Dem Hopes?

NRO ^ | 10/01/02 | Dave Kopel

[Bush2000]

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.

In a perfect universe, yes. But we don't live in a perfect universe. Please tell me where I can find the so-called "privacy clause" that the USSC invented to justify abortion in Roe v. Wade. That was obviously a fabrication by the Court. And that's precisely what I'm saying here. Judges legislate from the bench constantly. It could happen again here. Look at what happened in 2000 with the SCOFLA during the Gore-Bush court battle.

[Dog]

Look at this .....

NJ CASE LAW....

In Tomasin v. Quinn, 376 A.2d 233 ( N.J. Superior Court, Law Division, 1977), a candidate for county sheriff withdrew, and another man wanted to take his place on the ballot. The court refused.

[hobbes1]

OH, I agree that ANYTIME you walk into a court room, you are rolling the dice.

However, what you have here is an already written opinion from SCOTUS laying out what the State SCs are not supposed to do.

They may wish to gamble, and hope that Rhenquist doesn't get Kennedy and O'Connor (his opinion was joined by Scalia & Thomas), but that is also a dicey proposition at best.

[Dog]

Look at my 22 .....CASE LAW has already been made in NJ about replacing someone on a ballot!!!

Stop arguing Bush v Gore....again guys.......lets fight this battle!

[Howlin]

Well, how interesting. Actual New Jersey case law; wonder how they'll get around that?

[Dog]

Howlin it deserves a stand alone thread would you please post it for me....

[hobbes1]

We are not fighting Bush v. Gore. however, there is a very good chance that Forrester loses in the NJ state Courts.

I find it implausible that McGreedy would have been on the Podium, if he were not reasonably sure he had SCONJ....

[Howlin]

Yep.

[Dog]

Come on stop being so negative...

I cited you CASE LAW from NJ that is on point .....the NJ Supreme Court ......will have to break the law to put someone on the ballot other than TORCH.

[mystery-ak]

Well, according to Judge Napalitano(sp) the court in NJ is made up of 4 dems and 3 repubs....all considered liberal, but like to call themselves progressive...they like to make new law.....

[Dog]

Look ain't no way the USSC will allow another rogue court to pull another election scam....

[hobbes1]

Which is why I was pointing out Rehnquists opinion in Bush v.Gore....

[hobbes1]

I agree, with you re: Tomasin, but any court can go contrary to itself....they can....what is the word the liberals use...Grow?

in 77, the court was in all probability less liberal than it is now.....

[Teacher317]

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

Bears repeating. Why leave the Dems the freedom to subvert the election process when their intentions are so plain?

[Fred Mertz]

Excellent post.

[hobbes1]

Yup. Just the attempt could throw the actual election into chaos....and there is no suitable remedy for that.

[aristeides]

Yes, if Forrester ran against a replacement and won, and Talent were to beat Mrs. Carnahan, the Republicans would pick up two seats in November, and the Dems would need to have two Republicans (Chafee and McCain?) switch to keep the majority in a lame-duck session.

But, in a situation where Forrester and Talent are both winning, the Republicans are probably netting a couple more seats at least. Meaning the Republicans would have an assured majority in the Senate come January. Meaning Chafee and McCain, if they switched, would be switching into a party that is about to become a minority. Which they will not do.

[aristeides]

Decision of NJ Superior Court does not count as binding precedent for the NJ Supreme Court.

[My Favorite Headache]

Bump

[StarFan]

What I gathered today from Judge Napolitano is that if the dems do not prevail in the NJ courts, Torricelli can resign on Saturday permitting McGreesy to appoint his successor to serve until a special election is held next year. What he failed to mention is that the Supremes would have to side with the constitution/pubbies and we will have deja mo all over again with the Rats crying foul. We are now hearing their vibes about voters being disenfranchised since Tortellini bowed out. Sheesh!

Howlin, Dog, why isn't anyone upset with this frightening scenario (unless I am misreading it)?

What the Democrats could do is this: Acknowledge that they are stuck with Torricelli on the ballot. Torricelli promises that if he is elected, he will promptly resign. Then, Governor McGreevey could appoint a Democratic replacement with fewer ethical problems. The replacement could serve until the 2004 general election (although another New Jersey statute gives McGreevey the discretion to call a special election sooner). The Democrats, Torricelli, and McGreevey could even announce in advance who the replacement would be. Voters who trust Torricelli to keep his promise and actually resign, and who want a Democrat to hold the seat, could then vote for Torricelli with a clear conscience