Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (50998)	10/11/2002 3:05:08 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 281500

I would guess that even the most educated liberals would be cringing at the thought that "fair play" might enter it's ugly head one day soon because of this NJ situation.... Of course there was no emergency, nor "exceptional circumstances".....

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (50998)	10/11/2002 8:45:52 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

especially if the Republican Party adopts the motto, Don't get mad, get even. Nah. We believe in the rule of law.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (50998)	10/11/2002 10:26:11 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

On the Jersey situation, there is a good argument for what the Jersey court did. As Karen (KLP) says, why not 0 rather than 51. The reason for the 51 and why it could, in theory at least, go to 0 is the reason is the need for enough time to redo the ballots if a party chooses to replace one candidate with another. As technologies change, that time could easily reduce, certainly not to 0 but to something much less than 51. Moreover, no one has said that, once the primaries are concluded, a party cannot change it's candidates. Unusual. Absolutely. Also, I would be surprised if much switching actually takes place after a flurry of "I told you sos." Losing candidates are not likely to let the party replacement them; the sense they can always pull it off. Frankly, I think the issue goes back to the Florida election, in which the US Supreme Court said that state courts were not the proper place to adjudicate the meaning of state statutes. Only the legislature could do that. That twisted logic applied, precisely, in this case, the Jersey case. Perhaps the second best evidence that this incarnation of the Supremes is far more political than recent previous incarnations is this. Of course, the best evidence is the set of Florida decisions.