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.
Or, alternatively, reason that if the Legislature of NJ and the people of NJ are so far gone that they will happily affirm a senile degenerate communist as Senator rather than a dreaded Republican, then they are too far gone for help?
You're right that New Jersey is pretty far gone, politically. Assume, because it is not too far from the truth, that NJ is "too far gone to save." It is still important that the US Supreme Court instruct ALL courts in ALL states that it is not their proper job to rewrite the election laws.
If so, a solid decision by the US SC would still be valuable in 49 other states, and in all elections for the indefinite future. Keep in mind that a Supreme Court ruling affects everyone, everywhere. This is not just, or even mostly, for the benefit of the people of New Jersey.
Billybob
What I think is most likely to happen should Lautenberg win this fixed election is that some RAT will be serving in that seat at least until 1/3/2005. If (a) the Republicans regain control of the Senate, (b) SCOTUS rules that SCONJ overstepped its bounds and thus caused an un-Constitutional election prior to 1/3/2003, AND (c) Trent Cave-A-Lott grows a backbone, then the seat will remain vacant until McGreevy appoints another RAT. If any of these conditions doesn't happen, then the Senate will seat Lautenberg anyway and watch him retire no later than 1/31 to make way for the "real candidate" (I've got the Torch himself, with some covering money on S(l)ick Willie).
FWIW, if Forrester wins but the RATs retain control of the Senate, I don't expect them to seat him regardless of what happens at SCOTUS.
Hey, I once ran for Dogcatcher in Teaneck! Well, actually it really was county committee.
Rank and file Democrats might not care about, or might even condemn, a solid, after-the-election ruling by the Supreme Court that the NJ SC was wrong. But state judges -- both trial judges and appellate judges -- will listen up REAL GOOD.
As the saying goes among lawyers, "Beware of the lawyer who comes to court with just one precedent." There is no better feeling than walking into any court with one prior case from the Supreme Court in your hot little hands which says the other side is wrong, dead wrong.
Most judges, even those who were active Democrat politicians in their prior lives, like to get their cases right on the law. They also fear the embarrassment of being slapped down on appeal because they were obviously wrong. A solid Supreme Court decision will straighten out the entire state judiciary system in every state, from top to bottom. And that is where the present problem is located.
The purpose of a Supreme Court decision is never "to educate the masses." Instead, it is to educate judges -- or if not to educate, to coerce them into doing things the way the Supreme Court says. That, I hope, is what will come out of the Forrester case in due course.
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"
To what extent that "precedent" would extend to a decision by the Senate to seat or not seat the winner of the election is open for debate. IMHO, SCOTUS' role in the remedy, having failed to ensure equal protection of the ballots, is now advisory (i.e. I don't think there's any precedent of SCOTUS ordering a candidate to be or to not be seated, as opposed to saying that a House of Congress had erred in that decision).
Just wondering.
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.