What's Good for the Goose....

...evidently isn't good for the gander.

Remember when Sen. Torricelli of New Jersey was finally shamed into withdrawing from his 2002 Senate re-election race? According to New Jersey law, it was too late to replace his name on the ballot, but the Democratically controlled government of New Jersey did it anyway with Frank Lautenberg, a former Senator who won the election. The Democratic argument was:

The issue before the court is a simple one: what is in the best interests of the citizens of New Jersey," said Bonnie Watson Coleman, chairperson of the N.J. Democratic State Committee. "Our voters deserve a meaningful choice, and the law provides for that choice."

The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with the Democrats, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Now fast forward to 2006. Rep. Delay of Texas won the Republican primary for his Congressional district, but resigned from Congress in June and moved to Virginia. The Republicans tried to replace his name on the ballot, (a full 4 1/2 months before the election unlike Torricelli's 51 days) but the Democrats challenged them. The courts have ruled that Delay's name must remain on the ballot. The Republicans are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue is:

If DeLay is ineligible, under state law, he can be replaced on the ballot. If he withdraws, however, it is too late to replace him, according to state law.

So currently, the issue is whether Delay is eligible, even though he has moved to Virginia. Interestingly, Lautenberg was allowed to replace Torricelli on the ballot, even though it was a clear violation of New Jersey law to allow him to do so. Here it appears that Texas State laws will have to be followed.

Now the Democratic position is:

Republicans "want to say, 'You're thwarting people's right to choose their candidate.' Baloney. He's the one who decided to cut and run," said Boyd Richie, spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party.

Can you say hypocrite? I knew you could.