[MeekOneGOP]

It seems clear to me that SCONJ ignored the law and made up their own. The 51 day provision was written to prevent a losing candidate from withdrawing late in the race and inserting another candidate. The Democrats chose their candidate and if he's behind in the polls, then they should sleep in the bed that they made. That how it works. Choose your man, we'll choose ours and the voters decide.

I can't imagine that SCOTUS wouldn't take this on.

[zencycler]

Don't want the quitters to win? Check this out...
(Dial up users, be patient)

http://michaeldavisoncpa.tripod.com/index.html

[MeekOneGOP]

GOP asks Supreme Court to decide NJ ballot issue -
GOP lawyers warn of election-year shenanigans

Excerpt:

"There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case," said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school. "But I said the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, so what do I know?"

But there are key differences, analysts said.

That 2000 case revolved around disputed Florida votes that affected a national office, the presidency; the New Jersey battle affects only the residents of the state and involves access to the ballot before Election Day.

Yet both the legal case and the political race could well have national impact: control of the Senate, which now belongs to Democrats by one seat.

When Mr. Torricelli ended his campaign, he said he didn't want his potential loss to tip the balance of the Senate.

< snip >

Republicans denounced the decision as a mockery of election laws.

"You know, we don't think they should try to change the rules of the game at the end of the game," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., eager to regain his majority status. "We don't think that they should violate the law in the state."

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[goldstategop]

I think Antonin Scalia would definitely say there's a federal issue here, namely where a state Supreme Court can override a decision left to the state legislature. The U.S Constitution says no. And I think the SCOTUS would definitely take the New Jersey Supremes out to the woodshed and tell them the hell to get it right.

[Savage Beast]

"so what do I know?"

Well you should know this: Truth can be clouded by wishful thinking.

[self_evident]

It was less than two years ago that the justices, in a 5-4 ruling with notably angry dissents, halted recounts in the state of Florida, effectively awarding the presidency to George W. Bush.

Well, now they just lie and re-write history. SCOTUS voted 7-2 to halt the mish-mash, seat-of-the-pants, let's try one more time to steal the election recounts. They voted 5-4 on whether there was time for the Fla. SC to do it over.

[self_evident]

I can't imagine that SCOTUS wouldn't take this on.

This seems like some kind of bad dream though. The Dims WILL nationalize this if SCOTUS steps in. It's about all they have left to get out their base. A bad, bad dream.

[Peach]

I don't think SCOTUS will take this on either. Although I think Forrester can win, Americans won't really understand what has happened in NJ unless a Republican does it. Let Forrester take his name off the ballot and the GOP install someone with a known "name" - i.e., Rudy G. What can the DNC going to do about it?

[SkyPilot]

There is absolutely no federal question involved, *

_*WRONG!:

1. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
42 U.S. Code 1973ff

See also Federal Voting Assistance Program

[SkyPilot]

By they way---I wasn't addressing you Meek--I was addressing that Rutger's "professor of law."

[Tom Bombadil]

the New Jersey battle affects only the residents of the state

Huh? A Senator's vote in the senate only affects his state? This is just an election for state office?.... NOT.

Shennanigans like this have a tremendous federal impact.

[copycat]

There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case," said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school. "But I said the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, so what do I know?"

Exactly. FReepers see the Constitutional issue here, but the professor does not.

[copycat]

Michael Gerhardt, a law professor at the College of William & Mary, cited a GOP argument that the New Jersey Supreme Court usurped the Legislature's right to set elections, but doubted a federal court would resolve that dispute.

Academics all over the country are trying to throw cold water on this and discourage the SCOTUS from getting involved. But what's the bigger horror, that SCOTUS would force a state to follow the Constitution's Article I, Section 4, or that ballots all over the country are now subject to judicial review and "the right of the people to have a competitive election."

[Bigun]

"There is absolutely no federal question involved, and there's absolutely no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case,"

said Frank Askin, professor at Rutgers University/Newark law school.

To which I say B. S.! There are PLENTY of federal issues here. Beyond that, the justices of the USSC are human beings and anyone who thinks that they are going sit idly by and allow these idiots to blatantly IGNORE a ruling made by them less than two years ago has a SCREW LOOSE IMHO!

[bimbo]

Gov. Christie Whitman, a Republican, appointed six of the seven New Jersey justices who made the ruling.

And here is the genesis of the problem: Republicans appointing Democrat Judges (probably to appease the Democrats). Democrats NEVER appoint Republican Judges!

Ms. Whitman, now director of the Environmental Protection Agency … … still out there doing who-knows-what.

[catch]

Best advice to the Forrester camp - if difficult to give - is to act as graciously as possible about a situation they cannot change, shake their collective heads at the underhandedness and chicanery of NJ Democrats, and run a positive, upbeat campaign totally ignoring Lautenberg. Best slogan would be something along the lines of "Vote Forrester - For the Future" (i.e., Lautenberg/Toricelli is the past).

[PhilipFreneau]

Analysts said the New Jersey Supreme Court is entitled to be the final arbiter of New Jersey law . . .

This position, held by Leftists of all stripes, essentially voids the Constitution. Those who take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies must consider Leftists their enemies in all cases.

[Sabertooth]

Democrats noted that former Gov. Christie Whitman, a Republican, appointed six of the seven New Jersey justices who made the ruling.

But Ms. Whitman, now director of the Environmental Protection Agency, didn't give the court's handiwork a strong review.

"This shows that even very bright people can make serious mistakes," she said.

Or, since the NJ Supreme Court is made up of four Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent, perhaps this shows that Christine Todd Whitman is not a very bright person.

[hobbes1]

Pretty Bad, when a Dallas paper has to get ahold of some left wing A$$hole law professor that obviously does not comprehend the US Constitutions provisions about The legislature making Election Law and not the court.

It is a pretty Shallow and Facile analysis to yell Bush v. Gore, and not realise that this goes to the bery eart of the Concurrance, which had 3 signers, and this is a far more egregious case. In FLA, there was wiggle room, because the law ALLOWED for manual recounts. The law does not allow the replacement at this late date.

[uncbob]

WRITE IN is always available for the Jersyites so this CHOICE is all BS anyway

[SC_Republican]

I know this is a little off topic, but I notice this all the time.

You can see how subtly the Dallas News shows thier bias. The picture of Mr. Forrester show him scowling and almost mean looking. While the picture of Lautenburg and his cronies are all laughing it up and sort of makes you feel good.


Typical...