Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Jersey Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Dems Replacing 'Torch' on Ballot
Fox News ^ | October 2, 2002 | Eric Shawn and Carl Cameron and The Associated Press

Posted on 10/02/2002 4:47:52 PM PDT by afuturegovernor

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:48 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

TRENTON, N.J. The New Jersey state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the party can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli's name on the November ballot with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

The ruling gives hope to Democrats scrambling to retain their one-seat majority in the U.S. Senate through the Nov. 5 election -- but Republicans vowed to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/02/2002 4:47:52 PM PDT by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Uh... This was breaking two hours ago....
2 posted on 10/02/2002 4:49:24 PM PDT by Unknown Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor; Howlin
Did the court mention the law - just ONCE?
3 posted on 10/02/2002 4:52:05 PM PDT by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unknown Freeper
This is not a totally bad thing. It should modivate the Republicans big time. And not just in NJ.
4 posted on 10/02/2002 4:52:49 PM PDT by bybybill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Yes. They mentioned the law. They said it should be interpreted "liberally." No kidding.

We need to get off the bench and quit whining and play ball.

5 posted on 10/02/2002 4:54:04 PM PDT by sam_paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Unknown Freeper
Uh... This was breaking two hours ago....

Fox News has added to infomation to the story about Republicans' new suit in the US District Court.

6 posted on 10/02/2002 4:58:05 PM PDT by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
WANT TO TAKE BACK THE SENATE??

WANT TO SHOCK HILLARY?

THEN DO YOUR PART TODAY! GO TO:

TakeBackCongress.org

A resource for conservatives who want a Republican majority in the Senate

7 posted on 10/02/2002 4:58:49 PM PDT by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Meanwhile on Wednesday, Democrats planned Lautenberg's campaign and negotiated the transfer of funds and operations from Torricelli's
operation.

Wouln't they be open to being sued by contributors to the Torch who don't like Lautenberg or just want their money back!

Say1 I remember giving Bob a thousand in small unmarked bills! or what ever the maximum legal contribution is!
8 posted on 10/02/2002 5:02:49 PM PDT by SwinneySwitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
"It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups," the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

"To preserve the two-party system"? I know that we have a two-party system today as a matter of circumstance. But I never thought it was written into law anywhere. Perhaps these judges should remove the libertarian candidate from the ballot to "preserve the two-party system".

I thought judges were supposed to be some sort of educated legal scholars. No dice. These are just a bunch of democratic party hacks wearing black robes. And I thought the Florida Supreme Court was the stupidest bunch of judges ever assembled...

9 posted on 10/02/2002 5:12:04 PM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor

10 posted on 10/02/2002 5:14:01 PM PDT by bmwcyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Doug Forrester will have to face a vibrant opponent

As opposed to a lying, cheating, scumbag who was get'n his head handed to him in the polls by the fine poeple of NJ? Yeah, THAT's nice.

11 posted on 10/02/2002 5:16:47 PM PDT by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
"It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups," the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

This is the precise reason that the Court should have mandated the retention of the Torch on the ballot.

The People of the State of New Jersey put him there. They are the ones who decided with their vote in a Primary which the Torch won.

To remove the Torch is to usurp the process the People of the State of New Jersey put in place. The Court has disenfrachised every Democrat Primary Voter in one fell swoop. The Court has subverted the will of the people for political interest.

First we had the Supreme Court of Florida making horses patoots out of them selves, now we have the Supreme Court of New Jersey going Florida one better.

The Supreme Court of the US will blow this one away in the same communist/conservative line vote that occured in Florida and then we will have the potential for dimocrats crying an illegitimate Senate and Presidency!
12 posted on 10/02/2002 5:25:30 PM PDT by Pylot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unknown Freeper
"Uh... This was breaking two hours ago...."

