New Jersey Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Dems Replacing 'Torch' on Ballot

Fox News ^ | October 2, 2002 | Eric Shawn and Carl Cameron and The Associated Press

[afuturegovernor]

TRENTON, N.J.

[Unknown Freeper]

Uh... This was breaking two hours ago....

[Libloather]

Did the court mention the law - just ONCE?

[bybybill]

This is not a totally bad thing. It should modivate the Republicans big time. And not just in NJ.

[sam_paine]

Yes. They mentioned the law. They said it should be interpreted "liberally." No kidding.

We need to get off the bench and quit whining and play ball.

[afuturegovernor]

Uh... This was breaking two hours ago....

Fox News has added to infomation to the story about Republicans' new suit in the US District Court.

[ffrancone]

WANT TO TAKE BACK THE SENATE??

WANT TO SHOCK HILLARY?

THEN DO YOUR PART TODAY! GO TO:

TakeBackCongress.org

A resource for conservatives who want a Republican majority in the Senate

[SwinneySwitch]

Meanwhile on Wednesday, Democrats planned Lautenberg's campaign and negotiated the transfer of funds and operations from Torricelli's
operation.

Wouln't they be open to being sued by contributors to the Torch who don't like Lautenberg or just want their money back!

Say1 I remember giving Bob a thousand in small unmarked bills! or what ever the maximum legal contribution is!

[TheEngineer]

"It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups," the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

"To preserve the two-party system"? I know that we have a two-party system today as a matter of circumstance. But I never thought it was written into law anywhere. Perhaps these judges should remove the libertarian candidate from the ballot to "preserve the two-party system".

I thought judges were supposed to be some sort of educated legal scholars. No dice. These are just a bunch of democratic party hacks wearing black robes. And I thought the Florida Supreme Court was the stupidest bunch of judges ever assembled...

[bmwcyle]

[Puppage]

Doug Forrester will have to face a vibrant opponent

As opposed to a lying, cheating, scumbag who was get'n his head handed to him in the polls by the fine poeple of NJ? Yeah, THAT's nice.

[Pylot]

"It is in the public interest and the general interest of the election laws to preserve the two-party system and to submit to the electorate ballot bearing the names of candidates of both major political parties as well as of all qualifying parties and groups," the court ruled in a unanimous decision.

This is the precise reason that the Court should have mandated the retention of the Torch on the ballot.

The People of the State of New Jersey put him there. They are the ones who decided with their vote in a Primary which the Torch won.

To remove the Torch is to usurp the process the People of the State of New Jersey put in place. The Court has disenfrachised every Democrat Primary Voter in one fell swoop. The Court has subverted the will of the people for political interest.

First we had the Supreme Court of Florida making horses patoots out of them selves, now we have the Supreme Court of New Jersey going Florida one better.

The Supreme Court of the US will blow this one away in the same communist/conservative line vote that occured in Florida and then we will have the potential for dimocrats crying an illegitimate Senate and Presidency!

[billhilly]

"Uh... This was breaking two hours ago...."

Thanks, Einstein.

[Salvation]

Shouldn't that be the NJ Soprano Court?

[lexington minuteman 1775]

Not sure SCOTUS will take the case.Obviously in 2000 it was a presidential election, but this is simply a Senate race.Any legal beagles out there care to wiegh in on whether the Supreme Court will hear this case? The thing that really showed thier hand was that TWO members of the NJSC gave money to the Torecelli campaign.They should have recused themselves, but of course they didn't proving once again a conflict of intrest is only in the minds of what IS IS!!

[Always Right]

Not sure SCOTUS will take the case.Obviously in 2000 it was a presidential election, but this is simply a Senate race.Any legal beagles out there care to wiegh in on whether the Supreme Court will hear this case?

There were too many flagerant violations of federal law for the SCOTUS not review the Florida case. Look at 2 USC covering the elections of Senators and Representatives. There is not much there to rule on. 3 USC which covers the Presidential election, offered several rules (like states can not change there rules after the election) which gave solid grounds for an appeal. The Florida case was a slam dunk.

[Paleo Conservative]

I sure hope Torch is responsible for the RATS losing the Senate and boosting Republican turnout across the country to elect marginal Republican senate candidates in states across the country.

[VRW Conspirator]

Nice cartoon. Says it all.

[TheEngineer]

Seems like the judges failed to treat Doug Forrester with any consideration here. It was all about "preserving the two-party system" (to them, this really means "preserving the democratic party system").

What about all of the time and money which Forrester spent campaigning specifically against the Torch? Defining his opponent was a major (and valid) part of his campaign. Now, it is easy to make the case that he does not have sufficient funds to campaign against and define his new opponent, Lautenberg. Next week, who knows who his opponent will be?

From a purely financial perspective, this is a screw-job against Forrester. Now, the dems are talking about giving Torch's money to Lautenberg? Seems that Forrester should be reimbursed first for his campaign against the Torch. And the money should come straight from Torch's "war chest".

[Paleo Conservative]

Not sure SCOTUS will take the case. Obviously in 2000 it was a presidential election, but this is simply a Senate race.

Abslutely Wrong!

This is an election to the US Senate not the state Senate. The requirements, method of election, and length of term of US Senators is specified in the United States Constitution. Not only is this a federal issue, it is one of the most important issues that can come in front of a federal court. The legislative branch of the federal government is a co-equal branch to the executive and judicial branches. If the state laws and procedures for electing electors to the Electoral College are grounds for filing lawsuits in federal court, surely the election laws and procedures for electing US senators and representatives are also grounds for filing lawsuits in federal court.