NJ State Court allows Lautenberg on ballot

Post #54,622 by bluke 10/3/02 6:07:06 AM Reply	NJ State Court allows Lautenberg on ballot [link\|http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/torricelli/njdpsmsn100202scord.pdf\|NJ Court Ruling] This is ridiculous. The only reason Toricelli bowed out is because he knew he was going to lose anyway. What is to stop this from becoming standard practice whenever a candidate is behind by double digits going into the last month of the campaign? Why bother having primaries?
Post #54,626 by Another Scott 10/3/02 7:16:16 AM Reply	I think the ruling was reasonable. Previous rulings make it clear that the 51-day deadline isn't hard-and-fast. What's to prevent it from being used by people who know they're going to lose? Good question, and it seems to have been something they were concerned about during the hearing, but little mention of it is made in the ruling. Perhaps the requirement that the Democrats pay the $800,000 cost of the switch will be a minor deterrent. Cheers, Scott.
Post #54,671 by bluke 10/3/02 11:51:02 AM Reply	$800,000 is chump change for the Democrats They can use soft money and get it from 1 rich guy. It will not deter anyone. What bothers me is that the sole reason Torricelli dropped out is because he knew he was going to lose. It is guaranteed that if this works in NJ it will be tried again in the next election somewhere else. What is to prevent it? Does this help the cause of democracy? The result is that the money spent on the taxpayer financed primary is down the drain and the people of NJ now have a candidate selected solely by the party bosses.
Post #54,677 by Another Scott 10/3/02 12:29:44 PM Reply	Good point. But, what do you think should be done? If a candidate decides he doesn't want to run, what should be done? He can't be forced to continue to seek office. Does it serve the voters' interest to keep him on the ballot? Does it make sense for a party to nominate someone that they don't think is the best candidate? I don't know of a better solution in the present case. There's time to change the ballots so that's what should be done. If there wasn't time to change the ballots, then the situation would be more complicated. In that case, the recent DC mayoral primary might be instructive. The sitting mayor had incompetents running his ballot petition campaign - they collected hundreds of false signatures. His petition was ruled invalid, so he had to run as a write-in candidate. He won anyway with the help of stamps, etc., that made it easier for voters. Cheers, Scott.
Post #54,683 by bluke 10/3/02 12:48:08 PM 10/3/02 1:09:05 PM Reply	2 solutions - neither one very good One as you mentioned is a write-in campaign for an alternative candidate, in this case Frank Lautenberg. The second alternative is what happened in Missouri(?) with Mel Carnahan, people voted for him even though he was dead and the governor pledged to appoint his wife. The same could be done here, Torricelli would announce that if elected he will resign and the governor would announce that he would appoint Lautenberg (note: after the election Torricelli would be under no legal obligation to keep his promise to resign (and given Torricelli's record who would believe him) and could actually stay in the Senate for another 6 years) The fact is that this is not a case where the candidate does not want to run, rather he is withdrawing because he knows he will lose. I could see your argument if something happened to the candidate (he got sick, a close relative got sick, etc.) and because of that he could not run, maybe then you could make an argument for an exception. However, in NJ no such thing happened. Torricelli pulled out for one and only one reason, he was losing. Why reward the Democrats for that? The party should be responsible to get a candidate who will stick it out to the election. If the party picks a candidate who doesn't want to stick it out tough luck. Edited by bluke Oct. 3, 2002, 12:54:56 PM EDT Edited by bluke Oct. 3, 2002, 01:09:05 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #54,627 by mmoffitt 10/3/02 8:01:16 AM Reply	Would that be a bad thing? How is putting more people on a ballot a bad thing? I wonder how long it will be before anyone makes the valid claim that, "Once again, we see Republicans looking to the Courts to put them in office." :p
Post #54,641 by drewk 10/3/02 9:38:21 AM Reply	But they're not They're not putting more people on the ballot. They're putting different people on the ballot. This proves a point I heard after the latest fiasco in Florida: Why don't the parties pay for their own primaries? All a primary is for is so that each party can decide who to run. Now we've seen that the party can change their mind at the last minute and select someone new without voter input. Since we have now seen the proof that parties don't care who voters want, it's high time we stopped paying for the primaries. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #54,665 by bluke 10/3/02 11:39:44 AM Reply	Not what they are doing at all They are switching from a losing candidate, who was supported by the party and won the primary, to a candidate selected in a back room by party officials at the last minute, solely because the party realized that their candidate, Torricelli, was going to lose. There are no more people on the ballot just different ones. Again, if this works, why won't this become the modus operendi for the parties. In fact, there are many advantages. The eventual candidate will be a fresh face and there will be little or no time for people to actually figure out who he is and what he stands for. And in fact, with the new campaign finance rules, outside groups will not even be able to run any ads against the new candidate as it will be within 60 days of the election. Also, the eventual candidate will be fresh and ready to campaign, after all it is only a month. In addition, given the fact that Lautenberg is 78, the odds are high that he will not finish the term if elected allowing the Governor to appoint another Democrat. In a regular campaign Lautenberg's age and commitment to serve out the term would be a legitimate issue, in this short campaign it will probably be swept under the rug.
