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

Skip to comments.

Take the Torricelli Case - Wall St. Journal Editorial
Wall St. Journal ^ | Friday, October 4, 2002 | Wall St. Journal Editorial Board

Posted on 10/03/2002 11:09:29 PM PDT by pittsburgh gop guy

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:47:14 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Given the outcry directed at the U.S. Supreme Court after it ended the 2000 Florida recount, we'd understand if the Justices aren't too keen on getting involved in another election dispute.

But when it comes to the Republican appeal yesterday of the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision to allow a late switch on the state ballot, we don't think they have much of a choice. Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution specifically delegates to state legislatures, not to state governments as a whole, the authority over the "times, places and manner" of holding Senatorial elections. As such, the "equitable powers" invoked by the New Jersey court to "liberally construe" this particular law simply do not exist.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: editorial; electionstealing; jersey; newjerseysenate; njsc; scotus; torch; toriccelli; torricelli; wsj; wsjeditorial
Pretty much says it all. Gotta love the editorial page of the WSJ.
1 posted on 10/03/2002 11:09:29 PM PDT by pittsburgh gop guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

VOTE OUT THE DEMS!

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

2 posted on 10/03/2002 11:10:06 PM PDT by Mo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
awesome, but next the tv dems and jersy
will "scream for", more time,more this ,more
that,but "more". Even tho they were wrong,sneaky,
and deceitful. When this stunt is corrected, the
dems will still want something......it just kills me
3 posted on 10/03/2002 11:41:05 PM PDT by cactusSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
Can the Jersey legislature do the same thing that the NJSC just did?
4 posted on 10/03/2002 11:48:33 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
Sure. But they might not be as gutsy to change the law to allow a party to change candidates after the voting has begun.

That might smell too much even for New Jersey legislators.

5 posted on 10/04/2002 12:08:41 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
You do raise another interesting point:

Judges are supposed to interpret the law based on the legislator's intent. Would be interesting to here from NJ legislators that this was, ahem, not quite their intent.
6 posted on 10/04/2002 12:10:39 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
I doubt the NJ Legislature could pass an ex post facto law anyway. So it wouldn't help us this time.
7 posted on 10/04/2002 12:21:26 AM PDT by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
No, they are not. They are supposed to interpret the law based on the clear text of the statute. In the case of New Jersey election laws, the text is ineluctably clear: the ballot can not be changed at this point; the Dems are stuck with the Torch. Anything else is purely judicial legislation (i.e., tyranny).
8 posted on 10/04/2002 12:24:35 AM PDT by matthazard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy; Molly Pitcher
Quotes: US Constitution: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof ..." NJ Legislature: "In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election." The Raven: The search for truth and integrity in the corrupt Democratic Party continues.
9 posted on 10/04/2002 1:04:07 AM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
....which reminds me...tonight CNBC carries the WSJ editorial board program...
10 posted on 10/04/2002 3:32:29 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
With the Democrats it is "THE RULE BY LAW" not the "RULE OF LAW." As frightening as it may seem,it is amazing what a lawyer can do with a play on words. Remember the word "IS"?
11 posted on 10/04/2002 4:47:03 AM PDT by gunnedah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo; Always Right; Monti Cello; Congressman Billybob; Teacher317; connectthedots; ...
Oversized ping to the Wall Street Journal editorial page (sadly, they didn't include it as part of OpinionJournal; I would have loved to see Steven Platzer contort himself on this one).

If you're already here, good. I simply pulled this mega-mini-ping list from those that I discussed this with previously.

12 posted on 10/04/2002 5:01:45 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
The fact that the FLSC and NJSC justices are still on the bench, shows how fragile the republic is...criminals unchecked destroying the infrastructure...the rule of law...we are debating the fundamentals of our nation's existence...with members of a crime syndicate, domestic enemies. It's as absurd as domestic enemies Bonoir and McDermott taking their case to the capital of our foreign enemies!
13 posted on 10/04/2002 5:10:06 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Thanks for the ping!

The New Jersey court may have been emboldened by the Supreme Court's refusal in Bush v. Gore to clearly affirm the sovereignty of state legislatures in writing rules for the selection of federal candidates.

The SCOTUS ruling in this instance was 5-4. I can believe the NJSC would think it worth a try to test it again and see if one of the justices would switch.

I do think it's very important that a clear message be sent to state courts that they can't nullify state laws concerning elections. We thought that had been done in the case of Bush vs. Gore in FL, but apparently not.

I've a hunch that NJ voters are going to set this one straight without any help from the SCOTUS, but there may well be future instances where the voters are not given the opportunity to set it straight.

Even this election cycle, HI has climbed aboard the fast express toward a banana republic. HI is attempting to get an exemption so they won't have to have a special election for Patsy Mink's seat--they don't want to spend the $$$.

14 posted on 10/04/2002 5:11:45 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PGalt
The fact that the FLSC and NJSC justices are still on the bench, shows how fragile the republic is...criminals unchecked destroying the infrastructure...the rule of law...we are debating the fundamentals of our nation's existence...with members of a crime syndicate, domestic enemies.

It is fairly certain if there were no leftist judges, our Constitution would be secure.

15 posted on 10/04/2002 5:14:16 AM PDT by PhilipFreneau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: randita
The SCOTUS ruling in this instance was 5-4. I can believe the NJSC would think it worth a try to test it again and see if one of the justices would switch.

On the point of the Constution and Federal Law against changing the rules of the election, the ruling was 9-0. It only became 5-4 on the equal protection ruling and the remedy concerning the re-count.

16 posted on 10/04/2002 5:17:33 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
Can the Jersey legislature do the same thing that the NJSC just did?

That becomes a timing issue. As the balloting process has started, ANY change in the 2002 NJ Senate election rules by ANY authority (including Congress) would violate the equal-protection and ex-post-facto clauses of the Constitution. In short, they could have done this (or specifically enabled the Jersey Supreme Idiots or any other body they wished) between 9/16 and the mailing of the first absentee ballot. As they failed to do so, the ballot should be restored to the condition it was on 9/29 (i.e. the Torch on the ballot as the Democratic candidate, Lautenberg not on the ballot but able to run a write-in campaign).

17 posted on 10/04/2002 5:18:56 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
bttt
18 posted on 10/04/2002 5:22:02 AM PDT by The Wizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; randita
There were actually 3 differing vote totals:

Regarding the inability of any authority to change the rules of a Federal election after the process started (in Floriduh's case, changing the counting and reporting rules in an Electoral College election), it was 9-0.
Regarding the complete lack of a Constitutional "remedy" for the Sore Loserman campaign, it was 5-4.
Regarding the failure to provide equal protection of the voters and their ballots, it was 7-2.

19 posted on 10/04/2002 5:24:57 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
BTW, I just heard last week that the Floraduh Supremes finally responded to the 9-0 overturn, but I haven't bothered to read what their reponse was.
20 posted on 10/04/2002 5:27:42 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
BTW, I just heard last week that the Floraduh Supremes finally responded to the 9-0 overturn, but I haven't bothered to read what their reponse was.

It probably involved a lot of ear wax on the fingers.

21 posted on 10/04/2002 5:30:47 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
I doubt the NJ Legislature could pass an ex post facto law anyway. So it wouldn't help us this time.

They did for the Schundler primary election. They passed a law retroactivley moving the primary election back so that the 51 day deadline would not be violated. This NJ court upheld the legislation.

22 posted on 10/04/2002 5:31:21 AM PDT by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
As such, the "equitable powers" invoked by the New Jersey court to "liberally construe" this particular law simply do not exist

THANK YOU!@!!

23 posted on 10/04/2002 5:33:15 AM PDT by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
Can the Jersey legislature do the same thing that the NJSC just did?

Yes, but it could only apply to future elections.

24 posted on 10/04/2002 5:35:35 AM PDT by Tennessean4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Equitable powers do not exist where the Constitution has given power expressly to the legislature.
25 posted on 10/04/2002 5:37:21 AM PDT by copycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: copycat
Bingo. What's even more-egregious in this case is that the NJ Legislature has given NO power to the NJ judiciary.
26 posted on 10/04/2002 5:40:20 AM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
They passed a law retroactivley moving the primary election back so that the 51 day deadline would not be violated. This NJ court upheld the legislation.

Bwahahhahahaaa! The court ignored their very own precedent of honoring the 51 day limit.

27 posted on 10/04/2002 5:40:37 AM PDT by Lil'freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
They can, but not until this election is over. Federal laws prohibits any change to election laws in the midst of an election.
28 posted on 10/04/2002 5:52:02 AM PDT by rstevens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: copycat
Equitable powers do not exist where the Constitution has given power expressly to the legislature.

As a NJ citizen, I'd like to know what can be done to bring pressure to bear to admonish, reprimand or impeach, this court. Their judicial activism makes me sick!

