NJ flushes the law

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Kieran
Yup, HMc. This "we're just looking out for the voter" nonsense is simply that. And yeah, I do think it is a terrible precedent.

LOL! Kieran, my guess is that if the roles were reversed, you'd be whining about the 'anti-Republican' forces at work because the Republicans would not be able to allow a candidate to be put on the ballot after the deadline of a bad law. It is a good precedent. I would be saying the exact same thing if it were the Republicans in the Democrat's situation. You still think we're a banana republic? SHEESH!

Chill out. THE SKY IS NOT FALLING! Move on and get over it.

[Kieran]

My guess is you'll never know. I never said anything about "Anti-Republican forces" (I'll leave the "vast right-wing conspiracy" comments to a certain ex-first lady). I am not even really criticizing the court- though some of you have suggested that. I am pointing out the apparent trend of the Democratic party to exploit the legal system to overtturn election events that they themselves cannot do within traditional election procedure.

You don't find it odd that twice in the last two national elections the Democrats have run whining to the state supreme courts to gain exceptions to existing laws?

Oops, forgot to add "we are a banana republic".

[Erlkonig]

So does everyone agree that if Torricelli could not be replaced, the only fair and consistent thing to do would be to remove Forrester from the ballot as well (see the story in my last post)?  

It bears worth repeating the following:

The Democrats did nothing illegal.

The NJ Supreme Court did its job, clarifying the ambiguity the the law in question, based on precedent and intent of the law.  This is all within the system of law.

If this is an "exploitation" of the legal system, then I don't know why it even exists.

Since it has so far been a matter of state law, all these fitful calls of banana republics aren't even coherent.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
It bears worth repeating the following:

The Democrats did nothing illegal.

which one?
the one so crooked he had to resign?

or the group of handsomehunkcrats which twisted the law to plug a hole caused by the one so crooked he had to resign?

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
So does everyone agree that if Torricelli could not be replaced, the only fair and consistent thing to do would be to remove Forrester from the ballot as well (see the story in my last post)?

 

Where does that come from?  Forrester had his name on the ballot in time for printing and absentee ballot mailings.

The NJ Supreme Court did its job, clarifying the ambiguity the the law in question, based on precedent and intent of the law.  This is all within the system of law.

What's ambiguous about  something like "Nominees must be registered with the board of elections 51 days prior to election day"?

[CavemanJ]

Dinnae if we're at the banana republic stage yet, but the precedent set by this one gives me the willies.

Why was the deadline set at 51days before the election when that law was written?  Surely there's a good reason for it.

I see Elkornig quoting an article about how time pressed they're gonna be to get the ballots changed and sent out to the military/overseas folks.  Like the Dems care one whit about that, they'd probably rather not have the absentee votes counted at all.  Least the court ordered the Dems to fork over the dough to cover thier changes, estimated at $800,000. (found in same article Elkornig linked).

See several folks rambling on and on about "you don't like it when the table is turned do you?" in reference to the presidential elections.  Someone refresh my memory on this point (cause I know how I think it went, but to be fair... ) who ran to the courts first, and why, in that fiasco?  Way I remember the end of that mess it was Bush's people basically asking the courts to say 'enough is enough, you've had yer recounts and bent the law enough'.  Seems to me in both these instances it's been the Dems runnin for the courtroom to get the laws changed, and the Reps right behind'em fighting to have the laws stand (and try to steal the win in the case of the pres elections).

/shrug

Country's goin to hell in a handbasket that's in a wagon pulled by a donkey.

[Wotan]

read what erl quoted above, hell ill quote it again because you obviously missed it

Mr. Genova [Democrat Party lawyer] also uncovered a legal memorandum from Mr. Forrester's lawyer written in April, when State Senator Diane Allen, one of Mr. Forrester's opponents in the Republican primary, was trying to block him from taking the ballot position of James W. Treffinger. Mr. Treffinger, the Essex County executive, had resigned from the race because of scandal three days earlier, or 40 days before the primary.

Senator Allen maintained that moving Mr. Forrester's name to Mr. Treffinger's place on the ballot would come too late under Title 19 of the state election law, which sets a deadline of 51 days before an election for ballot substitutions. It is the same argument that Mr. Forrester's lawyer, Peter G. Sheridan, made before the State Supreme Court on Wednesday, opposing Mr. Lautenberg's placement on the ballot. The Democrats said that the deadline was merely a guideline.

In April, Mr. Sheridan read the law the way the Democrats do today.

"Strict compliance to statutory requirements and deadlines within Title 19," Mr. Sheridan wrote, "are set aside where such rights may be accommodated without significantly impinging upon the election process."

[Kieran]

Erlkonig-

Please point to where I suggested any laws were broken.

I have kept my points brief and pointed- the Dems are developing a nasty habit of running to court to overturn election prodedures in place. As much as you'd like to say it isn't so, or bring in some ridiculous analogy about removing a Republican candidate that didn't drop out of the race of his own accord, the fact remains there is a law the Dems successfully argued around in court. Legal- yes. Going around the intent of the law- yes.

[Eagler]

I really like when they call a "law" a "guideline"

think we can do that when we get pulled over for our next traffic ticket?


how about next april, I'll just take that tax "guideline" and send the IRS what I feel like sending them

[Erlkonig]

Perhaps you would like to explain how the Democrats were going around the intent of the law, when the NJ Court - the final arbiter of such matters - decides they were well within such bounds?  I simply cannot understand how you can claim that the Democrats subverted the law without disagreeing with the NJ Court, something you seem hesitant to do.

Rediculous analogy? Replace Torricelli with Treffinger, Lautenberg with Forrester, October with April and you have the exact same scenario.  Analogous would be an understatment.  It's the same 51 day deadline!  

CavemanJ - since this has been a matter of state law there is no legal precedent set outside NJ.

[Holden McGroin]

I was just thinking that after the first two games, it was pretty obvious that the Cardinals were going to beat the Arizona Diamondbacks, so MLB should have replaced Arizona with the Dodgers, and start the series over.  Its only fair.

[Erlkonig]

Holden, isn't it a bit silly to claim non-ambiguity when you don't even know the exact wording?

[john9001]

the Supreme Courts do not alway rule correctly (IE dredd scott decision) they are only people , not gods.

[Holden McGroin]

I guess maybe it says kinda sorta 51 days.

[Kieran]

Banana republic.