gwjack
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.
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.
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?
Thanks for the ping, Saber!
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my New Jersey ping list!. . .don't be shy. 
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.
I can just see some aids infected Rat intern making sure the the petition got lost!
Why the US Supreme Court
should (must) act before the November election
The NJ Democrat ballot switch is a clear bait and switch tactic. It's like going to a car dealer and paying for a Buick to be delivered the following month. Come next month the car dealership delivers a Pontiac. Sure it's a GM (General Motors) car but it's no Buick, it's a Pontiac. No politician, bureaucrat or judge would pass legislation, regulation or judgment allowing for that bait and switch to happen. If they did, they should be impeached/removed from their job.
A couple of hypothetical examples that are irrelevant to the issue but worth expressing so as to highlight the previous juxtaposition.
If Torrcelli had died or his health incapacitated him to the point of being unable to hold office, here's the analogy.
If all the Buick's had been destroyed in a plant fire it's understandable how the car dealership would offer the pre-paid car buyer a Pontiac instead. But the car dealer wouldn't force the buyer to switch from the Buick to a Pontiac. No politician or bureaucrat -- judges included -- would pass legislation, regulation or judgment allowing car dealerships to force buyers to take the switch. If they did, they should be impeached/removed from their job. What would more likely happen is that the government would fine the car dealership for trying to pull a bait and switch. In actuality, the car dealership would give the car buyer his money back. In view of the November election, Torrcelli didn't die nor does his health incapacitate him from holding office.
That Torrcelli was deemed untrustworthy, as shown by polls, had a car buyer been confronted with a Buick to Pontiac bait and switch, they would refuse to buy any car from that car dealer. Now, if only NJ voters would make that connection and abandon the NJ Democrat candidates.
"Sir, you mean to tell me that if you pre-paid for a Buick to be delivered next month that you would accept the car dealer trying to force you to take delivery of a Pontiac instead, when it seems far more likely that if the car dealer did treat you with such disrespect -- a dupe to be bait and switched -- that you would demand your money back and refuse to buy any car from that car dealer?"
All that said about the bait and switch is more than enough reason that the US Supreme Court should take the case before the November 5 elections. ...And decide that bait and switch is illegally. Just as it is illegal for a car dealer to do, it's illegal for a political party to do.
If the US Supreme Court decides that the bait and switch is legal, well, the US Supreme Court will have announced that the highest court in the land is ethically bankrupt and not to be trusted. Further more, for justice to prevail all judges that voted in favor of the bait and switch must be removed from the bench. Any judge that votes in favor of the fraud perpetrated by the NJ Democrat party and furthered by the NJ Supreme Court is unfit to sit on the bench.
Having said that, if the US Supreme Court neglects their obligation to ensure prompt justice in this matter, and if Lautenberg does win the election and the US Supreme Court takes the case they have willingly entered into thwarting the separation of powers. Because if they decide that Lutenberg was wrongfully placed on the ballot then he must be removed from office by the US Supreme Court. Justice will have prevailed. Yet it was the NJ Supreme Court that first thwarted the separation of powers. Doing so by not upholding the power of the NJ legislature to set election laws. Instead, the NJ Supreme Court usurped the NJ Legislature's just power. In effect NJ Supreme Court decision said that NJ election law was an opinion, not law.
Summary. The United States Supreme Court must take the case and decide that the bait and switch was illegal, because if they don't, they will have announced that the US Supreme Court is ethically bankrupt and not to be trusted. The US Supreme Court must decide the case before the November 5 election, because if they don't, they will be forcing themselves to thwart the separation of powers. If the US Supreme Court decides not to take the case it becomes complicit in denying Justice. Failing to correct the unjust NJ Supreme Court usurpation of NJ Legislative power. It is one thing for a citizen to sit idle in witness of a crime. The citizen has broken very little trust and society will go on virtually unaffected -- 99.999 percent unaffected. It is quite another thing for the highest officials in the Department Of Justice to sit idle in witness of a crime. The highest court in the land will have broken massive trust and caused massive loss of confidence in the rule of law.
Bottom line: The US Supreme Court can do one of two things (1) uphold justice and the separation of powers or, (2) deny justice and deny the separation of powers.
Souter only heard the petition for an immediate stay. He did not rule on the cert petition to overrule the Supreme Court.
The order denying the stay reads, "The application for stay presented to Justice Souter and by him referred to the Court is denied."
Seeking a preliminary injuction is different than appealing a decision. The reality is, however, that in failing to grant the stay, it will be far more difficult to have the Court grant the Cert petition and overrule the Supreme Court.
For those of you interested, you should read the concurrence to Bush v. Gore by Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas. They found that Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution allowed only the State legislatures to set the "time, manner and Place" of a Presidential election. Accordingly, they would have found that the Florida Supreme Court had no business, at all, in changing the rules set forth by the legislature. Article 1, Section 4, has the exact same language, only it applies to Senators. Thus, one can logically conclude that thee are only three Justices willing to use the same rationale to overturn this decision. (3 obviously won't do it, and you need four just to grant the petition for Cert.) Accordingly, I think it is over, as there is no other Federal Question pending that would involve the Supreme Court, IMHO.
As most Freepers know, merely being really wrong does not get you to the U.S. Supreme Court. Absent a federal Question, or a disagreement between the States, the U.S. Supremes will not intervene. (Ironically, to do so would be judicial activism outside the bounds of the scope of the Court's authority, which isn't permitted even if it were to slap-down a renegade Court like New Jersey).