Now that Torricelli's out ...

[PaulaJK]

Is it LESS 'democratic' to obey the laws of our state?

Is it less 'democratic ' to respect the votes of the Democratic

primary voters?

Is it less 'democratic' to follow what was a concept in establishing

this two phase voting progess, viz. that the public should have

time to learn about the candidate?

I think that if any wildly losing candidate can pull out as close

to the election as he wishes [whether to save face or seat] and

a 'new' or 'better' candidate can be plugged in and the war chest

rolled over, that it's really not stabilizing for a democracy. I would

feel this way regardless of party affiliation.....

However, all of that said........and printed ballots acknowledged....

I suspect that the heavily Democratic court under the Dem Gov.

will somehow get around established state law.

I would prefer to see voters write in the name [ie Lautenberg]

and keep some stability to our government.

[Kim WB]

Isn’t there a significant difference between quitting the race and resigning from the Senate?   I do not know the exact legal ramifications, but my understanding is that the Democratic Party would be in a much stronger position if Torch would have resigned from the Senate?  The fact that his opponent called on him to resign from the Senate is absolutely irrelevant to this entire discussion.    

Torch can still resign from the senate, but he seems to be his own worst enemy.

Yes, there is,and I mis spoke...mis-typed?? But it is what Forrester requested, and he knew there would be a fight.

Anyway, I enjoy this site too much to get bogged down in politics, so this will be my last comment. The most important thing is to vote...no one will change my mind about a candidate, and I suspect I'll not change anyone else's...I just hope everyone who can, votes.

[hollywood]

Isn’t there a significant difference between quitting the race and resigning from the Senate? 

Torch can still resign from the senate, but he seems to be his own worst enemy.

The longer he stays in the Senate the greater I suspect his pension benefits will be.

[hollywood]

I think that if any wildly losing candidate can pull out as close

to the election as he wishes [whether to save face or seat] and

a 'new' or 'better' candidate can be plugged in and the war chest

rolled over, that it's really not stabilizing for a democracy.  I would

feel this way regardless of party affiliation.....

Think about this one.

http://www2.uclick.com/client/nyt/ta/

[=Mark]

I'm hoping the Supreme Court does not allow a replacement for Torch, just so I can enjoy a repeat of the spectacle of the Dems screaming, pulling out hair and frothing at the mouth like in 2000.

And I'm not a republican, I just like publc spectacles...

[Rail Paul]

  I think that if any wildly losing candidate can pull out as close

to the election as he wishes [whether to save face or seat] and

a 'new' or 'better' candidate can be plugged in and the war chest

rolled over, that it's really not stabilizing for a democracy.  I would

feel this way regardless of party affiliation.....

The available war chest is definitely an issue which has changed the landscape of the whole country.

When millions of dollars flow into rural Alabama precincts for a primary election driven by the local House candidate who favors the Israeli position in the middle east versus the local elected official who has spoken favorably of the Palestinian position, you know we're in trouble.

Same problem Cyndi McKinney had in Georgia.

It took a while, but the powers that be realized a Senate seat in Maine or South Dakota is worth as many Senate votes (1) as a Senate seat from some big, expensive market state. George Bush should have realized that before he blew off Jim Jeffords....

[stefanyb]

News alert: NJ Supreme Court rules T. can be replaced

[ajay]

Hollywood, you've brought up some interesting points. As to the constitutionality of the NJ law, I don't think it is really in question. Art. I sec 4 of the Constitution delegates the time place and manner of holding elections to the state legislatures but reserves to Congress the power to alter such regulations. The 17th Amendment does not change this state of affairs.

As to the selection of the VP, Hollywood is quite correct to point out that Vice Presidents are not chosen by primary election. [indeed, to go a bit further than Hollywood, even incumbency is not an assurance that one will be renominated as Vice President. FDR went through 4 vice presidents in 4 terms.] But the office of Vice President is a special case and the XIIth Amendment provides for the selection of the VP [and the rather archaic qualification that he cannot be from the same state as the President].

Many have rightly noted that Torch has not yet resigned, and even his resignation would allow his name to be dropped from the ballot. Thus, the argument that Forrester got what he wanted is not strictly speaking accurate, but i certainley understand what you all are driving at.

I think RailPaul has done a fine job defending the principle of leaving Torch's name on the ballot. THis is a close call that requires a balancing of competing interests involved that reminds me a lot of Justice Frankfurter's (though subjectively I would rate him as a good minus justice )

Finally, I would appreciate it if sharp legal minds would consider discussing the possibility of a separate voting rights action in federal court as a way to stop the ballot switch. Are there conceivable grounds for this? Despite the Supreme Court's admonition that Bush v Gore has no precedential value, does it? Is it at all applicable here? Can the DOJ intervene in any meaningful way?

[

[hollywood]

stefanyb's right. The Dems won this round which is going to be appealed. Meanwhile as you suggested the Reps are contemplating a federal voting rights action to force NJ to keep Torrecelli on the ballot. Various arguments about absentee and overseas ballots. Seems to me though the real competing interests are the Dems wanting to have a fighting chance to maintain control of the Senate and the Reps wanting to have an opponent they can beat (hmmm...sorta like going after Saddam instead of Bin Laden??).

[Steve Plotnicki]

Here's a link to the decision. I find this to be the key part of the decision

And the Court having determined that N.J.S.A 19:13-20 does not preclude the possibility of a vacancy occurring within fifty-one days of the general election;

Dems Win

[ngatti]

A strategic blunder on the part of Forrester, perhaps?

If he had tempered his remarks to the point of keeping Torricelli in the race, I think it likely he would have won. Much less so against Senator Lautenberg IMO.

Coupla pennies

Nick

[lxt]

The whole Torricelli affair is just another example of the Republican Party doing what they do best- witch hunts. The Democrats try but can never compete in the game of character assassination.  Just like the impeachment of Clinton.  Just like what precipitated Watergate.  The sad fact is they are all a sorry lot of nasty and vicious self-interested hypocrits.

I was inclined not to get involved in the discussion of issues related to politics and established laws that should or should not be followed. However, the above statement proved once again how astray one’s beliefs can become when human dignity is disrespected and ideology overshadows the ability to distinguish between ethics and moral principles, and corruption and dishonesty brought to the public’s attention by means of a legitimate investigation.

There are currently several threads discussing the importance of a complex of rules, rituals and services that affect and maximize our experience with a restaurant aside from the essential element of food. I simply fail to understand why the same principles are not applied to other aspects of our lives including politics. It sounds like a bunch of people betting on horses. Who won and who didn’t. Despite the decline in our political leadership, I continue to believe that there is no greater country than America. However, I think that we do desperately need good, honest people in office, not poll-driven money suckers whose only interest is to build their own careers at the expense of the voters. Politics is now a job, not a service, where people will do almost anything to keep their comfort intact. Thus, the political landscape in America has become insulated and self-centered, and this situation is highly facilitated by people like us, independently of our political affiliation. Therefore, “the sad fact” is that every time you vote for or support a crook, you let not only your own principles down, but the principles of the whole establishment.

I have many friends belonging to different party affiliations whom I known for many years and whom I respect tremendously. Some of them are conservatives with whom I may or may not agree on certain issues; however, I couldn’t possibly imagine how blind I was all these years that all of them are “nasty and vicious self-interested hypocrites.”

[ahr]

Stefany, think of how ugly and offensive you might find your statement if, as many might well do, we swapped "Democrat" and "Republican," and replaced "Torricelli" with "Thomas," and "Clinton" with "Nixon." To paraphrase Plotnicki in an only slightly different context, it's fine in civilized discourse to attack ideas, but beneath contempt and dignity to resort to empty ad hominem.

By the way, I’m of libertarian bent; to me, our rulers are pretty much all a**holes.

[stefanyb]

Stefany, think of how ugly and offensive you might find your statement if, as many might well do, we swapped "Democrat" and "Republican," and replaced "Torricelli" with "Thomas," and "Clinton" with "Nixon."  To paraphrase Plotnicki in an only slightly different context, it's fine in civilized discourse to attack ideas, but beneath contempt and dignity to resort to empty ad hominem.

By the way, I’m of libertarian bent; to me, our rulers are pretty much all a**holes.

See theres where your wrong. I hardly think better of the Democrats. They're just not as able as Republicans to perpetrate such character assassinations and by Republicans I mean those in a position of power, not just the average Joe who buys into the message.

Don't ever forget that we have a president we didn't elect and who got him there.

It wasn't the voters Reps or Dems.

[ahr]

More cant, I'm afraid. I now realize that your post was just a parody. Sorry for taking it seriously.

[Helena Robinson]

Finally, I would appreciate it if sharp legal minds would consider discussing the possibility of a separate voting rights action in federal court as a way to stop the ballot switch.  Are there conceivable grounds for this?  Despite the Supreme Court's admonition that Bush v Gore has no precedential value, does it?  Is it at all applicable here?  Can the DOJ intervene in any meaningful way? 

[

I believe there's been some talk of the Republicans doing just that - taking their case to AG John Ashcroft as a possible Voting Rights Act matter. One legal analyst I heard on CNN last nite indicated that he didn't think the AG would take it, though. (But then, these "predictions" have been all over the place.)

The issue surrounding whether the US Supreme Court would even hear the case, though, is that this is a state matter; and there were no references to any Federal laws in the yesterday's decision.

Stay tuned...

[Suzanne F]

Election laws are the responsibility of the states, not the Federal govt. So we have 50 -- no, 52 including DC and PR -- differents sets. Anybody think there's any chance that there might be a push for Federal laws, or is that infringing too much on the power of the states?

[hollywood]

Here's a link to the decision. I find this to be the key part of the decision

And the Court having determined that N.J.S.A 19:13-20 does not preclude the possibility of a vacancy occurring within fifty-one days of the general election;

Dems Win

Interestingly, it's a unanimous decision.

[=Mark]

The Democrats try but can never compete in the game of character assassination.  Just like the impeachment of Clinton.

Actually I'd have to say that as a Democrat, Clinton managed to assassinate his charater quite effectively.

[=Mark]

Don't ever forget that we have a president we didn't elect and who got him there.

It wasn't the voters Reps or Dems.

The only thing that consoles me when I realize the American people were totally removed from the election process was the fact that as a result Al Gore did not become president.

[Rail Paul]

Don't ever forget that we have a president we didn't elect and who got him there.

It wasn't the voters Reps or Dems.

That's not a correct statement, StefanyB,and I'm surprised you would make that assertion.

When all of the votes in Florida were finally counted, by the team assembled by the Associated Press, and CNN, the decision was still that Bush had won.

Even including the felons in Miami-Dade who hadn't been purged, and the disputed ballots in Broward and Palm Beach, and the questioned Republican votes in Osceola, the original decision held. It was right then, and it's still right.

It is interesting to me that the recent Florida primary elections had exactly the same problems (miscounted votes, incorrectly marked votes) in many of the same Palm Beach and Broward precincts. Even with new optical machines, and fewer candidates.

Janet Reno considered an appeal to the courts that she had been robbed (I think she was, too). The Elections commissioners, Democrats all, have resigned. Some press coverage, but not much.

I think the American population has grown to accept a formerly unacceptable amount of sleaze in its political process, unfortunately.

[hollywood]

Perhaps what stefanyb meant was that no matter which Florida votes you count, Gore got more popular votes nationwide than Bush, significantly more.

[=Mark]

This may be true, but the fact is that the national presidential elections are decided by votes in the Electoral College, which are not bound to follow the popular vote. Never have been. There is no law stating that Electoral College reps have to vote based on the popular votes in their district. This being the case, whenever I hear someone whining that their candidate should have been put in office because they won the popular vote, given the fact that there still is no movement to change the system, I have to reply "And your point is?"

[hollywood]

This may be true, but the fact is that the national presidential elections are decided by votes in the Electoral College, which are not bound to follow the popular vote.  Never have been.  There is no law stating that Electoral College reps have to vote based on the popular votes in their district.  This being the case, whenever I hear someone whining that their candidate should have been put in office because they won the popular vote, given the fact that there still is no movement to change the system, I have to reply "And your point is?"

Right, but given the sleaze factor noted by RailPaul, imagine the possibilities if the Presidential election were decided on the popular vote. Potentially you'd only have to control the count in one state in a close race. Or, is that what happened in Florida anyway?

[Shiva]

Here's a link to the decision. I find this to be the key part of the decision

And the Court having determined that N.J.S.A 19:13-20 does not preclude the possibility of a vacancy occurring within fifty-one days of the general election;

Dems Win

Interestingly, it's a unanimous decision.

The SCNJ always votes unanimously.