[Unknown Freeper]

Uh... This was breaking two hours ago....

[Libloather]

Did the court mention the law - just ONCE?

[ffrancone]

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

[SwinneySwitch]

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!

[TheEngineer]

"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...

[bmwcyle]

[Puppage]

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.

[Pylot]

"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!

[Salvation]

Shouldn't that be the NJ Soprano Court?

[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? 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!!

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

[TheEngineer]

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".

[Reaganesque]

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.

[IncPen]

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...

[goldstategop]

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."

[Brimack34]

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.

[wilmington2]

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"