Ex-Senator (Lautenberg) to Replace Torricelli

AP via Yahoo ^ | 10/01/02 | JOHN P. McALPIN

[Miss Marple]

I agree with section 9. I think if we lose this court case, Forrester will not go to the USSC. I think instead he will run against Lautenberg, and he will WIN. Lautenberg can't debate him, it was obvious this evening.

Also, I think the Rats were counting on this going to the USSC, and were planning on using that as an attack on Forrester and also on other Republican Senate candidates, as well as JEB BUSH.

Forrester seemed very calm and on message this evening, and I think he has an excellent chance, especially with Lautenberg being so old. Also, I have a friend from NJ who says the prescription drug thing is a non-issue in NJ, because there is a special state fund paid for by the casinos.

[freebilly]

They have just picked a candidate for U.S. Senate BEHIND CLOSED DOORS and without the will of the people of the State of New Jersey

The Democrat Party needs to be busted as a criminal organization under the RICO laws....

[Torie]

Jersey loves the drug companies. Most folks work for them. LOL.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

McGreedy is saying Lousenberg is the person New Jersey wants to be the Senator. Lousenberg is talking now. Does Forrester get any equal time here?

MILLIONS in free press coverage, just for having a scoundrel flunk out of the race. Unbelievable. And to your questyion about equal time: The concept of "fairness" only applies to the dims. Don't you have a copy of the rule book?

[MHGinTN]

Putting Lousenberg on a special ballot is one thing, replacing Toricelli's name on the general ballot in contravention to the existing legislature written law is quite another. But hey, the democraps believe the high courts should have the right to remake any law the way they want it to be, abrogating the separation of powers. Just remember the 2000 criminal Florida SC for proof!

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

This is a direct threat to our constitution and the laws these bastards swore to uphold.

This is no holds barred full contact martial arts. And they dot care about the rule of law. Only about power.

[Smedley]

I have posted it before, but here is my brief as a Dem. If Torch resigns by next Monday, there must be a special election to coincide with the general election for his replacement to serve the balance of his term until next January.

Respectfully, a special election is not feasable as it takes months to coordinate everything from primaries to determining ballots to sending absentee ballots ... by the time a special election were held, it would be April if you started today.

Lautenberg will be on the ballot for that of course. Thus there will be two elections at once. One for the balance of the term, and one for the next term.

Respectfully, even if this were possible, there is no foundation in the law for this. The appropriate remedy would by for the NJ governor to appoint a senator to replace the Torch if the Torch resigned -- and I doubt that will happen.

Since all the ballots will have to be reprinted anyway, and since Lautenberg's name will appear in one election, is this not a special circumstance dictating that his name be on the ballot in the other?

If you reprint the ballots, you'll have to send the ballots out soon enough for all the absentee voters to receive and respond to them. Unlikely in the time frame left.

You are on the NJSC, and are fair minded. How do you rule?

I'd rule to follow the law, rather than make up new law to favor a particular political party whose problems are their own making. Had the Dems ouswted Torricelli when this garbage first came out, rather than give him a slap on the wrist for committing multiple felonies, then this whole problem would never have arisen.

By the way, if you think the Dems haven't thought about this line of argument, then you must think they are as stupid as plywood.

I don't think the Dems in congress are stupid at all. I think that they are scumbags.

They don't get their advice from brain dead talking heads on the tube.

No, they get it from "meathead" Rob Reiner and Barbra Streisand.

They get their advice from lawyers from Harvard law school that charge $400 an hour in D.C. And I am just a beat up old provincial lawyer in the boonies and I thought of it rather quickly.

I'm only a $300/hr lawyer from D.C., and I thought up just as many defenses in both law and equity rather quickly.

[LenS]

The court that would judge any federal case on violations of federal law in letting Lautenberg onto the ballot would be the same Third Circuit.

Since the NJ Supreme Court has chosen to step in, the only court that can review their decision is the USSC. So the 3rd Circuit can't step in there.

[Miss Marple]

That's what I thought! Plus the casinos pay for poor old folks drugs!

I actually think this is going to work to our advantage. I was very impressed with Forrester, who kept talking about national security and getting money back to NJ. Seems like he could use these same issues with Lautenberg, who is apparently not as sharp as he was a few years ago. (And who, I read, defeated Millicent Fenwick by claiming that she was TOO OLD to serve, when she was in her 60's!!)

[lewislynn]

the severity of her illness will be determined after doctors review the weekend polling data

LOL!

[GOPcapitalist]

Linda Chavez said on Sean Hannity that of course it is a done deal. She said there is no way that Torricelli would have withdrawn unless they knew they would get a favorable ruling from the NJSC. She also said the SCOTUS will not take the case. This is a state issue.

That's certainly a scenario out there. I was involved in a discussion of this over dinner and the issue was raised of another possibility.

It may be a last ditch shot in the dark by the Dems. It's certainly possible that they realized Toricelli was unelectable and certain to go down in November. That would mean they have nothing to lose so they took a shot in the dark in hopes of having a slight chance at hitting something.

The big question IMHO is why Toricelli waited to withdraw. He apparently could have done so only two weeks ago without any legal controversy, yet he waited. Things changed for the worse against him since then, but I don't see how Toricelli could not have expected it. It seems like the only logical thing is that the Dems saw a situation go from bad to hopeless. Therefore they tried a drastic manuever with slim, albeit better, chances to do something.

[Howlin]

I've run out of "descriptors" for this power grab.

[michaelt]

I appreciate the prompt reply. Has there ever been a special election held for Senator? Even if it was coincident with the general election?

I've gotta go to bed. My eyes are tired, and they need rest for the many threads tomorrow will bring. I'll look for all the answers tomorrow.

[Torie]

There is a specific statute requiring such an election when an incumbent resigns 30 days or more prior to a general election. An election for his replacement for the balance of his term must be scheduled coincident with the next general election. The statute has posted here on FR many times.

[nopardons]

You're correct ; as usual. His age should be used against Lautenberg, as should his big tax & spend proclivaties.

[marajade]

You got me? I would think it much more fun to do it behind closed doors with a whiskey in my hand and a cigar in my mouth...

[Torie]

By the way do only $400 per hour DC lawyers read the statutes, and not $300 per hour ones? Sorry, I couldn't resist. I just have become interested in this food fight, and when I get interested, I get lean, and mean, and tough. Don't take it personally. It was just a rhetorical fight of fancy.

[CharacterCounts]

I believe you are correct. The governor can call a special election, buy he still must follow the statutory election procedure, including a primary if the satute calls for it. It would take months to set up.

If T resigned today, The governor could appoint someone to fill the remainder of the current term. This would not automatically put him on the ballot for the upcoming term.

[Torie]

The statute is crystal clear on this point.