October 03, 2002
Dems can replace Torch

The NJ Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that Frank Lautenberg can appear on the state ballot to replace Bob Torricelli. That was a 7-0 ruling, with two Republicans and one independent joining in. Six of those judges were appointed by Christie Whitman.

Anyone who whines at me about biased partisan rulings is going to hear some words that I've heard a few times since a certain SCOTUS ruling in late 2000: "Get over it." And go check out Alex Whitlock, who has some good thoughts on the issue.

I see that the GOP is going to make a big deal about the overseas ballots, which they claim can't be reprinted in time. According to the WaPo story, 106 such ballots had been mailed out as of the Torch's withdrawal. Seems to me that in a pinch, you could just call those 106 people and tell them that a vote for Torch would count as a vote for Lautenberg and go from there. This is a small enough exception to be handled manually without any problem.

Finally, is it just me, or is the AP wire story on this just a tad bit slanted:

Giving hope to Democrats scrambling to retain control of the Senate, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the party can replace Sen. Robert Torricelli on the November ballot.

The earlier story, filed prior to the ruling, started off with "Desperate to retain control of the Senate, the Democrats in New Jersey blah blah blah". So, um, if the Dems are "desperate" and "scrambling", does that mean the Repubs are "calm" and "deliberate"? Maybe control of the Senate has both sides "desperate" and "scrambling", y'know?

Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 03, 2002 to Election 2002

Totally OT:
1) Clint Hartung
2) Larry Jansen
3) "Before the '51 playoffs, Branca had worn number 13 and good-naturedly posed with black cats. Afterward, he changed his number, but not his luck."

Good questions!

Posted by: Scott Chaffin on October 3, 2002 10:25 AM

You da man! Three for three.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on October 3, 2002 10:37 AM

um, why are these comments under the heading "Dems can replace Torch"?

Posted by: Dancelf on October 3, 2002 11:39 AM

Scott was responding to my trivia questions, which I hadn't yet posted here. Since this was the top entry at the time, that's where his answers went.

And hey, it's no more random than some of the other comments I get. :-)

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on October 3, 2002 12:04 PM

This is too rich:

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 The Democrats told the Supreme Court Friday the Republicans are trying to dictate voters' choices in a New Jersey Senate race. (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20021004_1001.html)

The voters selected Torricelli to be the Democratic candidate during the primaries. Astonishingly, it is the Republicans who are trying to see to it that the choice remains. Now the circumstances are quite a bit different than that simple analysis would indicate, and that's not the point I'm addressing.

The choice of rhetoric by the Democratic Party in this is repulsive given the facts of the case: the "Torch" withdrew for the express purpose of trying to switch to a more winning candidate, in violation of the plain meaning of the relevant statutes. (But this has been upheld by the NJ Supremes, so this not a good tree for the 'Pubs to bark up.)

There is no way in which these actions look good for the Democrats. The Republicans, although following identical motivations, at least have the fig leaf of trying to uphold the rule of law and the separation of powers. The right things is still the right thing, even when done for the wrong reasons.

Grrr. I really need to go read something completely different rather than get stuck being pissed off about a race I cannot even vote in. Anyone for discussing war in Iraq? ;-)

Posted by: B. K. Oxley (binkley) on October 4, 2002 12:25 PM