Battle for the US senate. Repeat of 2000 fiasco? NJ SC to intervene.

[Lincoln]

Where do they get the precedent for the "two party" thing?

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by rah

51 days is not unreasonable. Think of those sailors on Subs at sea. It might take awhile to get them ballots and get them back.

Hey we can have a diver, dive down to the Sub. Of course he would have to go more than a hundred feet to reach the Sub.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Lincoln, apparently:

Kilmurray v. Gilfert, 10 N.J. 435, 441 (1952)

Unfortunetly, I don't have it in front of me .

[Lincoln]

That should make people like Che happy, I mean the two party system and all.

[Swissy]

This should be interesting now. Lautenburg was not the NJ Dems first choice, more like the fourth. And it isn't like Lautenburg doesn't come with some excess bagage. Lautenburg didn't run after he got that ammendment tacked on to the gun control act, the one that makes it a Federal crime to have a gun if you have been convicted of a domestic violence misdermeanor. There is no official uses exemption (law enforcement and military). I don't expect him to get the NJ Policemen assoc endorsement anytime soon.

[Jon Miller]

I don't care about the primary voters being disenfranchised

that is between them and the democratic leadership

I do see a problem with some ballots already being mailed out

there goes a good chance for a third party though (if Torch would withdraw and so the dems would vote for a third party)

Jon Miller

[DanS]

This seems like a good outcome for the voters--they will get to make a choice. No injustice is done in that.

And don't underestimate Forrester. If I were him, I would drop the appeal. Say some appropriately high-minded stuff (good practice for being a senator ), and collect the Senate seat. Edit: It looks like he's making the mistake of ratcheting up the rhetoric, from some quotes attributed to him.

"Shouldn't that be something for the legislature to decide? I don't particularly like courts making laws, even though according to our common law tradition they have."

They did decide. They put rules in place to have an orderly and fair election. The justices apparently decided that their intent was not harmed in this instance.

[Roland]

"And the Court being of the view that [it] is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system..."



You made that up. Satire. Has to be satire. Even a US court can't be that silly.

Or ?

[The Mad Monk]

I have no doubt that the election laws are set up to preserve the two-party system.

I also have no doubt that that has nothing to do with the constitutionality of those laws.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Roland
"And the Court being of the view that [it] is in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two-party system..."



You made that up. Satire. Has to be satire. Even a US court can't be that silly.

Or ?

What are you talking about? We have some of the best courts that money can buy!

Anyway I agree with Dan. It is a mistake for the Pubs to fight this in the federal courts (except as a matter or overturning this precident in the future). This present situation should be allowed to stand as it is. Let the best (or richest) man win!

If anyone heard the oral arguments I think that they would agree that the best arguments came form the 3rd party candidates. Of course their voices are drowned out in the struggle for power by the two major parties. The courts are corrupt, pure and simple. People are supposed to run for office, not parties. The Green candidate said something quite true: "What if we were the ones fighting to change candidates at this late date, would we be heard by this court?" The answer is of course, no, they are not Democrats or Republicans...

[Lincoln]

dp

[Roland]

"We have some of the best courts that money can buy!"

I'd expect the best not to be so blatantly corrupt (emphasis on blatantly).

[Imran Siddiqui]

He did say they were the best courts money can buy, didn't he?

[Lincoln]

It is interesting that the Democratic party confidently announced their new candidate before this was even heard by the court even though it was in obvious contradiction to the present law.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
He did say they were the best courts money can buy, didn't he?

Roland's too bitter now to appreciate sarcasm.