UPDATE - New Jersey Supreme Court agrees to take Torricelli successor case directly

Associated Press ^ | 10-1-02 | JOHN P. McALPIN

[Oldeconomybuyer]

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.

[gridlock]

Is it SCOFLA II?

It's worse.

[dyed_in_the_wool]

The question should be, why does the vote have to rescheduled when it's already scheduled?
The law doesn't exist for Torricelli, does it?

[Roscoe]

Another possibilty. Torricelli stays on the ballot after "losing" the court fight and his "noble" act of selflessness for the good of the Democrat party results in him getting the necessary votes to be re-elected. He reluctantly accepts the will of the people and agrees to serve another term.

Like he intended all along.

[Cyber Liberty]

I thought this was headed straight for the SCOTUS? Did Torch tell an outright lie at the press conference yesterday? He *said* that he was directing his attorneys to file papers with SCOTUS. I had to listen twice to make sure I wasn't mistaken.

[mwl1]

Of course. But the RATS are not holding very good cards on this, legal or otherwise. If they want to nationalize the election with this, fine. We'll let Torricelli be a household word.

My view is that this is a Hail Mary play that will fail and window dressing because Torch couldn't take losing like a man.

[jdontom]

This is playing out just the way we thought it would..By next thursday Bill Bradley will be on the ballot..Just how they planed it over the weekend!

If the Courts are honest we win, if not we lose...

[willgetsome]

Doesn't matter, the Dems will spin this as "doing right by the voter".

And the CNN's of the world will echo this spin, hype, and con job because they think Forrester is irrelevent.

[McGavin999]

One question needs to be asked of the Torch.

Senator, if your name remains on the ballot, and you win, are you saying that you will not serve?

[js1138]

SCOTUS would have no basis on which to overturn the NJ court ruling.

This is a national election. Yes they do. National elections are covered by the constition and by national laws.

I might add, that presidential elections are, strictly speaking, state elections. But they have to conform to national laws.

[Hugin]

Another possibilty. Torricelli stays on the ballot after "losing" the court fight and his "noble" act of selflessness for the good of the Democrat party results in him getting the necessary votes to be re-elected. He reluctantly accepts the will of the people and agrees to serve another term.

I was about to write the same thing. NJ is a liberal state and liberals love a "victim".

[FourtySeven]

This is disgusting.

How anyone can be a Democrat and claim to respect just laws (i.e., be a moral person) is beyond me.

[Hugin]

I think he erred and meant the NJ Supreme Court.

[willgetsome]

Said that right...the Dems and the Torch can't take losing with dignity.

What probably really pisses them off is that they see Forrester as irrelevent.

[Darth Reagan]

Didn't the Torch have a primary challenger and shouldn't that guy be placed on the ballot? If the Democrats don't care about what the law requires (no replacement), then surely this would be the "fair" result, not party big wigs picking their favorite, but the people's #2 choice.

[writmeister]

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.

Mcgreedy cannot postpone general election. Matter of federal law which trumps any contrary state law. (Foster v. Love decision of US Supreme Court).

[agrace]

The Democrats, who hold a one-seat majority in the Senate, had asked the high court to hear the case directly because of the urgency involved.

OK, so they are the ones who created said urgent situation, but they want special consideration from the court to resolve it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

NJ law cannot conflict with U.S. law and if its law is ignored to deprive Forrester of his rights then the USSC will definitely be involved.

Federal elections are not completely at the mercy of State Law. There is a federal interest in a fair election procedure for federal offices.

[sinkspur]

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.

The Senate is a federal office, governed by the Constitution. The SCOTUS overruled the Florida Supremes involving a state law, and are likely to get involved here.

[FourtySeven]

We've been here before. Last time we were innocent; this time we're not.

What do you mean by this?

[mwl1]

Iraq and other national issues will smother this story. No one in Alabama or any other state gives a crap about a senate election in New Jersey.

Freepers became traumatized and victimized by the Clinton years... because they controlled the White House pulpit and the news media, up became down and down became up. We are under new management, especially since 9-11.