What's wrong with the NJ Court decision? - Vanity

me | 10-02-02 | Teacher317

[Teacher317]

Let's list all of the people who have been harmed by this horrible decision:

• NJ Democrat primary voters have lost the right to have their choice as the printed name on the ballot, as they worked so hard to do
• Forrester has lost millions in campaign donations running against the candidate he had every legal right to expect to oppose
• GOP donors have lost their chance to donate for a run against Lautenberg
• the GOP donors whose funds to run against the Torch have been unnecessarily wasted
• the overseas voters whose already-cast ballots have just been invalidated
• the Democrat donors who have just had $800,000 of their donations taken to be used in a way that they could not have foreseen, and probably do not support
• the hundreds of candidates who cannot enter into the races where some candidate is unopposed, as this court has just allowed Lautenberg to do
• the legislature of NJ whose bright-line rules have just been ignored so that an election can be unjustly set-up
• Third-party candidates who will not get the same treatment, since this was decided to "preserve" some 'two-party system' that SCONJ is trying to enforce, but doesn't actually exist.

Now let's list all of the illogical, illegal, and unfounded parts of this decision:

• the court ruled that this decision was made to block the "preventing of a name from being added" to a ballot that wasn't blank! Torricelli's name IS on it, legally, and cannot be erased... legally.
• the court ruled that this decision was meant was to preserve the two-party system, even though this very race has candidates from 5 parties!
• The court has decided that the legislatively set limit of 51 days is arbitrary, yet they are setting their own new arbitrary limit
• two of the Justices voting on this have donated to Torricelli's campaigns in the past, and one of those two has also donated to Lautenberg... yet they did not even mention the possibility of recusing themselves!!

[Teacher317]

Anything else that I'm forgetting? I welcome any additions, advice, and comments!

[ChadGore]

Bing

[Unknown Freeper]

That's bada bing. lol

[Registered]

Well done.

[syriacus]

i think you hit everything I could think of, and more. Nice list.

[Cicero]

Like the clinton impeachment trial, simply to ignore what the law says in such blatant fashion undermines the rule of law itself. Without law, you have chaos and tyranny by whoever is strongest.

[jwalsh07]

Here is the opinion by the corrupt Supreme Court of New Jersey

Law means nothing to a corrrupt court in a corrupt state run by a corrupt party. Anybody who ever votes for a democrat in any election should have his head examined.

[Political Junkie Too]

The court is basically saying that landslide victories are to be avoided and only close races should occur.

-PJ

[El Sordo]

That seems to cover it well.

Not that it will matter.

The whole idea behind Liberal philosophy is to get what you want. Whatever is takes for them to get what they want will be justified, because that was the way for them to get what they wanted.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Hugh Hewitt read a heartbreaking e-mail he received today from a military chaplain who was furious at the NJ decision for his troops who were risking their lives and were once again betrayed by corrupt Democratic cowards back home.

[MHGinTN]

John, what was the vote, a split, or unanimous?

[CharacterCounts]

The court is basically saying that landslide victories are to be avoided and only close races should occur.

Let me correct your statement if I may.

The court is basically saying that victories by Republicans are to be avoided and only close races where the Democrat wins should occur.

[Utah Girl]

The vote was unanimous.

[brityank]

One item I have not been able to find:
Who ran against torricelli in the Dem Primary? Have they been served by this miscarriage of justice?

[Teacher317]

Ping for commentary or additions?

[Utopia]

Here's a thought that's been bugging me. The Torch as much admitted that he's not going to win. How did the Dems determine that? By a poll of course. How big was the poll sample? In other words a poll sample on a day other than election day seems to be more important than election day itself. Polls can be wrong. Doesn't anybody remember "DEWEY WINS!" ?

[Teacher317]

He ran unopposed in the primary, IIRC.

[Teacher317]

A-ha! There's another irregularity I'd forgotten: SCONJ had its clerks and operators taking phone calls to "get public opinion" about the situation... refusing to call it a poll once several FReepers mentioned how unjustifiable it was to take a poll to aid in a judicial decision.

[PJ-Comix]

Third-party candidates who will not get the same treatment, since this was decided to "preserve" some 'two-party system' that SCONJ is trying to enforce, but doesn't actually exist.

Good point. There is a Green Party Candidate running for the Senate from NJ. If he had been the one who withdrew from the race due to unpopularity, what are the chances that the NJ Supreme Court would have placed ANOTHER Green Candidate on the ballot? I suspect the chances would be somewhere between Nil and None. And yet, ALL are supposed to be EQUAL under the law.

[CharacterCounts]

Now let's list all of the illogical, illegal, and unfounded parts of this decision:

The rule of statutory construction, supposedly followed by all courts and actuall followed by most; that the court should not attempt to modify a statute and should only set a statute aside if it is unconstitutional or so vague that it meaning can not be construed from its content.