BTW, the 51-day provision that NJSC ignored is not the only law affected by their ruling; laws regulating the county clerks election practices are now bent as wellThere is *no way* this law can be abided because of the reprint.
Disgraceful.
29 posted on 10/04/2002 6:05:33 AM PDT by GirlShortstop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
Primaries are not federally mandated in the way that general elections are. Its fairly easy to change laws even during the primary cycle. I believe GA had to push back their primary date to allow for a 45 day law in order to meet the absentee ballot deadline. Primary laws and rules are fairly easy to adjust to whereas general elections must be accomplished in order to meet the constitutional Tuesday in November requirement.
30 posted on 10/04/2002 6:08:44 AM PDT by rstevens
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
If words plainly spoken (New Jersy voting laws) do not make for easy interpretation (what you think the words plainly mean) then there is no such thing as social norm (a nation governed by law) and chaos rules the day.

So whoever can rule chaos rules completely, i.e. "that depends on what the deffinition of "is" is".
31 posted on 10/04/2002 6:11:59 AM PDT by Godfollow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jimer
Not only can the NJ Legislature change the deadline rules after the fact, it did do so just a year ago. The deadline had passed, but the legislature wrote a law to extend the deadline. In the extended time, Governor diFrancesco dropped out of the race for serious ethical problems and was replaced by Rep. Franks, who then got diFrancesco's campaign war chest.

Bret Schundler sued to stop last year's switcheroo, but was denied by the same NJ SC. (I was involved in that litigation.)

Last year's switcheroo and corruption scandel involved Republicans. This year's one involves Democrats. What is it about New Jersey that leads inevitably to corruption and deliberate flaunting of the law?

Congressman Billybob

Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."

Click for "to Restore Trust in America"

Click for "Death as a Political Strategy"

32 posted on 10/04/2002 6:15:06 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
If its up to "Taliban" Souter, forget it.

How Bush-the- First ever saw fit to nominate this hapless ultra-left wing liberal to the Supreme Court is beyond me.

33 posted on 10/04/2002 6:23:49 AM PDT by joyful1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident; xsmommy; RikaStrom; mwl1; agrace; Coop; Howlin; Dog
SCOTUS prayer Ping!
34 posted on 10/04/2002 6:42:02 AM PDT by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joyful1
2 factors came into play.

1. Bush the Elder, is not Bush the Younger. Bush the Elder, is a MAINE republican, read Semi-Liberal North East Republican, though more conservative than most in that Area.

2. Warren Rudman. A complete RINO was the man that picked Souter for Bush.

35 posted on 10/04/2002 6:49:31 AM PDT by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
NJ Soprano Court Bump!
36 posted on 10/04/2002 9:24:20 AM PDT by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pittsburgh gop guy
New NJ advertising campaign slogan:

Tony Soprano
Bob Torricelli
Jim McGreevey

Perfect together!

37 posted on 10/04/2002 9:31:02 AM PDT by Incorrigible
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
7-1-1 on the Equal protection, and 5-4 on the remedy.
38 posted on 10/04/2002 12:37:21 PM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hobbes1
My recollection is that it was John Sununu who pushed hard for Souter. Probably the only egregious mistake he made as chief of staff to Bush 41.
39 posted on 10/04/2002 2:48:30 PM PDT by mwl1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Thanks for the ping. I'm surprised that the WSJ ran this editorial...they aren't the most conservative paper. Very good article. And this is true:

if the Supreme Court doesn't clear this up now, it probably will have to sooner or later.

This is my first time online all day....so I'm playing catch up with any "news" on this....I'm assuming, right now, all's quiet.

40 posted on 10/04/2002 3:02:18 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo
Preliminary briefs have been filed before David Souter (the SCOTUS justice that handles requests for emergency stays from Jersey - thread here). Also, the GOP has filed suit in the Trenton federal district court on behalf of two absentee voters who already returned their ballots (thread here).
41 posted on 10/04/2002 3:38:47 PM PDT by steveegg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Thanks, I'll get over to those threads and do some reading.
42 posted on 10/04/2002 3:53:27 PM PDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Even if they did, the new law wouldn't apply to this election. The Constitution also forbits ex-post-facto laws, as I recall. Ooops! What am I thinking!!!! These are Dems we're talking about here. So never mind what the Constitution says.
43 posted on 10/04/2002 4:19:22 PM PDT by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | 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