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.
Not to me, it doesn't. A better example of "justice delayed is justice denied" doesn't exist. If it can't be heard in time to prevent the theft of a US Senate seat, then they shouldn't bother. Which they won't.
Bottom line: no Representative or Senator is "duly elected" until the House or Senate swears him/her in as a new Member. Normally this question is routine, and whatever the state election officials certify is followed. But it does not have to be routine.
Billybob
No, apparently the emergency relief is up to one Justice. In this district Souter seems to have that authority, and there is no chance Souter would do that.
They won't, and they won't.
The voters in NJ (present company excepted) don't give a wit about the law, only that a 'Crap gets elected. Forrester hasn't a chance in Hell now.
Which Pubbie would lead the Senate in denying Lausenberg the seat? Not Lott.
No, there will be no joy in Mudville today: The SCOTUS blew the one and only chance they had to dispense justice, despite the wishful thinking exhibited by this thread....
Billybob
In this case, Souter did not rule (although he could have). He took the second option under the Supreme Court rules, and asked the whole court to rule on the stay motion; the court denied it without recorded dissent. I don't think it would have mattered had they known of the cert. petition, because you can't ask for a stay unless you either file a cert. petition or promise to file one quickly.
There is one very substantial difference between NJ and Florida that may clarify the USSC position to date and its reluctance to issue an immediate injuntive order -- in FL the FLSC was in effect trying to reverse a completed election. In NJ the election has not yet occurred. This fact touches two doctrines in USSC doctrine as to when and whether to review cases:
1)Ripeness doctrine: whereby the USSC determines whether sufficient "development" of the case has occurred where a level of finality has occurred -- owing to the fact that the USSC decision is not reviewable and should not therefore intercede into conflicts that may resolve themselves without such a superimposed ruling: and
2) Political Question doctrine: the USSC is institutionally reluctant, on separation of powers grounds, to interfere in a controversy where the legislative or electoral process is adequate to right to wrong without the SC's necessity to act. In the NJ case, the electorate can still reject the Dem party's heavy-handedness and elect Forrester. That would be a more appropriate method of closure to a 'political question' in the USSC view.
I totally agree that what the dem party and the NJSC has done is an outrage, and such action by a SC/judicial branch entity threatens the entire fabric of our political system.
However, it is, in a perverse way, exactly for that same reason that the USSC was reluctant to use injunctive power and step in, IMO. The NJSC overreached its power and re-wrote the NJ statute. The USSC apparently sees itself at risk of increasing the error/harm of judicial intervention by overruling the NJCS.
It's obviously a hard call, but its hard to say that the USSC was wrong, since the NJ voters still have an opportunity to act to right the wrong and at least theoretically the NJ legislature could also take some direct action, in my view, because its power has been usurped by the NJSC -- but since the legislature is probably controlled by democrats they are unlikely to do so.
All Forrester needs to do to win this race, Is start attacking Lousenberg, and Defining himself to the voters....
I'm taking bets that this will never happen. Never. What would be an appropriate wager?
Billybob
As does the US Senate....Though as Cyber pointed out, they prob don't have the stones...
Billybob
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.