Radio reports say Supremos won't hear Jersey case.
Here's the story.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court refused on Monday to be drawn into New Jersey's Senate dispute, allowing the Democrats to replace their candidate one month before the election.
The case resurrected memories of the court's intervention in the Bush-Gore presidential contest. But this time the justices stayed out and let the decision of a Democratic-dominated state supreme court stand.
Facts, shmacts. We've got a novel to write!
UPDATE: dave notes in the comments:
Here's the Times story from Oct. 3:
"The seven justices — four Democrats, two Republicans and an independent — after noting that the law did not specifically prohibit a change of candidates within 51 days of the election, ordered the state attorney general to oversee the printing of new ballots and their delivery to all eligible absentee voters."
Okay, it's more correct than I thought - I forgot that Whitman followed jersey tradition in keeping the court balanced - so, though 6 were appointed by her some were democrats.
Dominated is still overkill as a word, and the unanimity renders the point moot.
UPDATE 2: Digby, who still needs his own blog, says:
Look, if you are going to make these political distinctions about our courts, which are supposed to be non-partisan (particularly at the Supreme Court level) the least the AP could do is be consistent and refer to the U.S. Supreme Court as Republican dominated.
This is what Justice Stephens meant in his dissent in Bush vs. Gore. He worried that the partisan nature of the decision would lead to a lack of faith in the impartiality of judges, and by extension, the justice system. No shit.
