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.
I think you are off track here. You would have a heck of a time showing what harm was done. Presumably those who were going to vote for Toricelli will be happy with the Lautenburg choice (at least in comparison to a rascally Republican victory). Those Democrats and independents that werent planning to vote or might have considered voting for Forrester as a protest are happy that they have a semi honest Democrat choice(anyone but Torch). Republicans were never going to vote for either Toricelli or Lautenburg so they werent harmed by the ballot change. Their candidate still remains on the ballot.
What you dont seem to understand is that what the courts, including the SCOTUS care about are the rights of the voters, not the candidates. There is no right to win an election.