Dem Hopes?

NRO ^ | 10/01/02 | Dave Kopel

[hobbes1]

Excellent and Thorough analysis by Dave Kopel.

[hobbes1]

Ping!

[princess leah]

The key word here is "HONEST" - Somehow that word does not equate with the Democratic leadership!

[hobbes1]

This too is quite straightforward. If there is a Senate vacancy, the governor (Democrat James McGreevey) can appoint a Senator to serve until the next general election. A new Senator appointed to replace Torricelli would hold Torricelli's until the November 5, 2002 election, and on the next day, whoever wins that election would take the Senate seat. Note that if a Republican wins, the Republicans could actually take back the U.S. Senate on November 6, since the newly elected New Jersey senator would take office immediately, and not in January 2003.

Explains alot about the current reticence to get him to step down.

[Recovering_Democrat]

It is difficult to see how an honest court could possibly agree to the Democrats' request.

Great analysis, but the 'rats have a solution for this: dishonest courts.

[NeoCaveman]

Note that if a Republican wins, the Republicans could actually take back the U.S. Senate on November 6, since the newly elected New Jersey senator would take office immediately, and not in January 2003

Some good stuff here.

[hobbes1]

Isn't that generally their solution ?

[hobbes1]

Kopel is usually excellent.

[billhilly]

" It is difficult to see how an honest court could possibly agree to the Democrats' request."

It is even more difficult to expect an honest court to get the chance. The dems know just where to bend the rules, and they are brazen enough to do it. It works for them. If there is a price to pay later, they, and their donors, cross that bridge when they get to it. If they retain the power, there will be no consequences.

The lesson here is that there is one way, and one way only, to keep politicians honest. It requires little effort. Just a vote will do it.

[nd76]

Great piece.

However, even if the Torch were convicted of a felony offense prior to the election, there is no federal prohibition against a convicted felon being elected to office (it may well be that the Senate may expel him by a 2/3 vote, but that is for the Senate, not the courts, to decide).

Thus, the situation in Perth Amboy is not on point with the US Senate election.

[Howlin]

"But, Your Honor, he's LOSING!"

[hobbes1]

The one doomsday scenario, tht goes unaddressed, is.....

Torch, and Mc Greedy wait till say Nov 4. 5 P.M. when the machines are scheduled to go out to the polls, then Torch resigns, McGreedy appoints a Senator, and Cancels said election.....The vote is skewered making ANY REMEDY useless.

[hobbes1]

I realise that legally, that statute is in direct contravention to the Constitutional requirement of 6 year terms, but since this is an overwhelmingly Dem state, and he has 3 more years before heading to the polls himself.....

[G Larry]

Time to start sending checks to Talent, Thune, & Allard!
Very important to maximize the Republican margin in the Senate!

[hobbes1]

Forresters Lawyers would do well to seek an injunction to prohibit the anticipated attempted (illegal) exercise of (19:3-26)

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

It is difficult to see how an honest court could possibly agree to the Democrats' request.

Soon we will find out if the NJSC is an honest court or not.

[Dante3]

www.courttv.com has a poll asking if the Dems should be able to replace the Torch -- it is on the upper right hand side, click on 13th Juror, then it's the second poll.

Link to CourtTV

[Bush2000]

I agree with his analysis; however, we're talking about human beings on the NJ Supreme Court who are subject to political biases. The NJSC is free to adopt any interpretation of the law that it deems appropriate. But there's another thing to consider: Even if the Dems are successful in getting the courts to go their way, they still have to win the election! That is by no means assured and, even if somebody like Bradley or Lautenberg steps in, the polls still favor Forrester.

[MattinNJ]

Thanks for the ping. Excellent article.

On a side note, I was absolutely shocked at the cited case concerning a politician from Perth Amboy being arrested.

Sorry, I can never resist taking a shot at Perth Amboy.

[hobbes1]

The NJSC is free to adopt any interpretation of the law that it deems appropriate.

No they are not. That is the very basis of Chief Justice Rehnquists opinion in Bush v. Gore. The legislature makes the laws, not the court.