NYCivic - Socrates and Torricelli

Socrates and Torricelli- The Philosopher and the Scoundrel
by Henry J. Stern
October 7, 2002

The following thoughts occur to an Athenian, possibly a cynic, seeking to find justice in The Case of the Flaming Torch.

1. If Torricelli had died, the Democrats should certainly be allowed to replace him, just as they did in Missouri, when Governor Carnahan was killed in a plane crash, and his wife replaced him on the ballot.. (She defeated John Ashcroft, thus making him available to the Bush administration and to history.)

2. If Mr.T had been hit by a truck, and consequently been brain damaged, or if he had a very serious stroke or other incapacitating illness, would it not be fair and reasonable to allow for his replacement on the ballot ?

3. If he had been caught molesting a child, or committing some other loathsome offense, the case for substitution is not as strong, but would there not be a strong equitable argument that Torricelli was not the person the Democrats thought he was when they nominated him, since one who commits an awful crime may well have a mental disability?

4. If he had previously committed a variety of crimes and misdemeanors, although so far unpunished for them by the law, and this was found, by the latest polling techniques, not to sit well with the skeptical voters of New Jersey, would that not be the weakest circumstance to allow for substitution ?.

5. If parties can change candidates whenever they like, the way football or basketball coaches take players in and out of the game, would that not make for a radically new electoral process, which the public rather than the courts should have to initiate ?

But can it not also be said that

6. The people of New Jersey are entitled to choose their United States Senator, and if a majority prefer(s) Lautenberg to Forrester, their wishes should be followed.

7. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has decided the matter unanimously, and a decent respect for states' rights under the Federal system should leave their verdict in place.

8. Six of the seven Jersey judges who decided the case were appointed by former Governor Christie Whitman, known by President Bush to be a person of integrity and principle when he appointed her Environmental Protection Administrator. Should the judgment of such worthies not have considerable weight ?

9. Is it not in the public interest to be able to get rid of a crook without having to be represented for six years by a dunce ?

10.    The political process is not an athletic contest, where the issue is fairness between the competitors, who can run faster or jump higher. Whoever wins does not affect the lives of the spectators. Politics is more important, it is a search for the best, or most popular candidate, to represent millions of people for many years. Shouldn’t whatever will help reach that goal be considered as in the public interest ?

Our search for truth and justice leads to a few further questions:

11. Is this case truly a matter of Federal or State jurisdiction ?

12. If this decision means control of the United States Senate for at least two years, will that make a difference in the outcome ?   Should it ?

13. Since the Senate has the responsibility to confirm Federal judges, and since ideology has been added to competence as a criterion for confirmation, would the Justices be deciding who their successors might be in ruling on this case. Would ideological issues inform their judgment in a matter of this magnitude ?

14. If the Supreme Court of the United States decides this issue by the same 5-4 margin as it did in Bush v. Gore, what effect will that have on the reputation of the court.

And, by the way,

15. If David Chang, the donor of the splendid gifts, possibly a victim of extortion, is sitting in Federal prison; why is the beneficiary of this largesse a free man, not even an unindicted co-conspirator ?

16. If election law is simply what the judges say it is, as is widely believed, what difference will the above fifteen questions make in determining the result in this case ?

       I am aware that the above 16 questions may not exhaust the issues. If anyone has other inquiries that can be expressed briefly (in 25 words or less), please be good enough to e-mail Socrates (an anachronism), who can temporarily be reached through his latter-day admirer, StarQuest@nycivic.org .