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: JohnM who wrote (51067)	10/11/2002 10:35:07 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As technologies change, that time could easily reduce, certainly not to 0 but to something much less than 51. That's a good reason to change the law, not to override it from the bench. In the NJ case, the absentee ballots had already been shipped out with Torricelli's name on them. Moreover, no one has said that, once the primaries are concluded, a party cannot change it's candidates. Unusual. Absolutely. Um, isn't that a matter for state election law to rule on? 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. Since the NJ legislature and SCOTUS stayed out of this one, I don't see where this 'issue' comes into play. 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 It would have done, if SCOTUS had taken the case. But they didn't.

To: JohnM who wrote (51067)	10/11/2002 11:05:52 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush vs. Gore involved the US Constitution and the US Code. New Jersey election law doesn't involve either.