Conservative New Jersey Columnist Predicts U.S. Supreme Court Review of NJ Supreme Court case

Star Ledger ^ | 10/03/02 | Paul Mulshine

[nyc.flip.conservative]

Feel like a trip to Florida?

That's where the New Jersey Supreme Court seems to be taking us. The decision yesterday to let Frank Lautenberg run for the U.S. Senate on the Democratic ticket raises the prospect of a repeat of the Bush-Gore contest two years ago.

[nyc.flip.conservative]

Mulshine is a notable critic of McGreevey and the liberals of the NJ Supreme Court. The question is will David Souter allow for an expedited appeal to the full court.

[ffrancone]

HOWDY PARTNER!
WOULD YOU HELP ME TAKE BACK THE SENATE??

PLEASE LOG ONTO:

TakeBackCongress.org

A resource for conservatives who want a Republican Senate

[Anotherpundit]

I don't thinkthe republicans SHOUlD fight this. That turns this into a national bush/gore reprise and galvanizes the dems to get out & vote. just let the dem there lose.

[Always Right]

I don't thinkthe republicans SHOUlD fight this. That turns this into a national bush/gore reprise and galvanizes the dems to get out & vote. just let the dem there lose.

Yes, lets just roll over and die. Let's just let the Dems pull whatever dirty trick they like. Let's not fight evil and corruption, it might make us look bad...............

[Congressman Billybob]

Justice David Souter will not control whether the whole Supreme Court hears this case. Requests for emergency relief in the Supreme Court are addressed to a single Justice, the "Circuit Justice" for that jurisdiction. That is Justice Souter for New Jersey.

However, the whole Court decides whether it will take a case and decide it. If four Justices want the case heard, then the whole Court hears it. That was the situation with Florida.

The backstop for a single Justice granting or denying relief on behalf of the whole Court, is this: Whenever such relief is major and controversial, the one Justice is expected to consult with his/her colleagues.

My first win in the Supreme Court demonstrates this detail. We obtained an order from then-Justice Rehnquist requiring Texas to put Eugene McCarthy's name on its ballot for President in 1976 as an independent candidate. But in his Order, Justice Rehnquist recited that "I have consulted with my colleagues and four of them indicate that they agree with this decision." On its face, it was just a one-Justice decision. In reality, it was a 5-4 decision of the whole Court. That case was McCarthy v. Briscoe, September, 1976.

So do not worry that Justice Souter might somehow kill the Forrester-Torricelli case in the Supreme Court. If four Justices want it heard, it will be heard. If five Justices want to grant relief, it will be granted.

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

Click for "Death as a Political Strategy"

[RogueIsland]

Stretching the law in this case would set a horrible precedent. Every time there's a dip in the polls, the party bosses will be in court demanding a chance to switch to a more popular candidate. The windup to every election will look like the final innings of a baseball game. If the opposition goes to a lefty, then you put in a righty. If the GOP has a poll showing Lautenberg beats Douglas Forrester, that becomes legal grounds to get Tom Kean into the race.

Well said.

[Sacajaweau]

The problem with NOT fighting this is the re-occurance of the scenario. This is a FEDERAL election and I don't know which laws apply Ballots HAVE already gone out and the state is violating the law by holding back any further mailings of the military ballots.

If some ballots have already been returned (as someone said), that would mean you could vote twice??? Had no ballots gone out and it was within the 50 days,I might look at this differently but the fact remains that a write in WAS ALWAYS POSSIBLE so the voters were not prohibited in any way.

I believe the replacement of Torricelli with Lauterbach will be deemed illegal. As usual, the Dems keep up their "Cheat & Beat" methods.

Wonder how much Lauterbach got paid for this run.

Follow the money and I bet it will lead back to both "Clintons", the cigar promoter AND the "carpetbagger".

Sac

[harpseal]

The reason for fighting this is that it goes to the heart of free fair elections. The Democrats in New Jersey are using the elections playbook of Robert Mugabe, Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. If perchance Forester wins I can see them going into court now demanding a new election becuase Frank did not get enough time to campaign.

