Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
TagsBY TOM HESTER SR.
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
The seven-member Judiciary Advisory Panel, formed in 2006 to advise the governor in the selection of state justices and justices, resigned en-mass Wednesday over Gov. Chris Christie’s decision not to reappoint Justice John Wallace to the Supreme Court.
The panel includes four former Supreme Court justices and a semi-retired Superior Court judge.
“You have expressed publicly a profoundly different view of the governor’s appointive responsibilities,’’ the panel members write in a letter hand delivered to Christie’s Statehouse office. “This was exemplified by your actions and remarks in refusing to reappoint Justice John Wallace to the Supreme Court, a jurist who indisputably exemplified all the qualification for honorable judicial service. It is a view that is inconsistent with an independent judiciary. Because of our abiding commitment to the independence of the judiciary, we cannot in good conscience continue to serve on the Judiciary Advisory Panel.’’
Michael Drewniak, Christie's press secretary, had a brief response to the resignations.
"The governor thanks the advisory panel members for their service, and we expect to be making appointments to fill those vacancies in short order. The members who resigned are entitled to their opinions, but not everyone shares their views, including others in the judiciary and legal community who recognize the governor’s constitutional prerogative and authority in this regard.''
The letter was signed by former Justices James H. Handler and Stewart Pollock, the panel co-chairmen; former Chief Justice Deborah T. Poritz, former Justice Alan B. Handler, attorney Carlos G. Ortiz, and Kean University Prof. Susan Lederman. Retired Superior Court Judge Harold B. Wells submitted a separate letter of resignation because, he noted, he is subject to recall to help handle court cases.
The panel members had a year left in their five-year terms.
The Judiciary Advisory Panel was formed in 2006 through an executive order issued by Gov. Jon Corzine. Its purpose is described as to assist the governor in the selection of judges.
In the letter, the panel wrote of its role, “Its purpose in assisting the governor in the selection of judges embraced the fair and impartial administration of justice (that) lies at the cornerstone of our system of government to the end that the people be served by judges of the highest legal and ethical caliber. The panel has conscientiously recommended for judicial office only those persons possessing integrity, independence, competence, respect, fairness and impartiality, as reflected in the Canons of Judicial Conduct.”
Christie sparked the hottest dispute involving the state judiciary since 2004 in late April when he announced he would not renominate Wallace to lifetime tenure on the high court and instead nominated Morristown-based attorney Anne M. Patterson of Mendham. Wallace would have faced mandatory retirement at age 70 in March 20112.
The panel made no reference to Patterson in its letter.
Christie has criticized the seven-member high court as legislating issues rather than making decision based on legal arguments. The governor said that in nominating Patterson, 51, a Republican from Mendham, he is attempting to rebalance the court. It was the first time a governor did not renominate a sitting justice since the present court was established in 1947.
Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney (D-Gloucester) has announced that the Democratic-controlled upper house will not consider Patterson’s nomination. Democrats wanted to see Wallace, 68, of Sewell, who was the only African-American on the court, renominated.
In early May, Poritz criticized Christie's decision not to reappoint Wallace. "By doing this through the tenure process, I think the governor sends a different signal (to judges),'' she said. "The signal is be careful how you carry out your task of judging because that may affect whether you get tenure or not. And that affects the independence of the judiciary."
Poritz made the comment shortly after sitting Chief Justice Stuart Rabner sent a letter to over 400 state judges, urging them not to let fear of not being reappointed to the bench cloud their court decisions.
How many times has Coleman told NJN's "Due Process" of his committment to "social justice." And, then there's Poritz, who, in the gay rights suit leading to civil unions, couldn't tell the difference between a substantive interest in a state created right and a Constitutional right. Moreover, we're still waiting for an unfettered inquiry into the early days of the AG and driving-while-black. Handler, here's a guy who thought the Corzine-Katz emails disqualified him from involvement in the matter, but ignored Codey's duty to replace him in the matter and instead invoked the rule of necessity to save the then Govs butt. Etc., etc. etc.