Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
BY JOSH McMAHON
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
COMMENTARY
Chris Christie, the governor with a knack for cultivating controversy, has gone and done it again. This time it's the courts.
Some are questioning why the Statehouse bully walked off the schoolyard, where he has had considerable success, and barged his way into the courtroom, where his prospects for winning are so-so.
He did this by refusing to reappoint Justice John Wallace to the state supreme court. No governor had ever done such a thing.
He's got some so riled up that they're accusing him of sabotaging New Jersey's independent judiciary — all by his lonesome.
On top of that, he's started yet another spat with the Democrats. This one was unnecessary and politically dumb. It's a rare misstep for usually sure-footed Christie.
One thing is clear from the initial shoving in this fight: neither Wallace nor Anne Patterson, the Morris County lawyer Christie tapped to take a seat on the bench, has a future with the court. Wallace is gone and Patterson will never get there.
So let's look at the issues. First the Cliff notes version, followed by a longer explanation.
Has Christie become the first governor to inject politics into the judiciary?
Hardly.
Did he blunder with his first venture into the judiciary?
Probably.
Is the independence of the court in jeopardy?
Maybe, but not from the governor.
Did Justice Wallace deserve to be dumped?
No way.
So let's go one by one and examine the various aspects of the latest cause Christie.
Critics, mainly Democrats, claim the governor has introduced politics into a previously pristine court system. Without a doubt, politics was involved in the governor's decision to not give Wallace another two years on the bench.
Christie has always been up front about his intention to reshape the court, which he believes has been too quick to create state policy rather than simply interpret the constitution.
That's not introducing politics. The judiciary has always been about politics. Nearly every one of the 370 or so judges throughout the state got their black robes because they were involved one way or another with politics.
Lawyers don't get selected for the bench just because they're deserving or because they possess the sharpest legal mind in the county.
A local politician, who is, shall we say, familiar with them, plucks them from a law firm or government office. Most likely the wanna be judge has donated to the party or has a relative who wrote checks.
The prospective judges also know that another senator from their home county can block the nomination at any time without ever having to say why or even admit doing it.
So the need to play nice with politicians is one of the resume requirements for getting the job.
In fact, one of the fastest ways to the state supreme court has been through the governor's office. At least five recent former members of the court had served as counsel to the governor.
The current chief justice, Stuart Rabner, and his predecessors, Deborah Poritz and James Zazzalli had all served as attorneys general before heading to the court.
No politics involved in that? Yeah right.
None of this is to suggest that they weren't qualified. It's just recognition of how they got to the bench.
Some are also maintaining that the independence of the judiciary is under attack and that Christie is leading it.
This was deemed so serious that Rabner felt compelled to issue a statement the gist of which reminded judges of their obligation to uphold the law and provide justice.
The authors of the 1947 state constitution, he said, "understood the enduring value of having judges decide cases not with an eye to reappointment but by fairly and honestly applying the law to the facts, free from any political pressure.
"We must not forget that those guiding principles remain vital today."
Rabner seems to be suggesting that some judges may be so concerned with their future on the bench that they are willing to turn a blind eye to the law and decide cases in a way that they perceive would be pleasing to politicians. If that's so, it's the result of corrupt personal ethics, not political interference.
If Rabner is on to something, New Jersey's judicial system is in real trouble.
Democrats like to say the refusal to reappoint Wallace marks the first time that has happened since the 1947 state constitution established the modern judiciary.
True, sort of.
Peter Venerio, who was serving as attorney general when appointed by then Gov. Christie Whitman to the bench, was marked to be the first. The Democrats, who controlled the Statehouse and the legislature at that time, had made clear their intention to yank that black robe off his back just as soon as they got the chance. They never did. He resigned before coming up for reappointment.
So the Democrats are being a bit disingenuous by complaining now about politics.
Did Christie blunder with this court move? I think so.
He and Senate President Stephen Sweeney were on the same page on a lot of issues. But Wallace was Sweeney's guy and now the Democrat is out to show that the governor can't hurt one of his guys without paying a price.
If Christie had reappointed Wallace, a satisfied Sweeney would have been more willing to go along with some of the governor's plans. Besides, Wallace has only two years to go before the mandatory retirement age of 70. Christie could have picked his own person then.
It was a mistake.
Related
Leone: Hopefully Christie sees he overstepped on his N.J. Supreme Court decision
Etish: Christie's Supreme Court decision puts independence of N.J. courts in jeopardy
What bothered Christie, Republicans and conservatives in general has been the court's decisions on school funding which required billions and billions to be spent on just 31 poor districts and the Mt. Laurel rulings that required all towns to allow for the construction of low and moderate housing.
In both cases the court went beyond the role of the judiciary and established itself as an all-powerful authority even though it did not and does not have the expertise to handle such issues.
For Christie, Wallace became a symbol of an over-reaching supreme court, even though Wallace didn't participate in those decisions.
Still, Christie decided Wallace had to go. It's a decision Christie may live to regret.
Josh McMahon is a former member of The Star-Ledger's editorial board and had served as the paper's political editor. He may be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
ALSO BY JOSH McMAHON
What now after New Jersey's historic 2010 school elections?
Christie's budget is the gift that keeps giving to Democrats
Christie wagering his political future on budget clash
The over/under of Lesniak's sports gambling plan
N.J. Dems' ad-libbing in budget drama could prove costly
New Jersey's great expectations of Chris Christie
Gov. Chris Christie and the promises he must keep
The good, the bad and the almost of the Corzine years
New Jersey's gay marriage issue takes a lot of soul searching, even for politicians
The advocacy efforts of NJ Supreme Court CJ Rabner on behalf of Justice Wallace by affirming the views of Senator Sweeney & Co. further support the growing view of the judicary as nothing less than self-insulating partisan activitists. Not only has he publicly and voluntarily delivered his opinion on matters that may well come before the Supreme Court, he is also proactively volunteering to be counsel for all judges worried about their reappointment. Accordingly, the extreme bias exhibited by CJ Rabner would seem to also preclude him from naming, and thus tainting, any temporary successor to Justice Wallace.