My Online Prose Portfolio

"Write out of love, write out of instinct, write out of reason. But always for money."
Louis Untermeyer

The Occasional Muse
My humble opinion on current events

October 2, 2002

Torch and NJ Supreme Court Ignore the Law

It's now official: Robert Torricelli, aka The Torch, is above the law. And the New Jersey Supreme Court is a shameless butt monkey for the Democratic Party. 

I am not sure what galls me more: Torch's flouting of the law or the state Supremes giving it their blessing. Unanimously.

The seven Supreme Democrat lackeys ruled today that Robert Torricelli's name could be replaced on the ballot with Frank Lautenberg's. Changing the ballot after the limit set by state law was, in the court's words, "in the public interest and the general intent of the election laws to preserve the two party system."

During oral arguments, the justices sang the praises of providing voters a choice between two candidates. But what about the law? Who cares? "The legislature did not use mandatory language," whined Associate Justice James Coleman. Even the Chief Justice said that breaking the law was not "a fatal defect."

Can you believe this utter nonsense? Here's the New Jersey statute, word for word:

In the event of a vacancy, howsoever caused, among candidates nominated at primaries, which vacancy shall occur not later than the 51st day before the general election, or in the event of inability to select a candidate because of a tie vote at such primary, a candidate shall be selected in the following manner...

The selection made pursuant to this section shall be made not later than the 48th day preceding the date of the general election, and a statement of such selection shall be filed with the Secretary of State or the appropriate county clerk, as the case may be, not later than the said 48th day, and in the following manner...

It's right there, folks. Torricelli's withdrawal happened after the 51-day and 48-day deadlines set by the law. The judges should have laughed the Democrats out of court. Instead, they decreed that breaking the law was in the "public interest."

Forgive a Civics 101 lesson here. The elected legislature, not seven judges, more closely reflects the public interest. The people vote for the representatives who write the laws, which makes the people their own sovereigns. It's how they rule themselves. It's why the law does its part to keep the people free.

These judges have just said that the law as passed by the people's representatives does not matter. They, the Holy Seven, have decided what the public interest is, or should be. But that's not their job. It's their job to uphold the law - the people decide their own public interest when they cast their votes.

That's what makes this decision so reprehensible. It's not about upholding democracy, or guaranteeing the voters a choice. The voters had a choice: Torricelli or his opponent. It was Robert Torricelli who deprived the people of New Jersey a choice by chickening out because he was down in the polls.

And that's the rub of it. This case is about power. Democrat power. The Democrats must hold the Senate at all costs, no matter what, even if it means breaking the law. There's no lofty principle to uphold, no cherished ideal to protect. The Torch quit because the Democrats may lose the Senate if he remained.

Senate Democrats don't care about you, or your freedom, or the law. They're greedy power-mongers who have proved unfit for public service precisely because of their gigantic lust for control. The Torch is a corrupt pol who deserves to go down in flames at the ballot box. The seven judges should resign in disgrace, because they have shown no honor and even less integrity in bending over for their Democrat masters. New Jersey Democrats, if you have any principles, any scruples at all, you will vote for anyone except Torricelli/Lautenberg. Don't let the Democrats get away with their cynical and illegal power grab.

Barbershop update

Last column, I vented about Jesse Jackson's censorship attempt on the movie Barbershop. I suggested that he feels certain people are immune to criticism, and those who attempt to criticize should be silenced.

Well, the good reverend has confirmed my theory. In a letter to the Los Angeles Times, Jackson writes a letter that supposedly sets the record straight. "Let me be quick to say that this is not a call for censorship or a boycott, but a call for sensitivity."

That's a lie. No other way to say it. Here, once again, is the text from a statement he released on September 19, 2002: "We also hope that they (MGM) will delete the portion of the film that is insensitive and inappropriate to both Dr. King and Rosa Parks from future DVDs, videotapes and any other future releases."

How can you call that anything but censorship? Jackson must think we're all idiots.

He goes on: "King was the father of the modern civil rights movement. There are certain historical figures who should never be disrespected, even for the sake of a few laughs. Their lives represent too much deep meaning and painful history to demean them through caricature."

There it is. Jackson confirms it. No one should be allowed to speak their mind about "certain historical figures" if Jackson deems it disrespectful.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for verifying that you are a would-be tyrant who would silence dissenting voices by force if given the chance. You intolerant hypocrite.

Back to The Occasional Muse