Thanks, Einstein.
13 posted on 10/02/2002 5:28:35 PM PDT by billhilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Shouldn't that be the NJ Soprano Court?
14 posted on 10/02/2002 5:30:41 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Not sure SCOTUS will take the case.Obviously in 2000 it was a presidential election, but this is simply a Senate race.Any legal beagles out there care to wiegh in on whether the Supreme Court will hear this case? The thing that really showed thier hand was that TWO members of the NJSC gave money to the Torecelli campaign.They should have recused themselves, but of course they didn't proving once again a conflict of intrest is only in the minds of what IS IS!!
15 posted on 10/02/2002 5:31:53 PM PDT by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lexington minuteman 1775
Not sure SCOTUS will take the case.Obviously in 2000 it was a presidential election, but this is simply a Senate race.Any legal beagles out there care to wiegh in on whether the Supreme Court will hear this case?

There were too many flagerant violations of federal law for the SCOTUS not review the Florida case. Look at 2 USC covering the elections of Senators and Representatives. There is not much there to rule on. 3 USC which covers the Presidential election, offered several rules (like states can not change there rules after the election) which gave solid grounds for an appeal. The Florida case was a slam dunk.

16 posted on 10/02/2002 5:40:21 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
I sure hope Torch is responsible for the RATS losing the Senate and boosting Republican turnout across the country to elect marginal Republican senate candidates in states across the country.
17 posted on 10/02/2002 5:40:41 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
Nice cartoon. Says it all.
18 posted on 10/02/2002 5:44:02 PM PDT by VRW Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Seems like the judges failed to treat Doug Forrester with any consideration here. It was all about "preserving the two-party system" (to them, this really means "preserving the democratic party system").

What about all of the time and money which Forrester spent campaigning specifically against the Torch? Defining his opponent was a major (and valid) part of his campaign. Now, it is easy to make the case that he does not have sufficient funds to campaign against and define his new opponent, Lautenberg. Next week, who knows who his opponent will be?

From a purely financial perspective, this is a screw-job against Forrester. Now, the dems are talking about giving Torch's money to Lautenberg? Seems that Forrester should be reimbursed first for his campaign against the Torch. And the money should come straight from Torch's "war chest".

19 posted on 10/02/2002 5:54:02 PM PDT by TheEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lexington minuteman 1775; afuturegovernor; Always Right
Not sure SCOTUS will take the case. Obviously in 2000 it was a presidential election, but this is simply a Senate race.

Abslutely Wrong!

This is an election to the US Senate not the state Senate. The requirements, method of election, and length of term of US Senators is specified in the United States Constitution. Not only is this a federal issue, it is one of the most important issues that can come in front of a federal court. The legislative branch of the federal government is a co-equal branch to the executive and judicial branches. If the state laws and procedures for electing electors to the Electoral College are grounds for filing lawsuits in federal court, surely the election laws and procedures for electing US senators and representatives are also grounds for filing lawsuits in federal court.

20 posted on 10/02/2002 5:57:14 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Why appeal the decision? Run on it. The Democrats, faced with trying to re-elect a law breaking Senator, resorts to law breaking to get him replaced. The tv ads write themselves.
21 posted on 10/02/2002 6:22:00 PM PDT by Reaganesque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
This is an election to the US Senate not the state Senate. The requirements, method of election, and length of term of US Senators is specified in the United States Constitution. Not only is this a federal issue, it is one of the most important issues that can come in front of a federal court.

Yes it is, but show me the federal law or part of the Constitution NJ broke. I can easily see where Florida went wrong with completely ignoring 3 USC 5 which specifically states that they can not change the rules after the fact. But this only applies to the Presidential Election. Show me EXACTLY what federal code or part of the Constitution was violated in this ruling. I hope you find something, but 2 USC covering the election of Senators and Representatives is very short on requirements.

22 posted on 10/02/2002 6:23:37 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
The court said that the state Democratic Party must pay for the ballots to be reprinted. State election officials estimate it will cost about $800,000 to do that.

The price of a stolen election, writ small...

