Now 77% plan to vote.

Let's root on the NJ broken glass Republicans! Now, as for FReepers in NJ, you are highly encouraged to go get poll-watching credentials from the Forrester campaign and get out to the polls on Election Day and report any fraud or electioneering going on to the NJ Board of Elections. Take a video camera with you too. :-)

[Dave S]

The NJ Democrat ballot switch is a clear bait and switch tactic. It's like going to a car dealer and paying for a Buick to be delivered the following month. Come next month the car dealership delivers a Pontiac. Sure it's a GM (General Motors) car but it's no Buick, it's a Pontiac. No politician, bureaucrat or judge would pass legislation, regulation or judgment allowing for that bait and switch to happen. If they did, they should be impeached/removed from their job.

I think you are off track here. You would have a heck of a time showing what harm was done. Presumably those who were going to vote for Toricelli will be happy with the Lautenburg choice (at least in comparison to a rascally Republican victory). Those Democrats and independents that werent planning to vote or might have considered voting for Forrester as a protest are happy that they have a semi honest Democrat choice(anyone but Torch). Republicans were never going to vote for either Toricelli or Lautenburg so they werent harmed by the ballot change. Their candidate still remains on the ballot.

What you dont seem to understand is that what the courts, including the SCOTUS care about are the rights of the voters, not the candidates. There is no right to win an election.

[hobbes1]

Cant. Its a SENATOR. They can only be ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

Anyone appointed in the interim, would have to run in less than 12 mos. By NJ Statute.

[anymouse]

You may well have hit the nail on the head. SCOTUS is waiting for the NJ voters or the (new Republican majority) Senate to take out the garbage, then they will put their seal of approval on it, safely after the political heat dies down.

Constitutionally this approach is more sound then SCOTUS taking a more activist approach of getting in the middle of this (by Demo-rat design) election fiasco (like they had to in the 2000 Presidential election.) As much as we know the Demo-rats and NJSC are flagrently violating NJ election law, SCOTUS knows the slippery slop hazard of them encroaching too often and deeply into the workings of the Legistlative branch. And of course the Rats and NJSC were counting on this, when they dared pull this stunt.

[RobFromGa]

Shutting off nonsense like this in all future elections concerning the House, the Senate, and the President is an important function for the Court.

Congressman-

What form would the SCOTUS ruling take that would shut off this nonsense in future elections?

I don't get it. The NJSC re-wrote a state law that was clear. What ruling by SCOTUS will stop a similar future State SC from doing the exact same thing?

[hobbes1]

I am hoping the Voters will do it, But i would much prefer to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would come from Forrester walking out on the Senate floor, to be sworn in by Trent Lott as Daschle Chokes, and lautenberg continues to drool on himself.

[hobbes1]

A scathing opinion pointing that out.

[RobFromGa]

But it's OK with them if Loserberg wins by these tactics???

[MortMan]

The point made by Congressman Billybob is fairly simple:

While the Dems may be able to steal this seat in this election, a post Nov. 5th SCOTUS ruling that the switch was unconstitutional because SCONJ rewrote election law would be a binding precedent throughout the United States, at least for the case of Senate elections.

Winning in the long haul certainly isn't as satisfying as instant gratification, but it generally is more important.

[hobbes1]

as it has been pointed out, they feel more comfortable letting both the Voters, and the US Senate do the job, without them having to intervene in the Political process, however they will need to address, the fact that the Democrats are going to try to play elections the same way they get via ltigation what they cant get by legislation...

[jackbill]

From the Washington Times today:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021011-85276.htm

"Mr. Baroni said the Forrester campaign did not renew its request for expedited handling of the case when it delivered petitions on paper to the court on Tuesday."

"He said the campaign attempted to file its petition electronically on Friday, but the Supreme Court has not followed lower courts in adopting such practices, so the filing was not accepted."

Looks like maybe Baroni screwed up rather than the SC?

[steveegg]

I knew I should have been clearer. I didn't mean that SCOTUS shouldn't deliver an opinion derisive of the Jersey Supreme Idiots; indeed, that opinion is a must. I meant that, since the emergency relief requested didn't occur, any relief that may be required (i.e. a reversal of a Lautenberg election win) would now have to come from the Senate ("led" on the Pubbie side by the same idiots that put on a farce of a trial in '99, and didn't even flinch when they seated Ma Carnahan in '01, and led on the RAT side by a group that is, frankly, power-mad).

The best thing that can happen is that Forrester wins on the 5th, the Pubbies retake the Senate, SCOTUS delivers several lead-gauntlet backhands to the Jersey Idiots, and Trent Cave-A-Lott grows a backbone.