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.

[FreeTally]

Or. Lousenberg Could win, and the Pubbies gain control, And refuse to seat him, claiming he should not have been on the Ballot, and seat Forrester, due to his outgaining Torriscummy, and assorted third party nuts.

Now THAT would be hilarious. But do see the Pubbies having a spine like that?

[Heff]

THANKS...This is great news...more important than Forrester's election and win, this issue must be ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS...to prevent the election process being turned upside down.

BTTT!

[inquest]

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.

Would this be because of their own preferences, or because of some legal principle? Because they didn't wait till the recounts were done before they ruled on Bush vs. Gore.

[hobbes1]

Sadly No, Not the Spine, But they would have the right.

Especially, If Talent wins in Nov, and Tips the Balance immediately.

[inquest]

They would have the right to refuse Loutenberg, but I don't think they'd be on solid ground in admitting Forrester. You'd have to win an election first.

[eureka!]

re#16 Nice catch. I was speaking to being voted in, but you are correct...

[eureka!]

'Seems like we should take a look at this clerk. No one could be that stupid.'

My, my. The Clinton years sure give rise to suspicions about all things governmental. And rightfully so....

[hobbes1]

And what Pray tell, do you call Nov. 5. ?

[Congressman Billybob]

Eight months is the average time it takes between a case being offered to the US Supreme Court, and their taking it, getting briefs and arguments, and issuing their decision. The denial of emergency relief last week means that door is shut, permanently. So either theCourt hears this on the normal schedule, or they don't hear it at all.

Given those two choices, eight months or never, I think eight months looks pretty good, don't you?

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

[Oldeconomybuyer]

bump

[Fred Mertz]

Thank you!

[hobbes1]

And just who determines who is a Duly elected Senator ?

[eureka!]

Understood. See above. Bad choice of words...

[inquest]

I said he'd have to win the election. If he doesn't, it really doesn't seem to me that it would be within the Senate's prerogative to say, "Well, he would have won the election if the rules had been followed." They can't speculate like that.

[Coop]

I was reading an article about this NJ race this morning. Turnout should be very interesting. They said prior to this illegal switching debacle, 61% of Republicans planned to vote. Now 77% plan to vote.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1011/p02s02-uspo.html

I report, you decide. :-)

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

yes, but the case in question needs relief now.

[hobbes1]

No, the action would be more akin to a DQ, and when the winning horse is DQd....Who Wins?

[ClancyJ]

Thanks - we DO deserve the truth.

This is another reason I think the GOP should pull a "switch" in Montana. We are not hurt by the dems pulling their shady stunts in this election and it will force the USSC TO make a decision. If we just let them pull any stunt they want with no cost to them, we are, indeed, the good guys but THEY get to abuse the system with no penalty.

We can't survive long in this country being the good guys against those that will rig, cheat, lie, distort, and ruin decent candidates with their tactics.

This too is war for this country and we may have to fight as we do in war. Wars are not won by one side being "good guys".

[oc-flyfish]

Nice work!

[hobbes1]

Further Go back and read Article 1 sec.5. of the Constitution.

Section. 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...

The Senate is the JUDGE OF ELECTIONS, RETURNS.....