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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court May Duck New Jersey Case
Bloomberg, no url | 10/3/02

Posted on 10/03/2002 11:23:37 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: ClearCase_guy
Is it not one SC justice who hears the original petition. If I am not mistaken it this case it would be Souter.
21 posted on 10/03/2002 11:47:32 AM PDT by Greeklawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Well, then the district court can apply the law laid down by the Eleventh Circuit in Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574 (11th Cir. 1995): changing the rules in mid-election violations constitutional equal protection.

Yep. I had always thought that was the GOP's best legal route in the 2000 election mess.

22 posted on 10/03/2002 11:48:43 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the vote 7-2?

There were two different rulings. The 7-2 ruling said that SCOFLA acted unconstitutionally with their remedy. The 5-4 ruling essentially said there was not time to conduct any further recounts.

23 posted on 10/03/2002 11:50:34 AM PDT by BlackRazor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
I honestly don't understand the reluctance.

There is no reluctance. The author just made that up. The first sentence says,

The U.S. Supreme Court, still scarred by the fight over the 2000 presidential electionfight, probably will be reluctant to wade into the battle over New Jersey's U.S. Senate race, legal experts said.

"Still scarred"? "Legal experts said"?

In no rational person's mind is the SCOTUS "scarred" over Gore v. Bush.

24 posted on 10/03/2002 11:51:05 AM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
After the SCOTUS laid down the law in Bush v. Gore, the lower federal courts are perfectly capable of applying it to new cases.

But what would the remedy be? If it's proven that voter's rights were violated, then the courts could require a brand new election, couldn't they? Then Democrats could run yet another recycled candidate.

25 posted on 10/03/2002 11:55:56 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mark
The Democrats still have the one ace in the hole: Jumpin Jim could switch again, this time to the "darkside" Dems.

That won't help. If the Dems fall one seat short, the best Jeffords can do is make it a 50/50 split. Cheney breaks the tie for the Republicans.

26 posted on 10/03/2002 12:05:33 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
Weeks after the ruling, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who voted in the majority, said he hoped courts ''will seldom, if ever,'' become involved in another U.S. presidential election.

Me too -- except my hope would be that this would happen because the Dems quit trying to win elections by involving the judiciary.

Since they haven't, for the Court to ignore such actions would signal that the Rule of Law is truly and thoroughly dead, that the Great Experiment is over and the results are in (it failed), and that what really only matters anymore is what you can get away with.

But then, it's coming for a long, long time -- we just haven't been paying attention.

27 posted on 10/03/2002 12:09:22 PM PDT by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randita
If the decision is made before Election Day, I imagine a possible remedy would be to run the election with Torricelli on the ballot, with suitable precautions taken for counting military ballots.

It would be a lot harder to devise a suitable remedy after the election is held.

28 posted on 10/03/2002 12:09:32 PM PDT by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Actually, the FIRST USSC decision was 9 - 0. second one, yes 7-2, the 5-4 was the split on remedy, 2 wafflers wanted to count every Florida ballot if possible (but not really). But only 3 were hard-core defenders of Rule of Law in elections. Still, it should be easy for USSC to remand this case back and MAKE the NJ SC write their opinion in light of maintaining existing electoral scheme. Is there some Federal law that applies to all Federal elections relevent to this???

Anyway ... media bias, dont you just love it?

29 posted on 10/03/2002 12:27:00 PM PDT by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Thanks for the details. I remembered the critical decision was 7-2, but I had completely forgotten about the initial 9-0 decision to initially remand. But yeah, it's just amazing how we only ever hear about the 5-4 remedy vote. No bias to see here, move along...
30 posted on 10/03/2002 12:41:32 PM PDT by ThinkDifferent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
This article appears to be an exercise in wishful thinking by your typical Eurosocialist oriented pressie to whom U.S. constitutionalism is utterly foreign.
31 posted on 10/04/2002 2:28:05 AM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Legal expert = Democrat whores for hire a/k/a "progressives."
32 posted on 10/04/2002 2:29:39 AM PDT by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NativeNewYorker
I'm for conservative judicial activism to give the liberal scofflaws at the New Jersey Supreme Court a taste of their own medicine. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see the SCOTUS kick their pompous asses into the dirt.
33 posted on 10/04/2002 2:31:18 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

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