Ex-Senator (Lautenberg) to Replace Torricelli

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

[Man of the Right]

Improves the D's odds to hold the seat, but Lautenberg's election is no a slam dunk, even in NJ. If Lautenberg had wanted to be in the Senate, clearly he would have run for, and won, re-election. Electing a 78-year-old who will rank dead last in seniority doesn't do much for NJ.

[tsomer]

"I do not think we will appeal..."

I think you're right. As usual!

[mlo]

I noticed that you omitted the latter part of the statute, which gives context to the statute as a whole.

But for the purpose of argument, I'll assume that it is perfectly okay to hold an election for the remainder of Torricelli's term, and that there are no Constitutional or statutory bars. However, we digress. The central issue is not whether a meaningless two month term is filled by election or appointment, but whether there is some justification to create a judicial exception to clear statutory language requiring 48 days to change a ballot.

I didn't omit anything, I was asking you about a particular statement. I read the rest of it. There is no context that changes the meaning of the statement I highlighted.

Yes, I think we understand what the central issues are. One step at a time please. Do you not read that statute as mandating and election to held at the next general election if he resigns more than 30 days before? The 48 days has nothing to do with it.

[goldstategop]

What the liberal law professors mean is the law can be ignored where Democrats are concerned but must be adhered to in every jot and tittle to make sure Republicans are not allowed any leeway.