Posted on 10/02/2002 5:27:38 PM PDT by Teacher317
N.J. Supreme Court Order Violates Reasoning of Bush v. Gore (MUST READ) Supreme Court of the United States ^ | December 12, 2000 | Chief Justice Rehnquist The N.J. Supreme Court's decision to replace Torricelli on the ballot despite the New Jersey statute to the contrary plainly violates the reasoning of the concurring opinion (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) in Bush v. Gore. The Bush v. Gore concurring opinion held that where the Constitution entrusts election regulation to the state legislature (as was the case there and is also the case with congressional elections pursuant to the Times, Places and Manner Clause of Article I, Section 4), a state court cannot lawfully depart from the legislative scheme. These sentences best capture the heart of the concurring opinion: "[T]he text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on an independent significance. . . . [T]he clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail."
It's an open primary, right? Many people may have voted for Torch precisely because they wanted him to lose. Someone here earlier said that he voted for him in the primary for that reason. I voted (in Missouri) for Libertarians in the primary, to retain ballot access. If Torch were running here, I'd have voted for him in the primary, since that would be the best way to remove a Democrat from the office, given his general scumminess.
Some may have voted Green, because they didn't want Torch, or they're just sick of Democrat corruption. Conversely, they may have voted for another Democrat, in which case the Greens would have less votes in the primary.
It's a pity that the NJSC's "remedy" (for some imagined ill) involved nullifying the votes of those who voted for Torch to be on the ballot (for whatever reason).
Scumbags, each and every one of them. As someone else noted, they just attempted to outlaw Republican landslides.
How many laws does a Democrat break,
if a Democrat does break the law?
Now I'm the copycat.
ALL of them.
Next up after the election: The Dems file a federal lawsuit to get the $800,000 back.
Anyone currently in power in any of the three branches will lie, cheat, steal, cajole, subvert and claw tooth and nail to preserve the two party system.
The fact that with a third party in the mix, a candidate can be elected with only 34% of the total votes...scares the bajeebers out of all of them.
I happen to disagree. I think high-handed decisions like this do irreperable damage to the electoral system and destroy people's faith in representative democracy. The faith of the people in representative democracy is the one thing that keeps them from walking away from the process and relying on other means of organizing and identifying themselves.
For instance, I think the breakdown of secular democracy in India is a direct result of Indira Gandhi's "Emergency" policies of the late 1970s. Prior to that time, racial politics was an anathma on the Indian scene. After the people saw that democracy was a sham, that the fix was in and certain people would not be allowed to lose, they stopped participating in secular institutions and relied on the tried and true organizing structure of race and clan. The resulting conflagration, which we are currently witnessing unfolding is slow-motion, is a direct result of the lack of faith people have in representative democracy. If they can't get what they want with the ballot, they will get what they want with the gun, the club, and the mob.
Now, I don't suggest that this decision alone will lead to mob violence in the Garden State. But this decision, combined with the shameless activities of the Democrats in Florida 2000 and whatever stunt they will pull the next time around, will have the effect of eroding people's faith in the democratic institutions of this country. Once people begin to reflexively assume that the fix is in and that participation in the political process is meaningless, they will begin to rely on the people they trust, the people who look like them and the people who agree with them. And then the multicultural egalitarian society that has been the envy of the world will break down into camps divided by race and clan and we are one step away from the brink.
When courts mess with the process of representative democracy, they are playing with fire. But the courts don't care about that. They are just interested in the short term.
Oh absolutely. And that's what scares them. It introduces a variable into the equation. A variable that they can't control. I'm amazed that anyone is allowed to register as an Independent.
As soon as they can locate the whereabouts of Chief Justice Salvatore "Big Pussy" Bompansero
Here's the background:
I just got out of a "government agency fair" here at the law school (drumming up interest, networking, etc), and got to the Ethics Committee booth. I asked the man what he thought about NJ. He smiled, thinking I was talking about Torricelli, and said, yes, that's sort of what we do. I corrected myself, and said that I was about the SCONJ decision. I told him the judges didn't recuse themselves for giving the Torch donations, and that their decision didn't even bother mentioning any NJ law to ground their decision in.
Here's the punchline:
He doesn't point out to me that the Ethics Committee only prosecutes the Executive Branch within the state of Indiana...
he didn't say to me that they should have recused themselves...
he doesn't even say to me that they should have at least cited NJ law for the decision....
HE EXCUSES IT by saying that the same thing happened in Bush v. Gore!!! ("Well, what about the court in the last Presidential election?")
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Indiana ETHICS Committee representative Tim (somethingorother). Corruption is acceptable, as long as the other side has done it, too.
*sigh* Are we doomed yet, Ma?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.