I Love Hypocrisy
The New York Times reports
Mr. Genova [the Democratic Party's lawyer] also uncovered a legal memorandum from Mr. Forrester's lawyer written in April, when State Senator Diane Allen, one of Mr. Forrester's opponents in the Republican primary, was trying to block him from taking the ballot position of James W. Treffinger. Mr. Treffinger, the Essex County executive, had resigned from the race because of scandal three days earlier, or 40 days before the primary.
Senator Allen maintained that moving Mr. Forrester's name to Mr. Treffinger's place on the ballot would come too late under Title 19 of the state election law, which sets a deadline of 51 days before an election for ballot substitutions. It is the same argument that Mr. Forrester's lawyer, Peter G. Sheridan, made before the State Supreme Court on Wednesday, opposing Mr. Lautenberg's placement on the ballot. The Democrats said that the deadline was merely a guideline.
NJ Politics and You, Perfect Together
I've been following the right wing (er, I mean Libertarian) blogs on the Torricelli case. What I would like to see explained is why the NJ election laws as applied to Torricelli's case must be taken literally (i.e. no one should make an attempt to understand the reason the law exists), but other legal documents (like the 2nd amendment) should not be taken literally, and every attempt should be made to understand the reasons and spirit behind the wording.
To see what I mean, check out the most intelligent Libertarian blog, The Volokh Conspiracy
, and their links. Everyone points out the exact sentence that makes it impossible for the Dems to replace Torricelli on the ticket. But, why was that sentence written? Does that matter? If not, why does it matter why the 2nd amendment is worded the way it is--shouldn't we just take it literally?