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.

[Mo1]

VOTE THE RATS OUT!!

DONATE TODAY. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[justshutupandtakeit]

NJ cannot postpone a federal election. That is a false reading of NJ law.

[Wphile]

Torch said it was going straight to the SCOTUS but he got it wrong. He doesn't know what he is doing. He's being whipsawed by the democratic political hacks.

I wrote this on another thread but I'm going to write it here as well. After the Florida fiasco and the utter shamelessness of the Democratic party, my faith in the judicial and political process is running low. If the NJSC rules against the democrats, then some of that faith will be restored. If, however, the NJSC rules in favor of the democrats, my faith in said processes will be forever shattered. It is so disgusting to watch.

[RooRoobird14]

BOHICA, folks. I smell a RAT.......

[Coop]

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.

That simply won't happen.

[willgetsome]

Notice how nobody in the media is asking the DEMS why they let the Torch run in the first place?

[mwl1]

No one will pull the lever for Torch, even if he promises to resign. People don't trust him.

And McGreedy is taking some significant hits on this too.

[gridlock]

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.

I don't think it would work out that way. If the Torch resigns the Senate within 30 days, that does not effect his standing on the ballot. If Plan A has already failed, the voters still have a choice between Torricelli and Forrester in November. There is no requirement that at least one candidate be a member of the Senate.

There is no harm done to the placeholder because he does not have the opportunity to campaign for a year. He is, after all, a placeholder. He has no standing in the issue of whether or not the November election can proceed.

Now if you really want to get twisted, imagine that the Torch quits next week, is replaced by a 'Rat loyalist, and the November election goes off as scheduled. Would the 'Rat majority in the Senate dare to refuse to seat Forrester citing some BS reading of the NJ law? Could the 'Rat's possibly have that little respect for the rule of law? Have they no shame?

^{(Answers: Of course they would, Of course can, Of course they don't )}

[OC_Steve]

Hey, maybe we should use this standard in California. With Simon now trailing Davis, maybe we should change the ballots and run Schwartzenegger.

[Northeast]

But, New Jersey Voters Deserve a Choice!

Regards

[mystery-ak]

....you must remember that Rats are not moral people....laws mean nothing to them.

[Hugin]

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

Yes and no. They are required to elect a senator for a six year term. States however do have the right to determine the exact rules of the election. But if they did something that violated the constitution (like postponing the election and allowing the Governor to appoint an interum Senator) then the federal courts could overrule them.

[Notforprophet]

I heard him say SCOTUS as well... he could have misspoken, or he could have made a Freudian slip.

[nyc.flip.conservative]

SCOTUS may take jurisdiction of the case based on Equal Protection Grounds, if for example, absentee and/or military ballots were printed, mailed and cast for Forrester or other candidates but were rejected by NJ election clerks because of the validity of a replacement ballot.

A quick look at the partisan affiliation of the judges would suggest that the RATS may not be able to steal this one like in Florida's SCOFLA. Of the 7 justices on the NJ Supreme Court, 2 were appointed by Republican Tom Kean and 5 were appointed by Republican Christie Whitman. See the website address below for the backgrounds of the justices.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/supreme/index.htm

[Dianna]

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.

No, he ran unopposed at the primary.

[spokeshave]

So if it goes against the rats in NY will they take it to the Supreme Court of US.....?

[FourtySeven]

....you must remember that Rats are not moral people....laws mean nothing to them.

Very true. But I must admit I still become sickened when confronted with some of their more flagrant disreguard for morality. This is one of those times.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Bradley has already said he wants no part of this.

[willgetsome]

I wish you wrote for a NJ paper or the NYT.

[cincinnati65]

I don't understand the basis for the review (beyond party politics). First, the law clearly states that should a candidate step down from the ballot and a substitute provided, that it must be done no less than 51 days before the election -- period. The point of law that the Dem's are holding onto is one of when an elected official vacates office. Torch hasn't done that! Further, his decision to step down from the ballot, was his, VOLUNTARILY. There is no condition that precludes him from running for Senate; he just isn't going to do it.

Any "fair minded" court would be required to enforce the clearly written existing law, and not spend countless hours dissecting it for a loophole. The decision will define the NJ Supreme Court as to its fair mindedness.

The one instance where a replacement was allowed was a case where: a) the candidate was found guilty of a crime and was therefore, unable to serve in the office by law, and b) a case where the ballots were clearly proven not to have been printed yet. Neither condition fits here.