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.
I don't think it works that way in elections, although I don't have any hard data to back that up. I'm sure the Congressman would know better, if he doesn't mind sparing the time. But my understanding is that if either house disqualifies a prospective member, a vacancy ensues, to be filled by the usual method of filling vacancies, such as in cases of death or resignation.
It would appear to me that justice would best be served, without any corners to make a decision before the election.
To whom do you appeal Supreme Court Clerical error?
My second win in the US Supreme Court came in 1983, in a ruling that the election laws of ten states violated the Constitution by seeking to prevent John Anderson from running for President as an independent. Anderson ran in an election that was over three years before, in 1980. But the Court decided the case anyway because this is a "repetitious issue." It was sure to come up again, and therefore they kept the case and decided it.
Exactly the same logic applies here. There will be other requests -- there have already been two in Hawaii -- for state courts to change their election laws in the middle of an election. It would be very valuable for the Supreme Court to tell all who bring such cases, and all state supreme courts which receive such cases, that judges who attempt to rewrite their state's election laws are wrong.
A decision by the US SC states clearly that the NJ SC violated the US Constitution will be very valuable to American elections for the indefinite future. That is true regardless of who wins on the ballot in New Jersey, and regardless of whether the US SC needs to, can, or does order any specific remedy along with its Opinion.
Billybob
gwjack
Billybob
The Court believes, and I thoroughly agree, that they do better work that way, than the way they were forced to do (by their own choice to act on an emergency) in Bush v. Gore.
Billybob
Of course you are right-- this will be valuable in the future. But why would they not find it important enough to stop THIS NJ TAMPERING in its tracks, realtime?
How is this different from letting a bank robber get away, then later stating that BANK ROBBERY is illegal and will be punished??
Regarding remedy, if the US Supreme Court ruled for Forrester after Lautenburg won I would think they'd remand the case to the NJ Supreme Court with instructions on how to read the law. It's conceivable that the NJ Court would be left with no option but to invalidate the Senate election. Should that happen NJ law says:
New Jersey Permanent StatutesTITLE 19 ELECTIONS
19:3-23. Vacation of office when nomination or election void
When the nomination or election of a person to public office within this State or any of its political subdivisions shall have been declared null and void, such person shall remove or be removed from such office.
19:3-25. What constitutes vacancy
When a person shall remove or be removed from office because his nomination or election thereto has been declared null and void, such office shall be deemed to be vacant.
My point was that the corner they painted themselves into isn't really a corner because they can simply dismiss the case in such an instance by stating that no remedy exists, much as they forced the SCOFLAw to do.
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.