Author Topic: NJ flushes the law (Read 2037 times)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #90 on:** October 06, 2002, 08:24:07 PM »

Quote

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

I was taking an educated guess: Mea culpa

Here is the law that I think applies, after an hour of law reading:

19:13-19. Nomination of successor
If the candidate vacating the nomination was nominated directly by petition his successor shall be nominated in the same manner by direct petition, which new petition of nomination must be filed with the Secretary of State or county clerk, as the case may require, not later than 54 days before the day of election whereas such candidate is to be voted for.

Your right! ambiguous as hell!

And the law does end in a preposition.

Erlkonig · « **Reply #91 on:** October 06, 2002, 08:58:16 PM »

Thanks for digging that up.

So you agree that Forrester should not be allowed on the ballot?

ra · « **Reply #92 on:** October 06, 2002, 09:04:48 PM »

<<>>

The Supreme Court wrote our abortion laws. Penumbras and all that.

ra

CavemanJ · « **Reply #93 on:** October 06, 2002, 09:18:26 PM »

Quote

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

Erl I was referring to the precedent this incident has set, not saying there had already been a similar case that set a precedent.

dfl8rms · « **Reply #94 on:** October 07, 2002, 09:31:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Erlkonig
So you agree that Forrester should not be allowed on the ballot?

I haven't researched your previous quote, but it appears that Forrester was already on the ballot and wished to have his name moved to a more favorable position on the ballot. (At least that's what I got out of what you quoted). That is entirely different than not having your name on the ballot, not being registered for the election prior to 51 or 54 days.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #95 on:** October 07, 2002, 11:15:25 AM »

yeah... Forrester did not pull out in discrace, why should he be removed? Or do you want[/b] the socialist candidate to be elected?

midnight Target · « **Reply #96 on:** October 07, 2002, 11:27:10 AM »

Whether Forrester was on the ballot or not is irrelevent!

The point is that he or his lawyers used the same exception to the same law and got the same ruling. You guys really need to read before you post.

Sabre · « **Reply #97 on:** October 07, 2002, 11:29:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by dfl8rms

I haven't researched your previous quote, but it appears that Forrester was already on the ballot and wished to have his name moved to a more favorable position on the ballot. (At least that's what I got out of what you quoted). That is entirely different than not having your name on the ballot, not being registered for the election prior to 51 or 54 days.

Man, talk about using something out of context! I kind of thought there was something fishy about Erlkonig's post. I went back also and researched some. It appears that Forrester was not a last minute addition to the primary election ballet, as Erlkonig's post would imply.

Mighty1 · « **Reply #98 on:** October 07, 2002, 01:06:01 PM »

Erlkonig wrote:

Quote

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.

Erlkonig I seem to remember people saying the same thing about the FSC and yet THEY weren't last word either.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #99 on:** October 07, 2002, 01:29:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Whether Forrester was on the ballot or not is irrelevent!

The point is that he or his lawyers used the same exception to the same law and got the same ruling. You guys really need to read before you post.

19:13-19. Nomination of successor
If the candidate vacating the nomination was nominated directly by petition his successor shall be nominated in the same manner by direct petition, which new petition of nomination must be filed with the Secretary of State or county clerk, as the case may require, not later than 54 days before the day of election whereas such candidate is to be voted for.

Forrester was on the ballot, he was not a sucessor, and as it was a primary, Treffinger was not a nominee.

These are quite relevant. Maybe you should reason before you post.

Erlkonig · « **Reply #100 on:** October 07, 2002, 04:29:35 PM »

You are correct, dfl8rms, the comparison is not as strong as I wanted it to be, at least concretely. However, this is a minor quibble, since the fact remains that Forrester did the exact same thing that he accuses Lautenberg of doing now (violating the statute that doesn't allow ballot substitutions after the 51 day deadline). I still think that if his primary candicacy violated election law (as would Lautenberg's non-primary) than it wouldn't be unreasonable to toss him from the ballot. I would rather see him lose in an election, though.

Holden, you ought to join Forrester's legal team! How silly that they argued exactly what the Democrats did for Torricelli's replacement. That or you could read all of Title 19. I think 19:13-20 mentions the 51 day deadline, but I can't find the text online.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #101 on:** October 07, 2002, 06:09:40 PM »

Holden is an engineer, not a lawyer. So I am not good at lying, and I prefer logic to weaseling, so I would have no chance in the courtroom.

The upper courts have ruled that the NJ SC decision stands, so by the courts decree, I am wrong and the lib's are right.

Oh yeah, and by the papal infallability of the court system, OJ didn't do it.