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

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

[Roscoe]

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

And he's been getting plenty of free face time to pitch his victim status to a sympathetic media.

[linn37]

its a shame and if the courts allow it there will be a precedence for other candidates to do it too.

[cinFLA]

1) Run a "trojan horse" candidate

He was not a trojan horse. They thought the Torch would win.

[willgetsome]

Doesn't matter!

All it takes is a ruling by the NJSC with some cr@p about protecting the rights of voters to have "honest" choices on the ballot. You know, some superficial mortalistic cr@p that leaves out the real moral bankruptcy of the entire con job being played here.

[nyc.flip.conservative]

You meant NJ... but if they lose in NJ and appeal to SCOTUS, we would have a better chance with the impartiality and competence of SCOTUS in view of the 2000 election.

[Ditto]

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."

Aside from the Democrat and Republican candidates, there are also a Green, a Socialist, a Libertarian and a Conservative party candidate for the NJ senate seat on the ballot. Even without the 'Torch" the people of New Jersey have 5 other opportunities to 'speak.' He was only one of six.

See New Jersey Division of Elections

[spokeshave]

Sorry meant NJ...need coffee...fingers locked....

[Oldeconomybuyer]

The Torch did NOT have a primary opponent. NJ dem's and the DNC considered this a "safe seat".

[willgetsome]

Agreed, but my point is that this will become an election strategy if the NJSC sets this as case law. Can't you see what could happen?

1) A "trojan horse" candidate makes personal attacks against his opponent and forces his opponent to spend lots of money defending himself.
2) The "trojan horse" candidate bows out just before the election (after the legal deadlines have passed because NJ case law says they are irrelevent).
3) The "real" candidate takes up the reins and destroys his exhausted opponent in the final days with new money and new blood.

[bert]

....Angelo Genova, a lawyer for state Democrats.....

Perhaps the law can triumph over the Rats, but what chance does it have against the Mob?

The DemocRatic Party is a criminal enterprise.

[jpl]

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.

I don't know much about the N.J. state constitution, but if it's like most state constitutions, there is probably a basic Separation of Powers doctrine. The NJSC could decide to flagrantly violate the Separation of Powers and simply ignore the state law, like SCOFLA did. The USSC of course has already demonstrated that they take a dim view of this sort of behavior, and will smack them down so fast their heads will spin.

The only alternative I see is for the NJSC to try and rule that the passed law is unconstitutional, but if they do this, they will have to come up with some good legal justification to do so. Frankly, I don't see that surviving on appeal either.

[bert]

.....They do not want to be overturned by US Supremes....

What standing does the SCOTUS have in the matter. Is not conducting primary elections relegated to the states? Does the US Constitution mention primaries and related housekeeping?

[cincinnati65]

But, I'm curious as to which shred of NJ law they will use as the foundation for such a ruling. Courts don't have complete control in making these decisions. There has to be some foundation, no matter how weak. The law is so clearly written on this particular point that I find it hard to believe that anyone could find a way to sufficiently weaken it to the point that it is disregarded.

Personally, I believe the Torch will run, do any and everything to get elected, then resign and allow for an appointment. Looking at it, if the SCONJ was to uphold the law, then Torch could recant his decision not to run on the basis of "I will do whatever it takes to keep the Republicans from regaining the Senate."

[Physicist]

"I'm in a debate with a faceless foe that I cannot find,

Try the mirror, Torch.

[desertcry]

The LAW never stopped the democrats from doing unlawfull acts. The clintons, harken, mcdermott, teddy kennedy... have shown this time after time.

[willgetsome]

Yes, we thought that the rule of law would require the SCOFL to uphold the law...oh, but how we were fooled. I think it comes down to intepretation of the law. The Liberals think that the laws are subject to very "loose" interpretations and that its up to judges to "do right" for the people. Of course, "doing right" for the people is very subjective.

[BreitbartSentMe]

Do we know who will be arguing before the NJ Supreme Court for the Repubs??

[Pres Raygun]

The RATS have several options here. The first is to petition the NJSC to add a new RAT candidatate to the ballot. If this fails they can start a write in campaign. If Lautenberg is the candidate a write in campaign is unlikely to succeed due to the difficulty RATS will have in spelling his name correctly. The last alternative which I fear is their real goal is to leave the Torch on the ballot with the promise that he will resign upon winning the election so that the governor can then appoint a RAT to fill the seat. This is essentially the Carnahan scenario, which proved effective two years ago. And the RATS will widely hint that the replacement will be none other than the anitchrist himself (WJC).

[Yankee]

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

What do you mean by this?

I took him to mean in this sense:

b : IGNORANT ; also : UNAWARE

Not innocent as in "free from guilt".

We lost that innocence of the Democrat's mendacity, as a result of the battle following the 2000 Presidential Election.

[bert]

We need a Florida perspective on this thread.....

Has the Florida Supreme court suffered since its theft of the election for Gore? Should the Jersy justices have any fears?