A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Wednesday, October 02, 2002
Laws? We don't need no stinkin' laws: The New Jersey State Supreme Court, following in the footsteps of its counterpart in Florida, has displayed an inability to deal with Arabic numerals. The court today decided that the number 51 doesn't really exist -- at least in state's election law. The judges decided to shut their eyelids tight, stick their fingers in their ears and dance around the room saying "nyah, nyah, nyah" any time a lawyer said the word "statute."
There's an interesting quote in the Reuters story from Democratic lawyer Angelo Genova.
"What is he fighting for?" Genova asked, referring to Forrester. "Is he fighting for the right to run unopposed? That is an anathema to our democracy."
I'll answer Genova's question. He's fighting for the right to run against the man the (when it suits them) Democratic Party nominated, Robert Torricelli. A man who he is beating in the polls. A corrupt man. A man the (when it suits them) Democratic Party decided, in a legal, fair and open primary, to represent them.
The New Jersey Supreme Court also ruled that the (when it suits them) Democratic Party would have to pay to get all of the ballots already printed, re-printed. Because, rightly, it is a cost the taxpayer should not have to fund.
But, speaking of costs. The judges should've also ruled that the (when it suits them) Democrats should have had to repay Forrester for all of the money his campaign has spent on TV, radio and print advertising that was directed toward the disgraced Robert Torricelli. Since the (when it suits them) Democrats want the New Jersey election to be like Torricelli never existed, then it should be that way for everyone.
I wonder if Forrester can sue the (when it suits them) Democrats for fraud -- they deceived him into spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeat a candidate they weren't going to run.
Sound farfetched? So was today's ruling.
For some further analysis of this decision, check out Eugene Volokh's analysis.
5:36 PM
|
|
