[mass55th]

Well, this has set a nasty precendent. However, it's one that will come back again in the future to bite the Democrats in the a$$. I can't wait until the Republicans pull this on them. Wait and hear them howl. Since the SCOTUS has passed on it, this New Jersey ballot change can be done anywhere in the country citing the New Jersey Supreme Court decision and the failure of the SCOTUS to step in.

[Steven W.]

just because the SCOTUS decided not to step in here does not establish a precedent that they would not do so in some other case in the future.

[Principled]

Who was Torch's primary opponent? Wouldn't that be the one to replace him?

Next election cycle, we'll have 7 repubs running for the same office as "the" repub candidate. Whoever is running best as election day approaches will be the candidate. What a mess this will be.

[Truth29]

It won't really come back to bite the dems. The majority of judges are liberals. The decisions will favor their own and not the GOP. The reasons may be artefully worded, but the courts will determine the greater good is to favor the democrats and find a reason to deny the GOP legal challenges.

[mykej]

"Since the SCOTUS has passed on it, this New Jersey ballot change can be done anywhere in the country citing the New Jersey Supreme Court decision and the failure of the SCOTUS to step in"

Nope, not at all. NJ Supreme Court decisions only apply to New Jersey.

Didn't Forrester get on the primary ballot the same way?
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/05/nyregion/05JERS.html