23 posted on 10/02/2002 6:27:59 PM PDT by IncPen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Did the court mention the law - just ONCE?
When will we learn? Laws are for suckers!
24 posted on 10/02/2002 6:45:15 PM PDT by nicepaco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
This is a totally expected ruling. What else could the ruling have been with a Whitman-dominated court? See the RINOs are really of no help!
25 posted on 10/02/2002 7:10:33 PM PDT by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
I keep thinking of George Orwell's Animal Farm. We might rephrase Orwell's famous aphorism to read, "Some Political Parties Are Created More Equal Than Others."
26 posted on 10/02/2002 7:15:49 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganesque
Why appeal the decision?

Because the decision stated that the plain language of the law doesn't matter. The issue isn't about who wins the race, the issue is about whether election laws mean anything.

27 posted on 10/02/2002 7:20:14 PM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Yes it is, but show me the federal law or part of the Constitution NJ broke.

I think the New Jersey law violates the seventeenth amendment. That amendment says that each state shall have two senators elected by the people of that state. I also allows for the governor to appoint a senator to fill a vacancy until an election can be held according to laws written by the state legislatures. Cancelling the election does not sound consistent with the seventeenth amendment. Also appointing a senator to serve two years when there is not a vacancy in the office would also be a violation.

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


28 posted on 10/02/2002 7:27:11 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"Why appeal the decision?"

Because the decision stated that the plain language of the law doesn't matter. The issue isn't about who wins the race, the issue is about whether election laws mean anything.

-----[ Exactly. If I may add... just as in Florida, what is at stake is a challenge by the judicial branch of the legislature's expressed powers. It may or may not be taken up by the USSC, but if not...the suggestion to make it a national campaign issue is a good one.]
29 posted on 10/02/2002 7:36:49 PM PDT by sayfer bullets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Unknown Freeper
This just shows that there is no respect for laws, for the consitution, for anything anymore in this country. I don't care if it was republican or democrat, it shouldn't have been allowed!! Why the hell are we ordered, by law to wear seat belts, or to not smoke in certain places, well, to hell with the laws, lets just all be barbaric like our lawmakers, and change the laws to suit the situation!! This sickens me, what is happening in this country??????
30 posted on 10/02/2002 8:57:31 PM PDT by blondee123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
This is an election to the US Senate not the state Senate. The requirements, method of election, and length of term of US Senators is specified in the United States Constitution

Bull SH*T. All the SCOTUS is going to do is extend the time limit for military ballots.

Lautenberg is on the ballot for the Democrats and Forrester for the Republicans. That is what is going to happen.

When a year from now Lautenberg comes down with old age, he will retire and the Torch will be apointed to take his place. Get used to it. That is going to happen.

The reason they are running the retired lautenberg is he was the only on who would agree to retire so they could appoint torch back to the office.

The torch would not step down unless they guaranteed he would be appointed to the office when Lautenberg retires the second time.

The fix is in.. The fix has always been in.


31 posted on 10/02/2002 8:59:22 PM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
It seemed to me watching the hearing that the supreme court met with the dems ahead of time and already made their decision. This was fixed before they picked the replacement. Also some of the court gave the torch money.
32 posted on 10/02/2002 9:09:48 PM PDT by Brimack34
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Torch conceded ,so Forrester won, but because that is true the election contest must be run again until a Dem. wins.The courts excuse for ignoring the law's no subs. within 51 days of and election is that it as merely procedural and therefore to be ignored in favor of the no-law standard of "fairness", meaning in this case, "A Republican win is not fair"
33 posted on 10/02/2002 9:11:47 PM PDT by wilmington2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brimack34
I think it's hilarious that Drudge has absolutely refused to cover this story. Probably because the outcome is the absolute opposite of news.
34 posted on 10/02/2002 9:12:37 PM PDT by plymaniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Cancelling the election does not sound consistent with the seventeenth amendment. Also appointing a senator to serve two years when there is not a vacancy in the office would also be a violation.

Considering the ruling yesterday just replaced a name on the ballot the ruling did neither of those. There will still be an election and there was no appointment that would extend the term beyond six years.

35 posted on 10/03/2002 5:05:50 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson