High Court Won't Take N.J. Sen. Case

[oracle]

High Court Won't Take N.J. Sen. Case (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54970-2002Oct7.html)

By Anne Gearan
Associated Press Writer
Monday, October 7, 2002; 2:04 PM

WASHINGTON –– The Supreme Court refused Monday to be drawn into an election fight that resurrected memories of the court's contentious intervention in the presidential election two years ago.

Democrats may now go ahead with plans to replace Sen. Robert Torricelli with former Sen. Frank Lautenberg on the Nov. 5 ballot in their effort to retain their one-seat hold on the Senate.

New Jersey Republicans had called the switch a political ploy intended to dump a candidate who seemed sure to lose in favor of a potential winner. They asked the Supreme Court to stop the Democrats, arguing that the candidate swap came too close to Election Day.

The high court did not explain its reasons for rejecting the GOP appeal.

...

Click here to read more (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54970-2002Oct7.html)

[Venus]

I really didn't think the SCOTUS would take the case.

I guess we'll just have to keep our eyes and ears open for word from the fed district court, which I've been more hopeful about anyway. But I'm getting worried about that, too, since they haven't acted yet.

Thanks for the scoop, Oracle.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

They apparently decided there wasn't a constitutional issue involved or at least there wasn't one they could claim that images/icons/confused.gif would justify their decision when they released it!
images/icons/confused.gif

[Gone_with_the_Wind]

SCOTUS will not take NJ to task on the Dems replacing Torch, but that's not to say they wouldn't take a case where individuals have filed because they were disenfranchised.

[oracle]

Originally posted by Sorehead:
They apparently decided there wasn't a constitutional issue involved or at least there wasn't one they could claim that images/icons/confused.gif would justify their decision when they released it!
images/icons/confused.gif <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It could be that they didn't take it because of the other suits in the lower courts and they wanted them to have a chance to deal with it. I believe that the SCOTUS thinks that the normal legal process should be processed as much as possible.

[Warlady]

This isn't how they are reporting it on the radio. They are saying the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Lautenberg. There is a big difference. What can I expect from ABC?

[oracle]

ABC lies.

[Pennville_Bill]

It could be that they didn't take it because of the other suits in the lower courts and they wanted them to have a chance to deal with it. I believe that the SCOTUS thinks that the normal legal process should be processed as much as possible.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That would be my guess. graemlins/icon127.gif

[Warlady]

They sure did. The way they reported it was the Supreme Court took the case and ruled against the State Legislature. I was shocked to say the least.

[Venus]

What ABC is reporting clearly demonstrates that major news broadcasters take their marching orders from the 'rats. The SCOTUS's silence on an appeal from a lower federal court usually implies some agreement (if it's a major case), but the same is not true of appeals of state court decisions. This is journalistic prostitution. Ya' see, if the sheeple think the SCOTUS put its stamp of approval on the NJSC decision, it's easier for them to get past any misgivings they have about what the 'rats pulled and, thus, be more willing to vote for Lautencorpse.

[Warlady]

Bingo Venus!

Lautencorpse ROTFL

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Perhaps the Supreme Court was more concerned with its image because of the 2000 Florida decision than they were with upholding the US Constitution and justice.
I'm a political junkie and often scratch my head when people show little to no interest in politics. Stories like this Torricelli/Lautenberg mess could be the reason why they (and soon me) are turned off. It's so dirty - Just when you think it can't get dirtier, it does. Oh, the tricks that will be pulled after this one!
A worst case scenario....Lautenberg wins...just for the win, and the Dem. Gov. accepts his resignation and replaces him with.......ready? Torricelli!
graemlins/icon119.gif

[Maggie_T]

Originally posted by Warlady:
This isn't how they are reporting it on the radio. They are saying the SCOTUS ruled in favor of Lautenberg. There is a big difference. What can I expect from ABC?<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Warlady, that's exactly the way I heard it.

[The_Finman]

Judge Andrew Napolitano said that the Supreme's simply passed on taking the case...he said in no way does that mean they agree or disagree with the merits of the case...only that they not interested in taking it at the present time.

The Judge said that there is a big misconception that refusing the case means that it affirms the lower courts decision...he said this is completey false and in no way affirms that they agree with the lower court's decision...only that they do not wish to rule on it at this time.

Also by passing on the case...it does leave the possibilty that if this type of stuff becomes prevalent and abused in future elections that they make take the case(probably not this one but a simliar case) and rule on it.

Right now they are basically telling the states to work it out, but if this becomes an abusive practice, then I doubt that they are going to be able to escape ruling on this. graemlins/icon130.gif

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

This doesn't shock me. Several of the justices never did have a spine. Why not just end all these voting fights now and make one big ruling? graemlins/icon44.gif