Post #54,825 by mmoffitt 10/4/02 12:08:33 AM Reply	Put down your crack pipe. He's got 22 years on Strom for Christ's sake.
Post #54,837 by bepatient 10/4/02 8:11:01 AM Reply	But isn't Strom..like..1000 years old now? You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #54,791 by bepatient 10/3/02 8:57:52 PM Reply	I'm sure you see it that way. Tortolini was going to lose. He knew it. He knew it at 51 days...he was 20 points behind and falling. Now...the Jersey SC has decided that...rules be damned...a Democrat >has< to be on the ballot.. It wouldn't have anything to do with Senate control (oh no)...it wouldn't be >fair< to obey the rules... And you accuse the Republicans of using the courts to get elected???? That's >rich<! Whats the point of primaries now. They mean nothing. The process has been thwarted. Anybody can look at the polls...realize its hopeless...and go talk somebody else into running...right up to election day. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #54,793 by boxley 10/3/02 9:00:06 PM Reply	Dont try to = Florida and NJ Not the same and have I got a good deal on a slightly used lincoln. :-) thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
Post #54,794 by bepatient 10/3/02 9:12:12 PM Reply	Nowhere near the same. NJ is simply a case of the Dems using a favorable court to overturn the primary process becasue their candidate knew he was going to LOSE. Clear and simple. The NJ law makes exceptions for candidates who cannot fulfill. Now the Court has created precedent for a candidate to be "appointed" becasue the candidate the people chose is a no good thief who was going to get embarassed in November by having 2/3s of his own party vote against him. And the post above mine is accusing the Republicans of using the courts to win. A valiant attempt at spin...for sure. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #54,806 by boxley 10/3/02 10:22:57 PM Reply	slightly OT pols in court GOREPOX [link\|http://www2.uclick.com/client/nyt/po/\|good today only?] Oliphants cartoon of the day thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
Post #54,900 by a6l6e6x 10/4/02 12:27:43 PM Reply	Re: Clear and simple? (OT) The solution would be to "dispatch" Toricelli. Isn't that the NJ way? British researchers say this is the funniest joke: A couple of New Jersey hunters are out in the woods when one of them falls to the ground. He doesn't seem to be breathing, his eyes are rolled back in his head. The other guy whips out his cell phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps to the operator: "My friend is dead! What can I do?" The operator, in a calm, soothing voice, says: "Just take it easy. I can help. First, let's make sure he's dead." There is a silence, then a shot is heard. The guy's voice comes back on the line. He says: "OK, now what?" Alex The sun will set without thy assistance. -- The Talmud
Post #55,039 by Ashton 10/5/02 5:32:26 AM Reply	He: "You slay me!"____She: "OK..."
Post #54,632 by boxley 10/3/02 8:44:52 AM Reply	every october the duly elected primary winner will jump off the ballot if it looks like he may lose. Wht bother having primaries indeed? Why even have elections, just keep polling until election day and whoevers numbers look good wins. Be a lot of good looking naked broads in congress though. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
Post #54,634 by mhuber 10/3/02 8:50:47 AM Reply	You got a problem with good looking naked broads? ---- Whatever
Post #54,635 by boxley 10/3/02 8:57:45 AM Reply	not if they're smart, naked good lucking broads will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
Post #55,123 by Simon_Jester 10/6/02 11:38:36 AM Reply	More news on the NJ ballot... Mr. Genova 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. [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/05/nyregion/05JERS.html\| NY TIMES ]
Post #55,309 by Silverlock 10/7/02 3:10:25 PM Reply	Supreme court refuses to hear the appeal [link\|http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=3&u=/ap/20021007/ap_on_el_se/new_jersey_senate\|URL]. "A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Post #55,311 by Simon_Jester 10/7/02 3:14:55 PM Reply	Damn - I wanted both candidates thrown off the ballot. A true NONE OF THE ABOVE. (Probably the only way we'd ever get a truely intelligent senator.)
Post #55,360 by a6l6e6x 10/7/02 7:55:01 PM Reply	The Supremes were smart to stay out of issue. Alex The sun will set without thy assistance. -- The Talmud
Post #55,322 by marlowe 10/7/02 4:04:14 PM Reply	Okay, now no more whining about our selected resident. The Supreme Court is soooo partisan. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html] The nihilists and the liars have buried truth alive in a shallow grave. "The US party calls in mortar fire on the enemy positions. The UN party stands up, climbs over the lip of the trench, and recites Robert\ufffds Rules of Order as it approaches the machine-gun positions." - Lileks
Post #55,341 by mmoffitt 10/7/02 7:20:45 PM Reply	Thanks for YAN Non Sequitor, marlowe.
Post #55,402 by mhuber 10/7/02 10:49:18 PM Reply	Yeah. The doofus from NJ will be selecting the next SC... This election wasn't important enough to shoot the other foot off over. This election does not affect the retirement plans of any of the individuals involved. Besides, those pesky voters would still be able to interfere in the process anyway, so why bother? ---- Whatever

Welcome to IWETHEY!