[Congressman Billybob]

Just sorting things out for the benefit of FReepers. Y'all deserve to be ahead of the curve.

[eureka!]

From the other thread to start discussion (with thanks for all you contribute on matters constitutional):

Interesting SNAFU by the clerk. Unfortunately, I think that your Catch 22 scenario may play the Court's hand. They can't toss a duly elected Senator, especially if it means control. Lautenberg needs to win. The issue, however, would not necessary be moot in that the issue is surely to arise again (think Hawaii) and the Court may say "Okay, Rats, here's the Rule of Law, to be enforced strictly by the District Courts and if they are in your pocket the Court of Appeals and if it is the Ninth then us. All on shortened time." Maybe throw a little reference to Rule 11 of the FRCP in their as a reminder for the lawyers who consider filing in the future.

I can dream can't I? ;^)

[bandleader]

ThankYou for your CLARIFICATION!

[Phantom Lord]

The case is dead for emergency relief, but it is very much alive for decision in due course (meaning about eight months from now).

Which means that Loserburg will be on the ballot, and if he wins he will maintain his seat in the Senate and election victory if the SCOTUS rules that it was too late to put him on the ballot. Unless somehow the SCOTUS can invalidate his election and have him removed from office. Which I do not think they can do. And if they did, then McGreevy would just appoint his replacement.

Which is probably going to happen anyway. I doubt Loserburg will stay in the Senate very long.

[Bommer]

Why wait 8 months? Surely the SCOTUS would see the urgency of this matter and take it up now you would think. Maybe they want the Democraps to see how many elections they can throw before they rule it unconsitutional.

[RobFromGa]

Thanks Congressman for the update.

But, I hope that you are wrong and that the USSC will hear the case if Lautenberg wins as well. My reasoning: The Dems argued to the NJSC that throwing out the 51-day rule "wouldn't harm" the GOP.

If Lautenberg wins, then the argument that the ballot change "wouldn't harm" the GOP would be obviously false since they admitted they would lose with the Torch.

But I still have faith in NJ-ites to vote out the SLEAZY Lautenberg-Toricelly-McGreedy machine. Just Do It.

[MHGinTN]

I don't think the court will wait until after the election to take the case; if they don't take it before the election, they will not take it at all for oral arguments, but they mayy issue something that scolds the NJSC for violating the Constitution.

[Huck]

Thanks.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

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

[mondonico]

Thanks for the scoop. Let's hope the cert. petition is rendered moot by a Forrester victory.

[Cyber Liberty]

It just proves what I've been saying all along: The SCOTUS has ensured that whatever relief comes will be too late to make a damn bit of difference.

IF Forrester loses, and IF the SCOTUS takes the case and rules in Forrester's favor, SO WHAT?

The votes can't be taken back, and NJ will have elected an officially certifiable cheat. Lousenberg won't be removed, and the 'Craps will have gotten away with it.

The 'Craps have already gotten away with it.

[The Wizard]

thanks

[William McKinley]

Congressman, with regards to "what is the remedy?", wouldn't the way out of the painted corner be, in such an instance, to dismiss the case stating "no remedy exists"? Isn't that the final ruling of the SCOFLAw regarding Bush v. Gore in their (ordered) case dismissal?

[William McKinley]

And by the way, THANKS for bringing your expertise to Free Republic!

[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.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

bump

[Fred Mertz]

Thank you!

[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!

[bert]

Hmmmm.... What if they decide on November 1 or 4? For Forrester?

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?