Posted on 10/11/2002 7:53:12 AM PDT by 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.
Souter only heard the petition for an immediate stay. He did not rule on the cert petition to overrule the Supreme Court.
The order denying the stay reads, "The application for stay presented to Justice Souter and by him referred to the Court is denied."
Seeking a preliminary injuction is different than appealing a decision. The reality is, however, that in failing to grant the stay, it will be far more difficult to have the Court grant the Cert petition and overrule the Supreme Court.
For those of you interested, you should read the concurrence to Bush v. Gore by Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas. They found that Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution allowed only the State legislatures to set the "time, manner and Place" of a Presidential election. Accordingly, they would have found that the Florida Supreme Court had no business, at all, in changing the rules set forth by the legislature. Article 1, Section 4, has the exact same language, only it applies to Senators. Thus, one can logically conclude that thee are only three Justices willing to use the same rationale to overturn this decision. (3 obviously won't do it, and you need four just to grant the petition for Cert.) Accordingly, I think it is over, as there is no other Federal Question pending that would involve the Supreme Court, IMHO.
As most Freepers know, merely being really wrong does not get you to the U.S. Supreme Court. Absent a federal Question, or a disagreement between the States, the U.S. Supremes will not intervene. (Ironically, to do so would be judicial activism outside the bounds of the scope of the Court's authority, which isn't permitted even if it were to slap-down a renegade Court like New Jersey).
Awfully quick work, that. The SCOTUS decision was only last Friday, October 4. That means new ballots with Lausenberg's name were printed up, delivered to election boards, and mailed within 4 or 5 days. And that period includes a weekend. Hmmmmmmmmm.
Lousenberg campaign says...."The Senator is very smart. He's quick off the dribble, and he's got a great jump shot, so I'm thinking maybe he can help the kid out.
I think you are off track here. You would have a heck of a time showing what harm was done.
Were the voters given an alternative choice that they could accept or refuse? No. There's the potential for harm. Let's assume that the voters are okay with the bait and switch. Suppose they end up with a Cadillac instead of a Buick. No doubt it's a more valuable car than the Buick. No doubt the polls show Lutneberg is a better Democrat candidate than Torrcelli. Which one is actually better than the other is a different thing.
Before I get to the major injustice, Forrester and those that supported via monetary donations as well as campaigners that donated their time and effort to the NJ Forester campaign, especially those that donated and worked directly for Forrester against Torrcelli have been harmed. All that money, time and effort was for naught.
What you don't apparently understand without someone else telling you is how voters that donated their money, and or time, and or effort to defeat Torrcelli by contributing to the Forrester campaign's efforts directed at defeating a specific candidate were harmed.
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.
The major point is that the NJ Supreme court usurped the NJ Legislative just powers. The US Supreme Court is on the precipice and must decide where it stands. I have given thorough explanation of that in my original post 135.
What you don't seem to want to address is the major point of injustice. If you suddenly decide to address it, please do so by responding to post 135
Did you read my posts? My point is that it doesn't matter if there were 1, 2 or 5,000 papers filed, the only one that matters has been decided wrongly by the Supreme Court.
Yes I read your very brief post. Did you read my much longer post at 135? I clearly identified the reasons why the other court filling -- Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- does matter and it matters very much that it be acted on swiftly, before the November 5 elections.
I agree that the US Supreme Court may have one strike against them on this issue. I say "may" because their intent may be to rectify the injustice via a full court press -- briefed, argued, and decided -- before November 5. You on the other hand, have written off that option. So be it, "why even bother" is what you seem to be saying.
There's one last consideration; Art. 1, Sec. 5 leaves the final judging of a Senate election up to the Senate itself. There's no similar clause for the appointment (currently through popular election) of the Electoral College.
What would be the point of taking the case AFTER the election? Or even slightly before? Wouldn't it end like Bush v. Gore 2000, with a majority decision that there was not enough time to "fashion a remedy"?
PS: And what about this judicial penchant for "fashioning a remedy as opposed to "interpreting the law" For how long have we been sliding down this slippery slope?
Breaking: Massive get out the vote effort in NJ
Excerpt:
A massive effort is under way to help the Forrester Campaign get out the vote in NJ.
Residents from New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania are planning to travel to New Jersey to help in this effort.
New Jersey Republicans are being encouraged to make a scheduled appointment with the voting booth on November 5th. "People make appointments to see their doctor, so why not make an appointment to vote?" Other's have commented that "we make plans for vacation, but when are we going to make plans to help take back the Senate?"
The move is expeceted to counter an equally massive Democratic effort. New Jersey is a Democrat "machine" State and the leftist turnout is expected to be heavy.
Do you think Rehnquist might be so mad this happened that at least one person within the Supreme Court is now looking for a new job?
Maybe the deal is.... Loserburg will step down shortly after the election, and the Governor will appoint Torricelli to the Senate. How about that scenario?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.