A New Vision: So, the president gave an astonishing presentation of his vision for the future of global integration. No, not that president. In an hour address to the British Labour Party Conference, President Clinton shows why he got elected eight years too early. What he spoke about yesterday was a more lucid, optimistic vision of the world than anything the current White House occupant could muster forth on his best day. The reviews in Britain's Guardian and Mirror were gushing, leading the latter to state:

It was a magnificent speech from a man who is rapidly becoming the greatest figure in world politics, second only, perhaps, to Nelson Mandela.

And, while I'm kind of ashamed to have caught this on C-SPAN at 3am when I couldn't sleep, it's probably the best speech Clinton has given since he left office.

Told Ya So: Well, this is not a surprise. Ruling unanimously, the NJ Supreme Court allowed the Torricelli to Lautenberg ballot switch. Read the ruling on their website - it's pretty short. I'll comment on this more when I get back from class.

Florida Redux: Well, this comparison was bound to come up at some point. Besides, all of south Florida are retirees from New Jersey anyway. Regardless, the article gives a great overview of both the Republican and Democratic legal arguments and strategies, and contains this little gem:

Wouldn't it be something if the judicial branch were to determine in the span of less than 23 months the balance of power in both the executive and legislative branches? And wouldn't it be something even more if both rulings were in favor of one party?

The quote refers to the US Supreme Court, of course, where the author figures the issue is headed. While I'm not positive it will go beyond the State Supreme Court, the highest court in the land would be under tremendous pressure, given the 2000 debacle, to make an non-politcal decision if they take up the case. But let's see what the NJ justices have to say first.

The Legal Issues: There's some great discussion on the legal issues that the NJ Supreme Court, as well as Gov. McGreevey face in upcoming weeks on the web. So checkout this article, then this blog post, then this one, and, finally, this one. Frankly I don't think some of the NJ statutes they were citing, or the 17th Amendment for that matter, will come into play, because I'm not expecting the court tomorrow to rule against having a full and fair election, which is still possible. Many legal experts seem to agree with this notion:

Under New Jersey law, a party can replace a statewide nominee on the ballot if the person drops out at least 51 days before the election. Torricelli missed the deadline by 15 days.

However, Democrats say decades of state court decisions put voters' rights above filing deadlines and other technical guidelines.

Attorney General David Samson argued in papers filed with the court Tuesday that the justices have the power to relax the deadline to withdraw and allow Democrats to post another candidate. Samson, who was appointed to his job by McGreevey, said election laws have long been interpreted liberally to allow voters every opportunity.

Legal experts agreed.

"In a substantial number of those cases, the courts have ruled on the side of being inclusive," said Richard Perr, an election law professor at Rutgers University Law School.

For the record, if Lautenberg is placed on the ballot, I can't see the Republicans crying over the partisanship of the State Supreme Court - six of the seven were chosen by former Gov. Christine Whitman, a Republican, and only one by McGreevey.

What A Mess: I wonder if my absentee ballot was already printed, because it's going to have to be changed. I'm not sure I agree with Torricelli's timing here. If he wanted to quit, he should have done it three weeks ago so all this legal rambling wouldn't have to go on. But in the end, this is probably for the best, because I was getting the feeling (apparently so was he) that Forrester would have pulled out the win on election day.

As for Torricelli's potential replacements, it appears Frank Lautenberg has been selected for another run at the senate. A former senator, it seems he is probably the best choice of those available, because with only five weeks before election day the Democrats need name recognition. That being said, the ideal pick was former Sen. Bill Bradley, who not only is beloved in New Jersey but is the ethical antithesis of Bob Torricellli. Sadly, it seems Bradley didn't even return the phone calls of Tom Daschle, so we can count him out.

Then there's the coming court battle tomorrow. I don't see the Democratic majority of NJ State Supremes denying an actual election between two qualified candidates. The basic issue of allowing democracy to happen is one that the justices would be hard pressed to supress. On a more practical level, the New Jersey voters simply don't want a Republican senator - they were never going to vote FOR Doug Forrester, but rather AGAINST Bob Torricelli. New Jersey hasn't elected a Republican senator in thirty years, and given an opportunity, probably won't do so now.