Skip to comments.
Forrester Case Still Live in the Supreme Court
Special to Free Republic ^
| 11 October 2002
| John Armor (Congressman Billybob)
Posted on 10/11/2002 7:53:12 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-239 last
To: Congressman Billybob
>>The question is whether the Supreme Court should affirm the political right of the legislatures to write such laws, by slapping down the NJ SC (and any other court) which interferes with that process<<
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?
To: Guy Angelito
You appear to be here to play gotcha. How many amicus briefs have you filed with SCOTUS?
222
posted on
10/12/2002 1:37:48 PM PDT
by
MHGinTN
To: Jim Noble
Hi, Jim, 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
To: Congressman Billybob
This case is for the legislature to work on, not the courts. The court ruled, now the legislature needs to make its intentions so clear the court can not interpret it any other way but the way they intended.
To: Jim Noble
Thanks for the reminder. However, that would not preclude the federal judiciary from enforcing either the state legislatures' primacy or relevant portions of the Constitution with regard to the election of the Electoral College.
To: inquest
What would happen is, at best, unknown. However, the precedent to seat the certified loser of an election through vote manufacturing on the part of a House of Congress has been set.
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.
To: Congressman Billybob
The New Jersey statute you cite, about voiding an election and declaring the office vacant, would certainly apply to the election of the Dogcatcher in Teaneck. Hey, I once ran for Dogcatcher in Teaneck! Well, actually it really was county committee.
227
posted on
10/12/2002 6:40:29 PM PDT
by
Ziva
To: Ziva
Small world :-)
To: Congressman Billybob
And we appreciate the update.
To: Congressman Billybob
Sutle difference!
But would today's democrats, led by the massive example of the "we got away with it" criminal behavior of the Clintons' national press corpse, even care?
Seems they would do (have done!) anything illegal to stay in power. So would they care about a SC ruling?
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Good morning, Robert, 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"
Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."
Click for "to Restore Trust in America"
Comment #232 Removed by Moderator
To: inquest
I was going to offer a flippant remark about activist judges (usually the right call when discussing a Warren opinion), but I read through the decision. In
Powell, Congress used a qualification not contained in the Constitution to attempt to disqualify Powell's election, and that's what the Court spoke to.
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).
To: BJungNan
The point is, the court has not ruled on the merits on the case; just the need for immediate relief on the part of Forrester and the Jersey Republicans. The fact that at least 5 justices found that there wasn't an immediate need for relief would tend to suggest that the merits would not be ruled on "correctly" (at least, as I see it), but upon further examination, there may well be a majority that sees it the way that I do (which is how Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas saw Bush v Gore).
To: Guy Angelito
No, you haven't 'caught' anyone, but you keep trying, don't you! You have no foundation upon which we Freepers could lend to you credibility. I'll use the ignore button on you, Guy.
235
posted on
10/13/2002 9:52:49 AM PDT
by
MHGinTN
To: MeeknMing
Ping away!
Comment #237 Removed by Moderator
To: Congressman Billybob
Question: Did Torricelli run unopposed in the Primary? If he had an opponent (?) should he/she have been the replacement candidate when the Torch withdrew?
Just wondering.
To: I. Ben Hurt
Yes, Torch ran unopposed in the primary. There were a few thousand write in votes for various candidates.
239
posted on
10/14/2002 9:30:43 AM PDT
by
randita
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-239 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson