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.

[Brytani]

Can you imagine the screams we would hear if the USSC hears this case after the election if Lautenberg pulls it out? Can the USSC say the manner in which an election was conducted was illegal/unconstitutional and force Lautenberg to step down? Would that not automatically open up McGreevy to appoint a person of his choosing to the Senate? Is there any precident for a court to force another election to settle this matter?

[Congressman Billybob]

Yes.

Billybob

[hobbes1]

I'm taking bets that this will never happen. Never. What would be an appropriate wager?

Normally I would agree, but if the split is say 51 49, or 50-50, (considering a Lousenberg win) given the Fury that Hatch let loose on the floor over the treatment of Strom, and Trents unwillingness to be humiliated by having to go through that "Power Sharing" BS he went through before Jumpin Jim did his thing....

Nothing would surprise me.

[mlo]

That New Jersey statute is trumped in the case of U.S. Senators by the U.S. Constitution, Art. I, section 5, cl. 1: "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members."

I'm aware of that clause, but don't assume that it makes the law irrelevent. The law will have its way with the issue before the Senate faces the problem. What the Senate then chooses to do becomes a political problem. What would they do if NJ decertifies Lautenberg and sends Forrester to the capitol with a new certificate of election? I don't think anyone can know what they'll do until it happens.

[Congressman Billybob]

Precisely, my friend.

Billybob

[Dave S]

eight months? Isn't that a little too late in this case?

Refusing the request for emergency appeal indicates that they are not in any hurry. If they take up the case for arguments later this year, it will be to resolve the legality of such switches when the only reason is that the candidate pulling out is losing. I doubt they will question the validity of the election (i.e., if Lautenburg wins, he remains Senator). At least thats my expectation. NJ needs a Senator and the people of NJ voted. I really dont see the SCOTUS overturning an election after the fact.

[hobbes1]

I believe i have seen you relate that before. I mean Flat out Disqualifying, without the benefit of a manufactured Vote tally. Just on the grounds we would have here....

[Cicero]

I think that Justice Souter is an especially dishonest member of the court. It is well known that he ran a stealth confirmation campaign and only revealed his true liberal colors after he was appointed to the court. The pretence was that he was a pro-life conservative.

I can't help wondering whether Souter didn't deliberately misplace or "lose" the second petition. Were his colleagues on the court actually aware that such a document existed until it was "found" and registered?

If they were not aware of it, but refused the other plea, that would tend to lessen the probability that they plan to rule against SCONJ sometime down the line several months from now.

Since the petition does not ask for immediate relief, they will presumably do nothing about it now. But I'm inclined to guess they will do nothing about it later, either. Probably in due course they will simply refuse to hear the case without explanation, and bury it among a number of similar refused cases, which is their easiest way to avoid a controversial situation they have already shown they prefer to avoid.

[hchutch]

They could order a fresh election after refusing to seat Lautenberg.

[Brytani]

As a side note, when I've filed motions with a court (granted it was a state family court) if we went in person, the clerk would automatically stamp the motion with a case number, as well as date the motion for hearing. By mail, we would receive back a copy of the first page of the motion stamped with the case number, docket number and date. Does that not happen when filing with the USSC?

[Dave S]

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

And then the Democrats would do a continuous filabuster and no work would get done in the Senate. To vote requires 60 votes in the affirmative and there is no way the Republicans are going to raise thier total from 49 to 60 this election. Matter of fact there has never been a point in my lifetime that the Republicans have had 60 senators.

[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. However, because the US Constitution gives the Senate power over the "election" of its own Members, the Constitution trumps the law of New Jersey.

Therefore, straightening this out, if the US SC declares after the fact that Lautenberg should not have been on the ballot but Lautenberg wins, will be up to the Senate.

Billybob

[Cyber Liberty]

Hatches looses, then procedes to lose, that fury very quickly. That's why I always say, "Don'tr count your Hatches before they chicken."

Talk of Lott's unwillingness to be humiliated evokes much rich laughter from me. He must love humiliation, considering how much he allowed the 'Craps to get away with when he was Majority Leader.

[hchutch]

And the Article I, Section 4 case would be quite strong at this point. The shenanigans in Hawaii are going to force the Court to take it, but by DENYING emergency relief, it will be done with all due consideration.

[mlo]

Addressed in #84.

[hobbes1]

And then the Democrats would do a continuous filabuster and no work would get done in the Senate

Never happen. Eventually they would have to pass a continuing resolution, if they and their staffs wanted to get paid, and at that point....Plus, that would be an ugly spectacle that would only haunt the democratic members up for re-election in '04. They are not all in safe seats.

[Congressman Billybob]

No, the Request for Emergancy Relief and the Petition for Writ of Certiorari are two different creatures. The granting of Emergency Relief guarantees that the Petition for Cert will also be granted. But the reverse is not true.

Because Emergency Relief requires a higher burden of proof than granting of Cert, the Court has in the past -- and can in this case -- deny the first but grant the second.

Billybob

Post Script: I have gotten about half a dozen Certs granted, but only one Emergency Relief (for Eugene McCarthy in September, 1976).

[aristeides]

First time I've heard of the Supreme Court losing a petition for certiorari. How could that happen?

If Lautenberg wins, couldn't the court just issue a holding on the merits of the case, rule that a state cannot do this sort of thing in the future, vacate the NJ SC's decision, and leave action with respect to the Senate seat to the U.S. Senate, as a nonjusticiable political question?

By the way, what's the status of the servicemen's federal case filed in Trenton federal district court?

[hobbes1]

I agree, but there has to be a point where someone gets on the mound that is willing to throw a little chin music.

[MeekOneGOP]

Update on Doug Forrester case at SCOTUS. Thanks, CB !!

Thanks for the ping, Saber!

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my New Jersey ping list!. . .don't be shy.