Just One Minute
Balanced Fare: We Report, You Deride

Friday, October 04, 2002



A Quick Guess on the Torch

OK, I have been too busy to read or think this morning (Hey, tell us something new!). However, in a rare display of intellectual courage, I will boldly predict the "Emerging Righty Position" on the Torricelli Debacle:

The Dems have behaved shamelessly. Man, do I have a scorcher coming on this subject! However, proper recourse is to be found at the ballot box. Beyond that, the US Supremes would have to be insane to put themselves in a position of appearing to have selected a Republican President and then a Republican Senate.

Therefore, huffing and puffing from the real Supremes, but the decision of the NJ Supremes ultimately stands, supplemented by a coherent opinion. Let the voters decide.

As to the Dems - hey, the ref swallowed his whistle. Great play.

UPDATE: An Alert Reader is curious. "Huffing and puffing from the real Supremes", you said, but I feel that you are holding back. Care to share?

Well, only because you asked. So, what I REALLY think, unburdened as I am by a law degree or any such encumbrance:

The US Supreme Court is not insane, and will not be seen as having picked a Republican President and then a Republican Senate. Beyond that, the NJ SC position, through reliance on their equitable powers, is tenable, although the opionion is laughable. Therefore, we will see something like the following unfold:

The Real Supreme Court will request a full and formal opinion from Diana Ross and the NJ Supremes. Will they get snarky? The request might read like this:

"Dear Victims of Alien Abduction:

We read with amusement your recent opinion re Forrester et al, but still think "Doonesbury" is a better comic strip.

Could you please submit an opinion that reads like something other than a Saturday Night Live skit, and send it to Washington? If you could take the time to touch on a few of the following points, we would be deeply appreciative:

Regarding the two party system, and the $800,000 new-ballot expenses to be borne by the Democrat Party: we would love to belive that all parties are treated fairly and equally in NJ. Can you provide your thoughts on whether there is one set of rules for "the many with the money", and another set of rules for everyone else?

And, while on the subject of rules, perhaps you could present your thinking on "Rules and Roles". There must be great news on the crime front in NJ, if you guys and gals have enough free time to double as Election Board Supervisors. However, one worries. Perhaps the legislators, having gone through all their boring hearings and what-not, and the governor, having been obliged to read and actually sign their legislation, ought to be allowed a bit of involvement in setting the rules for elections? Perhaps you could provide a bit of clarification as to whether any of their rules would actually be upheld, or is the entire process that has been established by the other two branches of government (the ELECTED branches, BTW) arbitrary and irrelevant to the conduct of a fair election?

Just asking.

Regards,

Your friends in DC."

OK, the Supremes have questions. If Scalia is in the mood for a snack, they might schedule oral arguments so that he can feast on a few of these lawyers.

However, the entire purpose of the exercise will be to frighten and humilate the NJ Supremes, and any other legal buccaneers who might be paying attention. After much breathing of fire, the US Supremes will accept a dramatically re-worded opinion that arrives at the same conclusion. Lautenberg on, Torricelli off, let the voters pass judgement on this.


Comments: Post a Comment

Home