[Teacher317]

Do you remember HOW he happened to get into the election 6 years ago? The rat-infested NJ Supreme Court over-rode state election laws (specifically stating that there be no new names on the ballot after Sept 16) to allow him to get on the ticket when the actual Dem nominee, Torricelli, was polling poorly. Two of the justices were contributors to the Democrats' campaign, but they did not recuse themselves.

The US Supreme Court declined to get involved.

(Also note that since CFR, there can be no ads from non-candidates within 30 days of an election, therefore, Lautenberg was virtually guaranteed to be free from criticism in "his election campaign".)

[justiceseeker93]

Please see my post number 68. You stole a bit of my thunder, but no hard feelings.

BTW, I was kind of surprised when I looked it up and found out that the Lautenberg "election" had occurred five years ago. Time really flies.

Interesting question: If the NJ Dems had to replace Lautenberg in the Senate or on the ballot, who do you think would be his successor?

[Czar]

I was unaware of the specific history involving Lautenberg's election although I do seem to recall some kind of kerfuffle at the time. Your explanation clears that up for me.

My doberman pinscher (Grace) says "hi" to Trixie, Ginger and Mustang Sally. Being a conservative (which I assume you are) with three dogs gets you extra points with me. And a teacher yet! Perhaps there is some hope for academia after all.