[steve in DC]

I still believe that this is truly an "equal protection" issue.

The equal protection in this case, however, extends to candidates and potential candidates.

Basically, the Dems ran Torch when he appeared unbeatable and he easily won the primary. Then they coerced him into withdrawing (when he appeared beatable) and they replaced him with Lautenberg.

All other potential candidates have been disenfranchised by this procedure and they were denied "equal protection under the law" in that they were all held to the letter of the laws governing this election.

By extention, the voters, far from being given a viable "choice" viw this legal slight of hand, have had their rights to select a candidate illegally truncated.

Only the Democrat Party and Frank Lautenberg have been allowed to operate outside the law. No other potential candidates have.

By all rights, a new Democrat primary should be held.

[fightinJAG]

Isee your point from the standpoint of political tactics, but there is a larger, more important issue involved: the rule of law.

Someone has to stand up and say "enough" when laws are clearly ignored.

When I was in law school, we were taught that "shall" means "shall," as in MANDATORY. Kinda like "is" means "is."

[Liz]

If perchance Forester wins I can see them going into court now demanding a new election becuase Frank did not get enough time to campaign.

How well you know the slimy Dems. Stay on board will you, to alert us to their next fraudulent move.

[Anotherpundit]

I agree that on principle we should fight this. But, realize: we're going to win that particular election either way, almost certainly. By fighting it in the courts, it just makes us look bad, reminds the democrats of "selected not elected," and gets them all motivated to vote etc. I don't like it, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, but, well, I hate falling into what might be a democrat trap.

[meyer]

I agree that on principle we should fight this. But, realize: we're going to win that particular election either way, almost certainly. By fighting it in the courts, it just makes us look bad, reminds the democrats of "selected not elected," and gets them all motivated to vote etc. I don't like it, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, but, well, I hate falling into what might be a democrat trap.

Strategically, Forrester shouldn't be at the forefront of the SCOTUS fight; that should come from the party. Forrester needs to concentrate on the campaign. He can and should be able to beat Loutenberg, but that isn't the only issue. The idea that kangaroo courts can change the law to suit their opinion disenfranchises ALL the voters of a jurisdiction by making their personal votes and their elected representatives irrelevant. The Republican party needs to take the forefront in that fight.

[txzman]

"So do not worry that Justice Souter might somehow kill the Forrester-Torricelli case in the Supreme Court. If four Justices want it heard, it will be heard. If five Justices want to grant relief, it will be granted."

Thanks for the information BillyBob.

[aREDSKIN]

Did anyone actually hear what one of the judges said to the Forrester attorney when he brought this point up? He asked the attorney for language that could be used in their opinion to prevent this possible abuse from happening in the future! What a complete moron. Here we are going to allows this to happen here but we need to close the door on this in the future! The absolute gall and complete lack of understanding that the judges cannot write law.

[HighWheeler]

"...there is indeed some flexibility in the [N.J.] law. The "shall" has been turned into a "may" now that the justices have decided that the voters deserve to have two viable major-party candidates.."

Clinton is dancing in the streets.

Now that the NJ Supreme Court justices have unilaterally overruled God's word, any concerns Clinton had about those bothersome "shalls" appearing in the 10 Commandments are no longer at odds with his life of debauchery.

[rmmcdaniell]

I don't thinkthe republicans SHOUlD fight this. That turns this into a national bush/gore reprise and galvanizes the dems to get out & vote. just let the dem there lose.

Strap on your chains pal

[cinFLA]

I don't thinkthe republicans SHOUlD fight this. That turns this into a national bush/gore reprise and galvanizes the dems to get out & vote. just let the dem there lose.

With "thinkers" like you, Gore would be president.

[MamaLucci]

but who is going to pay for all of the campaign literature that the Republicans now have to take to the recycling center? The unanimous decision didn't address that question.

Hey, the NJ Sopranos can't help it that their dem party bosses didn't tell them to address that question! (/sarcasm)

[js1138]

The question is will David Souter allow for an expedited appeal to the full court.

Maybe not, but that's not the only avenue. I believe that a majority of the court can overrule Souter.