I suspect Lautenberg will resign, but one reason to doubt that would be that they would have to put the seat up for grabs again in two years.
BTW…
Forrester has challenged Lautenberg to 21 debates. That is one for each county, and is the same ploy Lautenberg used to help get himself elected the first time.
I wish they would drop the court cases and get on with the mud-slinging. 
I’m with you on that, Ivy!
Let 'er rip!
According to this source, military absentee ballots are a big problem, even when a normal amount of time is available.
This brings us a question for you lawyers. What obligation does the court have to those affected by the decision, but who are not parties to the suit?
In this case, other than the Dems and the Reps, the lawsuit affects minor party nominees, absentee voters and the general public. Shouldn’t the court be obligated to look out for the rights of these parties? After all, one expects the Dems and the Reps to be looking after their own interests. The public interest is somewhat independent of what either party may want.
I came into this thread expecting, or anyway hoping, that the people defending the SCONJ decision would make some attempt to address this issue. Instead, I saw it derided it as a “wacky conspiracy theory”, along with choice bits like these deirected at those who feel otherwise:
And
I feel like I am covered by a thin layer of slime just from having read through this stuff. Then finally, on the latest page, there was this:
Nonsense. Politicians quite primary campaigns all the time when they are hopelessly behind in the polls. Someone else in this thread mentioned Andrew Cuomo. Was that man not just as much in love with power as any other politician? Politicians don’t generally drop out after they’ve been nominated, because of the commonly understood difficulty in replacing them. But the precedent set by the SCONJ would appear to alter this.
Politicians love power, but the people that run political parties are just as much in love with having their own people in power. And those power-loving politicians generally need, at least to some extent, the co-operation of party leaders to get what they love. I don’t see why this precedent won’t strongly encourage party leaders to make it a condition of their support, for candidates for a nomination, that they agree to drop out in favor of a more viable candidate if they are more than x% behind in the polls at a certain date.
Not to mention, they might start trying to intentionally put candidates who agree to take a dive in favor of a candidate who doesn’t want to be put through the wringer of a campaign, as in Sam Stone’s example. Or have one candidate win the primary by appealing to the base, who then takes a dive in favor of one that can win the general election. It sounds to me like a recipe for political parties to maximize their chances of getting their candidates elected. And like I said, political parties are just as much in love with this idea as candidates are in love with power.
Irrelevant. He only dropped out because his poll numbers were tanking. If he were still ahead he’d still be running, sanctions or no sanctions. Like you said, politicians are in love with power.
Again, irrelevant. Eighty-five percent of the house districts in this country may well be “safe” for one party or the other. But it is in that other fifteen percent that control of the House of Representatives gets decided. Do you not consider it important which party controls the House of Representatives? The parties sure do.
Not sure if this is still germane to the thread, or if it’s been mentioned already, but http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/05/nyregion/05JERS.html.
In a nutshell, Forrester got on the ballet for the Republican primary by doing the same thing the Democrats are doing: swapping out a candidate damaged by ethics violations, even though the 51 day deadline had passed.
Doesn’t this sink Forrester’s case?
Well, now that you put it that way, it is clear that a strict adherence to the rule of law is the only thing keeping the barbarians from plundering our fair land and stuffing our kittens into microwaves and if an unopposed Democratic candidate is the price of such stern morality, I, for one, stand ready to shoulder the burden.
hansel…
If that is the case, then Forrestor is a prick.
Not only that, but the entire leadership of the Democratic party is brain dead for not making that common knowledge right off the bat.
Uh, yeah Sam, it’s, like, completely irrelevant that if you have your way, the voters of New Jersey will be given ballots that don’t properly reflect the candidates for the United States Senate. Fucking democracy. Who needs it?
Did I say Sam? I meant Al.
If the Supreme Court turfs Lautenberg off the campaign, aren’t they then obligated to turf Forrester, too, making it a campaign between the Torch and Treffinger?
Minty: I understand. Reflexive habit. (-:
Nah, I should have realized it wasn’t you. You tend to move on to other points once the ones you’ve been talking about have been rebutted.
Hey, look: A baby wolf!
<ducking out>
Not a problem, december. Precedent from Florida allows military absentee ballots to be counted even if they’re postmarked after Election Day.
And where do you and Sam get the idea that somehow the good voters of New Jersey will be forced to vote for Lautenberg if his name is on the ballot? Will the jack-booted thugs of the Democratic Party be holding any guns to any heads? Sorry, guys, the winner will be the man the majority actually prefers to have in office, assuming there’s no hanky-panky in the counting. That’s called “democracy”, ya know.
The Supreme Court rejected Forrester’s challenge without comment. I guess Republican dirty tricks really are okay for Democrats, too.
Sorry, I mean: I guess justice does prevail sometimes.
Well, I’ll be dipped! El Wrongo! I was sure that the SCOTUS would jump right on this, but they won’t touch it! Son of a gun!
Of course, I cringe at the embarassment and humiliation of being so totally wrong. I’ll take what scant comfort there may be in partisan gloating.
Neener-neener.
Paging ElvisL1ves, Paging ElvisL1ves…
Link, if anyone really can’t believe it… 
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/07/elec02.nj.s.race/index.html
This is no surprise. As I said above, the New Jersey Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what New Jersey law means, and there is no showing of federal constitutional violation here. There was no reasonable possibility of the US Supreme Court getting involved.
The system works, even if you don’t always like the results.
Yes, but we’re the people who were surprised when Darth Vader turned out to be Luke’s father.
and behind us was bricker, going, “oh yeah, i knew that was coming”