Will the Court be bribed again?

The US Supreme Court gets anither chance to be bribed by Republican Bush backers to intervene in an issue that traditionally conservatives abhor.Conservatives hate Federal intervention into states' rights. Unless, of course, Justices Scalia and Thomas have blatant financial conflicts of interests as they did in 2000.

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

Of course they will. Why would they give up the chance?

Nevermind that New Jersey law says that the overriding concern in such matters is that the voter have a choice.

Chuck

[HDPM]

What about the voters who chose Torch in the primary? Why don't their votes count? (or count as much as the whim of a political party)

[Jimbo]

Chuck,

I may be mistaken but I believe your quote was from the NJ Supreme court decision not from the statute itself. In fact the justices compared their statute to the New York statute which specifically prohibts this ruling under any circumstances in order to justify their position. They reasoned (however absurdly) that since it was not specifically excluded by the legislature (as it was in NY) that the option must have been meant to be included.

Jimbo

[imported_Chuck Weinstock]

Ok, I've read further on this and have decided that I agree with those who say that the New Jersey courts made a flawed decision. (The clincher for me was the comment in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette this morning that basically asked how the Democrats in Pennsylvania would feel if the Republican party jetisoned Gubenatorial candidate Fisher in favor of Schwieker because Fisher is behind in the polls and Schwieker isn't.)

That said, I still believe it would be wrong for the US Supreme Court to get involved in another election.

Chuck