Torricelli quits Senate race - what does NJ Law say about replacing his name?

Great Debates
201

We pan in on a tear-stained Bob Torricelli, holding the phone to his ear and sobbing under his breath. The quietly urgent tones of Tom Daschle in the background…

"Look, Bob, its like this. The Supreme Court found some precedent, something called morturis est…yeah, that’s right…well, basicly it means that…well, you remember that Carahan thing? Well, yeah, they said he gets a pass because the guy was actually dead so…No, they didn’t change, but they could have, thats what the Supremes said…right, right, exactly! If he was actually dead, which of course he was, plane crash and all, he was…Awwwww, now, Bob, you’re taking this kinda hard, its for the good of the Party…Bob, look, its not that bad, Al’s been dead for years, we just haven’t told him yet…Bob? Bob?

202

Okay, thanks, Bricker, that helps. :slight_smile:

So are the New Jersey GOP totally out of line then, merely spinning their wheels for political effect (“well, look, at least we tried…”)? And are we shortly to find that out? Compared with the noise levels that came out of NJ all week, I notice that there’s a deafening silence coming from the direction of D.C. zip code 20543. :smiley:

And, apparently first the Supremes have to decide whether to decide, and it’s apparently up to David Souter, alone, to decide that? Yes?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/04/week.ahead/index.html
And as if there weren’t enough courts involved already…

<< going to Osco to stock up on ibuprofen >>

203

I have been out of country (out of continent, actually, and still am), and I haven’t been able to follow this story so well. I’m glad to see it is being so heartily debated.

My initial gut-reaction to it echoes what Scylla’s been saying.

Squeegee mentioned that it seems far-fetched that a political party fields a different candidate at the 11th hour who can actually win.

But to me, that’s not the point.

Can someone please explain to me why the NJSC´s decision doesn´t set up a scenario whereby any party who sees that their candidate is getting his or her ass kicked in the polls in October changes horses in a pull-out-all-the-stops, nothing-to-lose fashion?

That’s messing with the integrity of the entire electoral process. Whether the scenario is being perpetrated by Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens or anybody else.

204

DDG: Souter is the justice who decides whether to issue a stay pending the Supreme Court’s decision to review the case. Each justice does that for a differenct circuit or circuits. Down here in the 5th Circuit (TX-LA-MS), ISTR that we’re stuck with CLarence Thomas. No stay has been issued, quite unlike the instant stay of Florida’s Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, another decent indication there’s not going to be any SC review this time.
Milo: Because they’re politicians, because Torrecelli’s circumstances are far beyond ordinary, and because of the demographics.

  1. Politicians love power, and they’re about as likely to quit a campaign as Saddam Hussein is to retire to a chateau in the French countryside.

  2. Precious few politicians get nailed for gigantic ethics violations and sanctioned by the Senate in the time between the primary and the general election. The circumstances of Torrecelli’s candidacy changed, not just his poll numbers (though of course, the poll numbers will be repeated ad nauseum by the Republicans).

  3. Because theder are hardly any campaigns where substituting a new candidate is going to make a bit of difference. The Democrats could place Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior on the ballot for Governor of Texas, and the Republicans would still win 60% of the vote. The vast majority of elections are decided by ideology, not personal scandal–a substitution would have no prayer of working in when a candidate is loding because of basic party ideology.

205

**Torrecelli’s circumstances are far beyond ordinary, and because of the demographics.

**

Only in that he got caught. Otherwise his trangresisons are probably all too ordinary.

206

I am terribly sorry that you’re so bored with the subject of court intervention in elections. That is what this thread is essentiallyabout, though. If you’re still even reading it, much less posting to it, you must still see some life in the horse yourself, my friend.

Not quite. To say otherwise may not be unreasonable, but it is unreasoned.

If necessary. My predictions are occasionally wrong - just not often. And if they do it anyway, will you similarly publicly acknowledge naivete?

207

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, and I failed to see it amidst all the explosions of partisan heads, but this seems to me the most likely scenario if the ballot switch stands further court scrutiny:

Lautenberg wins.
Lautenberg quits, citing decrepitude, urge to play golf, etc.
Governor names new Democrat to seat.
Republicans scream.
Life goes on.

It strikes me that this would be, overall, good for the country if it assured a continued Democratic Senate majority. But not so good for New Jersey voters, who would have no say in what hack got picked to replace Lautenberg.
Minty is dead wrong when he says that the average Republican would beat Jesus Christ in a Texas election. Jesus would win in a squeaker.

But he’d have to raise a ton of money. And he wouldn’t be able to carry the rest of the ticket.

208

I’d like to take a moment to discuss Mr. Green’s comments as regards the candidacy of Mr. J. Christ to be Governor of the Soveriegn State of Texas. Now, I know he’s just itchin’ to imply this has something with the boy being Jewish and all, but thats just not true. Hell, I don’t even know any Jewish people, so how could I be prejudiced against them seeing as how I don’t know any of 'em?

Just look at the record! Starts off with him smart mouthing his teachers in Temple (though he was born in Palisteen)! Then you got him being followed around by whores, lepers, tax collectors (that’s right: tax collectors!) and that sort. All the while going on and on about “feed the hungry” and “clothe the naked”.

Elect a damn hippy to be Governor of Texas!? Over my dead body!

And about this “pro bono” stuff…seems to me some smart-ass lawyer doing free legal work for some drug-addled rock star is somebody who needs his background checked, and right quick, too!

209

This thread is about the propriety of the Toricelli case, not the propriety of the Bush v. Gore decision. Except insofar as it acts as a precedent for the Supreme Court intervening in the Toricelli case, Bush v. Gore is irrelevant here. Rearguing the merits of the Bush v. Gore case only distracts from discussing the merits of the Toricelli case.**

I’m sure you thought this was a clever little quip when you wrote it, but it doesn’t make much sense. Are you saying a reasonable person can approve of Bush v. Gore only if he suspends his reasoning faculties? If that is the case, how can a person who suspends his reasoning faculties in order to reach a particular conclusion properly be called “reasonable”?**

I’ll certainly acknowledge extreme surprise. The extent to which I’d include naivete depends largely on the reasoning in whatever opinion is delivered.

210

Think about this from Forrester’s viewpoint: The Democrats put up a crook against him, and he spends the entire campaign talking about that issue. Which is exactly what happened. He’s been running on a platform of, “Anyone but Torricelli”, essentially.

Now, at the very last minute, the Dems pull Torricelli and put in a lovable ex-Senator. Suddenly all that time and effort spent discrediting Torricelli is down the tubes. And, there’s no time left to dig into this new guy’s policies and views.

Forrester would have run a VERY different campaign had he known he was going to be up against Lautenberg.

And I fail to understand how this helps the Democratic process. Does it serve Democracy to have national parties pull candidates at the last moment and replace them with people the voters don’t have time to get to know?

This is the way the system is supposed to work: The political parties have conventions and primary elections. During this period, the members of the party choose who they want to be their representative. Then the party representatives run against each other, and all the voters choose who they want as their representative. This seems to me to be a pretty good way to choose politicians.

But what the Democrats have done here is essentially said that they are fielding Democrat X. Not just because they pulled Torricelli, but also because most analysts think that Lautenberg is nothing more than a placeholder for politician X who will be appointed at a later date after he resigns. He’s a retired 78 year old politician.

Doesn’t all this manoevering around the electoral process bother anyone? Are you guys so partisan that you can’t see how wrong this all is? At least in Bush vs Gore the situation was forced on them, regardless of what you think about the outcome. In this case, this whole strategy is just a political manoever to save a Senate seat.

And I don’t agree that this is necessarily a unique case. Now that the precedent has been set, I can see lots of places where this could be used. There are an awful lot of candidates out there who have a good public image but can’t stand a political caampaign because of skeletons in the closet. Take Rudy Gulian - before Sept. 11 he was a politician embroiled in scandals and a messy, public divorce. A political campaign would be messy for him. So why don’t the Republicans adopt a new strategy? Field a candidate in the primary who can energize the ‘base’ and get a lot of Republicans working the streets. Someone who can raise a a ton of money, and who is the best choice to do early damage to their opponent’s campaign.

Put in a real lightning-rod. Let the other candidate blow his campaign fund fighting against his opponent’s ‘extremism’. Then, after the issues have all been framed that way, the candidate bails out, and they parachute lovable old Rudy into the scene, instantly defusing all of the campaign strategies of his opponent.

Isn’t this kind of scenario more likely now?

211

Sam

Well, seeing as how he was a Senator already, with votes on record, it would be pretty easy to dig into his policies and views. Certainly no harder. In the process, we get to find out about this Forrester fellow, about whom little is known, beyond the fact that he isn’t Bob Torricelli.

They do? Who are these “most analysts” who think this?

Perhaps. But then, as now, the correct, the only correct, judge of the matter should be the people. If the people rise in righteous indignation about the dreadful shenanigans those sneaky Dumbocrats are up to, they have the power to manifest that indignation in no uncertain terms. If, on the other hand, they see the Pubbies trying to grab off a free Senator without thier say-so, Forrester will get crushed. Rather than merely beaten.

What’s your problem with that?

212

This isn’t really a new risk, is it? (note: they had no say in picking Lautenberg, but that is beside my point)

Same question to you Sam.

If we assume that most states have provisions that allow the Governor to handpick replacements for (elected) Senators, no matter why they might leave office before completing their term, nothing prevents the Governor’s party from doing the old “bait and switch” everytime.

Take my state, for example. Currently, we have a Democratic Governor, and two Democratic Senators (although some argue about Zell Miller’s true affiliation). This year, Max Cleland’s seat is up for reelection. But assume for a minute that the seat was held by the his original challenger, Guy Millner ®. Cleland only won by a very slim margin (less than 1%) anyway.

Now further assume that due to popularity, or Bush pull-through, whatever, that incumbent Millner was leading challenger Cleland in the polls, sometime prior to the primary, or at least prior to any “deadline” (take that issue off the table for this hypothetical).

Former Democratic Senator Sam Nunn, well repected from both sides of the aisle, and exceptionally popular throughout the state, annouces his candidacy for the Senate (for the good of the party, but with a secret agreement with the Governor and state Democrats, that if elected, he would quickly resign - he doesn’t really want the job).

What prevents this scenario today? While my scenario is a trumped up hypothetical, I believe that similar situations likely exist in many states (what if the NJ state Dems proposed the same thing to Bill Bradley, and he accepted it, knowing that he would resign and Lautenberg would be named as his successor).

In my mind, only the fact that if the public later learned (or strongly suspected) the secret agreement existed prior to the election, and that Nunn’s campaign was not in “good faith”, then I think it would work - the first time. After that, voters would have valid reason to be concerned that the Democrat’s (or whomever the Governor’s party is) candidate may not be the “real” candidate, and lose votes in future elections. It certainly calls their credibility into question.

213

.

Dunno about every state, but in many a governor-appointed replacement Senator requires confirmation by one or both houses of the state legislature, too. If more than 2 years are left before the expiration of the term, most states require a new regular election for the remaining portion of the term.

Dewey, I’m sure you know what I meant. The fight is against ignorance - which includes failure to reason using facts based on fundamental principles. I’ll be charitable and say that the Bush v. Gore decision’s alleged basis in Equal Protection is incompletely and selectively reasoned, backfilling behind a pre-established ruling rather than building toward it, rather than say “unreasonable”, if that will make you feel better. The very words of the decision, denying its citability as a precedent, are essentially an admission of its bullshitness - now why impute more principle to that faction than they themselves claim?

214

My problem with that is that it’s not a good idea to substitute the rule of law for the outrage of the people.

But as a practical matter, I agree with you. The Republicans are making a mistake by taking this to the Supreme Court. The better strategy is to simply accept what has happened, and to campaign against it and hope the voters protest at the polls.

If I were Forrester, my campaign right now would revolve around demanding that Lautenberg immediately agree to a number of debates. Base the demand on the fact that the voters really have no idea what his positions are on today’s issues. All they have is his old voting record. So put it all on the table, put the guy on the spot, and take advantage of the fact that he probably hasn’t had much time to prepare.

In the meantime, raise the issue of his late-joining the election, and demand that he pledge that he’ll ride out his next term. If he refuses, use that fact to highlight the shenanigans the Democrats have pulled. Hit them hard on this issue, but cleanly. Don’t go for muckracking or personal attacks. Just, “Okay, you’re a late comer. The people have a right to know that you aren’t just doing this to please the Democratic party bosses. Debate me, tell me what you think of the issues, and pledge to stay in office.”

That’s a winning strategy. He still may not win, because New Jersey is a tough nut for a Republican to crack. But it’s probably the best way to deal with this situation.

Do you agree?

215

Well, you left out the stuff about all these analysts you have at your fingertips saying that Lautenberg is running as an interchangeable part. I asked about that, you may recall.

But, basicly, yeah. Bring it on. The issue is in precisely the hands wherein it belongs: the people. My prediction: the people listen politely, if somewhat skepticly, to each sides recitation of deceit and skullduggery on each others part, and Lautenberg shuffles off to Washington. 79? Bid deal, Ol’ Strom is old enough to be his Daddy. Not that I’m suggesting anything…

216

I’ll have to dig up cites for you, but it’s not exactly rocket science to suspect that Lautenberg will not serve out a term - after all, he already retired from the Senate, two years ago. And he wasn’t exactly eager to come back - the Democrats went to him, after Bill Bradley refused to run.

217

No need to bother, not that big a deal.

218

Well, I turned up some interesting stuff while looking for “Lautenberg is just an interchangeable part”.
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/275/nation/Lautenberg_says_he_ll_take_Torricelli_s_spot+.shtml

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?level_3_id=5&page=5174719

So even if Lautenberg isn’t exactly an “interchangeable part”, at least he apparently wasn’t the name that sprang immediately to everyone’s lips as the obvious replacement for Torricelli.

219

Well, of course not! Bill Bradley could whip just about anybody in New Jersey outside of Bruce Springsteen! And that’s only cause he can’t sing!

And by “interchangeable” I don’t mean to address the question as to whether Lautenberg is ideologically identical with any given candidate. That was in reference to Sam’s inference that it was all a plot to stick Lautenberg in place, then have him resign in favor of another (unelectable?) Dumbocrat.

Which strikes me as rather…exotic.

220

No, that was a paying client. Too bad I never got to defend a deposition in that one. :smiley: