Skip to comments.
UPDATE - New Jersey Supreme Court agrees to take Torricelli successor case directly
Associated Press ^
| 10-1-02
| JOHN P. McALPIN
Posted on 10/01/2002 10:05:59 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:05 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- The state Supreme Court decided Tuesday to hear arguments over whether Democrats can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the November ballot, a day after the senator abruptly dropped out of the race.
The court issued an order saying it would hear the case directly instead of waiting for a lower court to act. The high court hearing is scheduled for Wednesday morning. As a result, a hearing set for Tuesday afternoon in Middlesex County Superior Court was canceled.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: supremecourt; thetorch; torricelli
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-179 next last
To: Oldeconomybuyer
The fix is in.
2
posted on
10/01/2002 10:06:37 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: dfwgator
I bet they "agreed" on Monday.
3
posted on
10/01/2002 10:07:17 AM PDT
by
Howlin
To: dfwgator
I smell it too.
To: Howlin
They wouldn't have pulled this little game if they didn't know how this Kangaroo Court was going to decide in advance. Forrester needs to stay away from this court fight and let the GOP "party hacks" do it for him.
5
posted on
10/01/2002 10:10:14 AM PDT
by
ambrose
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Question we SHOULD start asking now: Did McGreevy promise Toricelli there will be no state prosecution of his still- emerging wrongdoing? You can bet on it. Torch is the ultimate arrogant "dealmaker" and he would never have acted so quickly, except to save his own skin.
6
posted on
10/01/2002 10:10:44 AM PDT
by
Williams
To: Howlin
...prearranged over the weekend...the Rats wouldn't have done this if they weren't already assured that it was in the bag....next stop...SCOTUS.
To: ambrose
I will dissent. I don't think this court is going to rule for Torch. They do not want to be overturned by US Supremes.
Then the question becomes, will the Torch resign?
8
posted on
10/01/2002 10:13:09 AM PDT
by
mwl1
The fix is in...never mind the law or the horrible new standard this sets in campaigns.
NJ STANDARD:
1) Run a "trojan horse" candidate
2) Dry up your opponent's money and reputation
3) Bring in a "finisher" at the last minute to win the election.
To: Howlin
The RATS' initial petition was filed in New Jersey Superior Court in Middlex County, which is the home county of Governor McGreedy and a longtime RAT bastion nothwithstanding a voter profile of ethnic, working class Reagan Democratics.
Anybody know about the political/ideological makeup of the NJ Supreme Court? Is it SCOFLA II?
To: mystery-ak; ambrose
We've been here before. Last time we were innocent; this time we're not.
12
posted on
10/01/2002 10:15:55 AM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Oldeconomybuyer
There's no law on the books that says "I can't win, so I'm going to move aside and let someone else take over."
The Dems are heading for another court ruling that they'll whine and gripe about until the cows come home.
13
posted on
10/01/2002 10:16:26 AM PDT
by
jerod
To: mwl1
They do not want to be overturned by US Supremes.
If the NJ court's ruling is based on NJ state law, the SCOTUS would have no basis on which to overturn the NJ court ruling.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
In another development, Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey said that if they couldn't have the rules of baseball changed, he was gonna take his ball and bat, and go home.
15
posted on
10/01/2002 10:19:25 AM PDT
by
Drango
To: mwl1
Plan A and Plan B:
Plan A: try to switch the names on the ballot
Plan B: If Plan A fails in the courts, then: 1) resign from the Senate, 2) Gov. appoints an "annoited" Dem to the seat, 3) election postponed, 4) special election 1 year later.
Any way you look at it, the fix is in and most NJ voters think it's okay. In fact, the mantra quoted by the papers will be:
"I think its great that I now have a real candidate that I can cast a vote for. The right of the voter to have a good candidate to vote for is more important than some arbitrary deadline in the state law."
BTW, I've already seen such talk in NJ websites! LOL
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Democratic Gov. James E. McGreevey said that placing a new candidate on the ballot would be a fair way to resolve the issue and would "give New Jersey voters a chance to speak."Egads. What issue is there to resolve? Your candidate is losing. Tough luck. Oh and by the way, the New Jersey voters are speaking, that's why your candidate is trying to get out.
17
posted on
10/01/2002 10:20:52 AM PDT
by
PMCarey
To: willgetsome
Governor has no authority under the Constitution of the United States to extend any senate term. Period.
18
posted on
10/01/2002 10:21:28 AM PDT
by
mwl1
To: Drango
What's sad is that the Dems know it's wrong, but their attitude will be "paybacks are a b!tch."
19
posted on
10/01/2002 10:21:54 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: PMCarey
LOL!
Just wait for the: "we need to protect the rights of NJ voters and give them good choices on the ballots" mantra to really pick up on TV and in the press.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-179 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson