Trenton, NJ – New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie today released the following statement regarding the Phase 1 Interim Consultant’s Report on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey:
“The interim report released today on operations of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey describes an agency which failed to exercise proper oversight, control costs and budget transparently. The report’s Executive Summary describes an agency that is ‘challenged and dysfunctional,’ and where poor management ‘obscured full awareness of billions of dollars in exposure’ to the Port Authority.
“Cause for further concern is the report’s conclusion that the WTC gross project costs, last publicly reforecast at $11 billion in 2008, have since grown a staggering $3.8 billion to $14.8 billion, at a minimum. Similarly, the report finds capital planning is plagued by management deficiencies that have resulted in a doubling of debt in 10 years as the agency drifted from its core responsibility as a transportation infrastructure organization. Coupled with the consultant’s assessment of the impact of ‘add-on’ compensation for agency personnel – an institutionalized practice that has contributed to an unacceptable 19 percent increase in gross compensation in just five years – the interim report makes clear that wide-ranging reform is long overdue.
“This record of historic failure must be reversed. Steps have already been taken in the last two years, but much more must be done to restore the Port Authority to a responsible, highly transparent, well-managed organization focused on its core mission of maintaining and expanding our states’ shared transportation infrastructure for the health and growth of our overlapping economies. We will demand nothing short of the agency’s implementation of comprehensive recommendations and reform to achieve this critical mission.”
The Rider University College Republicans are under assault by the liberal Rider University administration. After reaching out to the schools finance committee back in November, the finance committee has decided to delay any funding leaving us in an uncertain position. We would like to be able to fund our own trip without having to rely on the committee. We are reaching out to ask if you can help us by making a donation. CPAC starts this Thursday and the school finance committee has just notified us of the delay with no hearing date set.
In comparison the finance board rapidly funded a trip for the Rider University Environmental club protesting the Keystone pipeline back in November where the
protest they attended changed the Department of Interior decision from yes to no on the Keystone pipeline.
We are asking you to help support the future of this great country and of the conservative movement. Please consider making a donation today!
Every day the Rider University College Republicans stand up against left-wing professors indoctrinating your children, not just here at Rider but all across New Jersey. Because the Rider Republicans take a stand for freedom they are facing funding challenges from Rider University. In order to standup against left-wing professors we need your support! Please consider donating today!
P.S. Our goal is to raise $5,000 as of now we have $2,000, if you can donate of as much as you can that would be greatly appreciated.
“As Chairman of the Rider University College Republicans, I want to let everyone know that US Senate candidate Joe Kyrillos was extremely generous in donating to our trip to CPAC!
I want to ask if you could follow in Joe’s footsteps and make a donation today! You can do it by the link below, we would really appreciate it!” – Charles D. Measley
The appointment of Justices to the Supreme Court of New Jersey is one of the most important duties afforded to the Governor under our Constitution. The men and women called to serve as members of our State’s highest judicial body must grapple with the most significant disputes arising from laws in a variety of areas, ranging from criminal justice to corporate governance. Rightfully, the qualifications of any attorney nominated to sit on the Supreme Court should be carefully scrutinized. In the case of Governor Christie’s two recent nominees, Bruce Harris and Phillip Kwon, that study reveals the backgrounds of extremely well qualified candidates whose experience is entirely consistent with the past and present Justices of the Supreme Court, all of whom enjoyed swift and strong Senatorial support.
Phillip Kwon has admirably dedicated nearly his entire career to various positions in public service within New Jersey. A graduate of Georgetown University and Rutgers Law School, Mr. Kwon has worked over the last decade for the State’s Attorney General and the United States Attorney’s Office as the lead trial prosecutor in matters such as narcotics trafficking, gang violence, and public corruption. He has served with distinction as a manager of dozens of federal prosecutors and thousands of state attorneys, earning the accolades of colleagues and adversaries. As both a private attorney and a judicial law clerk, he has experience in the same variety of civil matters that will occupy the Supreme Court’s docket in the years to come.
Mr. Harris has achieved the rare distinction of combining a successful career as an attorney at two of the State’s most prestigious private firms, with nearly eight years of elected public service. A magna cum lade graduate of Amherst College, Mr. Harris also holds an M.B.A, with honors, from Boston University and a law degree from Yale. In legal practice that spanned nearly two decades, Mr. Harris personally negotiated a wide array of financial transactions, in both the public and private sector, valued in excess of $8 billion. His legal advice and representation ranged from matters involving environmental projects, health care facilities, and public libraries, to assisted living homes, nonprofits, and residences for the disabled. Simultaneously, Mr. Harris volunteered his time with a host of local charities, including the Chatham Environmental Commission, the Chatham Historic Preservation Commission, and as a Trustee of the Foundation of the UMDNJ and New Jersey Health Foundation. He also combined his legal practice with nearly eight years of elected service, first as a member of the Chatham Borough Council and now as Chatham’s Mayor.
Notably, the backgrounds of both of these candidates are highly similar to the experiences and qualifications of our current and past Justices, all of whom received quick approval by the Legislature. Like Justice LaVecchia, who was confirmed within four days, Mr. Kwon is a graduate of Rutgers Law School. Mr. Harris not only has a legal degree, but also holds a Masters in Business Administration, which he obtained in 1979. Similar to Justice Rabner, who was confirmed within 17 days, Mr. Kwon clerked in the U.S. District Court, and held leadership positions in the Office of the United States Attorney. Both Justices Rabner and Patterson garnered experience at the Office of the Attorney General, as has Mr. Kwon, who has been with the Office since 2010. Three of the five current justices have extensive legal experience in private practice, as do both Mr. Harris and Mr. Kwon. Like all members of the court, Mr. Harris and Mr. Kwon have worked in prominent New Jersey law firms. Nor will Mr. Harris become the first elected Mayor and Councilman to sit on the Court, as Justice Daniel O’Hern served as both Mayor and Councilman of Red Bank before his service as a Justice.Water Sports Product
Moreover, the confirmation of both Mr. Harris and Mr. Kwon will restore much-needed political balance to the high court. By unwritten rule, Governors have maintained a political party affiliation split on the New Jersey Supreme Court, with no more than four Justices of the Governor’s party serving at the same time. Since 1947, however, the implementation of that “tradition” has produced a Republican majority a mere five times compared with nineteen Democratic majorities. Governor Christie’s appointments will honor the real intent of the compromise by creating a true party balance comprised of three registered Republicans (Hoens, Patterson, Harris), two registered Democrats (Rabner, Albin), and two unaffiliated Justices (LaVecchia, Kwon).
The Constitution does not permit indefinite, or even lengthy, vacancies on the Supreme Court. While the power of appointment and re-appointment rests solely with the Governor, the Senate holds the privilege of providing advice and consent of all persons asked to serve the people as members of the Court. The Governor’s selection of these two exceptionally qualified candidates, whose backgrounds are substantially similar to the attorneys who have served our State with distinction, will allow the Senate to move swiftly to publicly consider the temperament of these nominees in fulfillment of our Constitutional duty.
I am writing because I am concerned about a proposed double digit increase in the Marlboro Water Utility Division’s rates. When the mayor and Township Council decided to assume the Marlboro Township Municipal Utilities Authority (MTMUA) as part of the township two years ago, we were promised it would reduce taxpayer and ratepayers’ expenses.
At the time is was reported that the savings to the taxpayers for eliminating this layer of government would be more than $800,000 in the first year and $200,000 per year thereafter and that the takeover would not affect the rates. Yet now, barely two years later, a rate increase is proposed.
We were told the MTMUA was tapping into capital reserves to pay current operating expenses and that absorption (of the authority by the township) would reduce costs so those reserve funds could be used for repairs and upgrades. There were many dissenters at the time and even those who were worried that this would be a “onetime gimmick” and that the Water Utility Division would initially raise rates and then be sold off.
In fact, the question was posed to the mayor and council with a request for a resolution to promise not to sell the water (utility) so that Marlboro does not go the way of other towns who have assumed a water authority with disastrous results, i.e., Howell, which has one of the highest water rates in the state.
Mayor and council, can you provide some assurance that this proposed water increase will not occur, and that you will not sell the water (utility) as long as you are mayor of this town?
By Mark A. Falzon, President, Jersey Shore Tea Party
So long, Nikita. Bye bye, Brezhnev. Sayonara, Stalin. Change the drapes at the Kremlin for now Washington DC, USA is the hub of global Marxist activity in the world. Yes, the Kremlin has succumbed to the weight of time and passed the torch to North America.
This migration of the Marxist HQ has taken decades to complete. For a while there, global Marxism has had no official home. Castro and Peking have been fermenting internal revolutions or been occupied with other things. Moscow was drained of her captive nations. But then, a consortium of undesirable elements here in this country including our vaunted press, 1960ish radicals and greedy, selfish politicians have all participated in the slaying of the grandiose experiment known as the American Republic. Notice I use past tense because it is almost complete. The EPA, the NLRB, un-appointed czars (now I know why they use that name!), POTUS and a DC over-regulated, centralized nanny state are in place. To hell with individual liberty! To hell with the American Constitution. It was written by greedy, wealthy white slave owners anyway. God knows what else the devils have put in place because surely we cannot count on our vaunted press to expose it.
After the pseudo stimulus bill was passed I noticed something not widely published. That being, Andy Stern made a trip to Europe, stopping at many of the Euro capitals and larger cities. The same Andy Stern that was at one time the most frequent visitor to the WH. The same Andy Stern who was the brains and brawn behind SEIU and ACORN. I asked myself, “why?” and then it hit me. Our government, loaded with new Marxist-Leftist Radicals brought in by BHO and that Valerie Jarret were now flush with American taxpayer cash. We all know money talks. I ask, could Andy, as proper a Marxist representative as there is, have been parading through Europe handing out our taxpayer money to the cash starved Marxist groups all over Europe? I asked Joe (verbal gaffe of the day) Biden who was responsible for over seeing the disbursement of the stimulus funds, but he didn’t respond. Think about it. Marxist now rule the roost here. What better way to cement your global control of the Global Marxist Movement than to rain US taxpayer cash on them. At that point, you have control and allegiance. So long, Moscow hello DC!
Was this part of a master plan to fund the Euro demonstrations we saw last summer? Is that same cash secretly helping OWS who is threatening to bring Euro style violent demonstrations to our shores? Are known and unknown persons in DC calling the global Marxist Movement shots subsidized by US tax collections? Could be! Who knows because there certainly has not been a ledger produced detailing stimulus outlays…..and even if there were what clear thinking person would believe anything to come out of this administration. Credibility is not their strong suit.
Why mention this now? One word, ROMNEY. Romney is not the favorite of the Tea Party Movement. Of the 4 candidates I would safely say he is the least liked. The GOP Establishment with decades of experience and tons of money, appear to be having their way. The Tea Party Movement, newbies to the political scene have lost in this GOP presidential primary process. The GOP is poised to put their boy at the top. But there is the congress.
If a military field commander was charged with defending a city, bridge or any target, Officer training 101 would include several lines of defense. Line A, then Line B and possibly a Line C to maintain possession and thwart the enemy. We, the Tea Party Movement cannot influence whom we want as the GOP presidential candidate this cycle. But there is the congress. Congress can be our second line of defense. What better way to outflank the GOP Establishment and our Marxist interlopers in one move than the Tea Party Movement influencing the senate majority leader selection and the Speaker of the House? What a citizens’ coup! So my Tea Party brothers and sisters, do not lament for long Romney’s apparent success. Identify those senate and congressional candidates running that are true American patriots. Help those we put in office 2010 stay in office. Let’s make our new goal the following: both congressional leadership positions must go to a member of the congressional Tea Party Caucus! By controlling both houses of congress we can neuter a RINO president. With a RINO president and Tea Party congress we can squash once and for all this American Marxist initiative.
Let’s get out there and continue the revolution we started September 12, 2009. Let’s get out there and use as our goal the record setting congressional turnover in 2010 and try to build on it. Let the GOP Establishment focus on POTUS and we should not hinder them. We must, must have BHO removed. We must, must have the final say in our beloved nation and an iron grip over the congress will do just that.
With the Presidential primary season well under way, we are now being treated to candidates going from state to state almost every week in an effort or convince voters that they are the right person to lead the country. If you are wondering when the candidate train stops in New Jersey, well I have some bad news. Last September, the Lieutenant Governor signed a bill approved by the Legislature, which moved the New Jersey 2012 Presidential Primary from February (when it had been held in 2008 on the 5th of February aka “Super Tuesday” ) to June 5, 2012. In 2005, the Legislature had voted to move the 2008 primary which had normally been held in June, to February in an effort to try to give New Jersey voters more influence in picking their party’s Presidential candidates. In 2008, despite the fact that New Jersey’s primary was held on the same day as those in over 20 other states, several candidates did campaign in New Jersey despite it not getting as much of a national focus as had been hoped for. Over 1.1 million residents voted in the 2008 New Jersey Democratic Primary which was won by Hilary Clinton over Barack Obama. In the Republican contest, over 500,000 people went to the polls in an election that saw the party’s eventual nominee John McCain almost doubling the amount of votes received by the 2nd place finisher Mitt Romney. It was estimated that the cost of moving the primary from June to February was $12 million.
What makes the participation numbers interesting is when you weigh them against the number of voters taking part in the first two caucuses or primaries this year. Roughly 122,000 people voted in the Iowa Republican caucuses with approximately 250,000 people voting in the New Hampshire GOP Primary. Although there was a Democratic caucus in Iowa and a primary in New Hampshire, they were not competitive races with President Obama virtually unopposed for his party’s nomination. With several Republicans dropping out of their party’s contest just before, during or right after these races, the amount of influence these states have in choosing a party’s nominee is hugely out of proportion to the numbers of voters who take part. Contrast these participation numbers with those of the 2008 general election where close to 130 million voters went to the polls.
So the questions that beg for answers are 1) How can New Jersey residents become more influential in the process of picking their party’s candidate (besides moving to Iowa or New Hampshire for a few months every four years)? 2) What can be done to make the choice of each party’s nominee less dependent on voters in one or two states where they clearly have to much power and contain voters whose views are not always representative of the majority of voters in other states. Note that major issues in Iowa where farm subsidies, ethanol, religion/faith and social issues. One thing is for sure, none of those three would be the top issues for the majority of New Jersey voters. There are no easy answers to question #1. The major party’s threatened loss of convention delegates to States which were going to hold their primaries too early in the 2012 process. One idea for 2016 would be for the state to revert to the 2008 model and possibly schedule its primary in mid/late February or early March of 2016 (This also depends on party scheduling rules that can change.) As mentioned above, this change does come with additional cost ($12 million) and there is no guarantee that the nomination for one or both parties would not have been secured by that date.
The other idea which has been debated for several years, is holding a series (4-6) of regional primaries in the early March to early June time-frame. The order of these would rotate every four years. This would give more states greater influence in picking the eventual nominees. Even if Iowa and New Hampshire kept their traditional places at the starting gate, they would not have the same importance or as great a focus on by candidates.
Since 1976, only 3 of the 18 nominating contests were so close that almost every delegate mattered to the eventual nominee. A couple of interesting historical facts about New Jersey Presidential Primaries are:
In 1972, Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm won the states Democratic Primary. Rep. Chisholm was the first woman to run for the Democratic Presidential nomination and the first major party African American Presidential candidate.
In 1976, in an unsuccessful effort to stop Jimmy Carter from obtaining the Democratic nomination, a slate of uncommitted delegates backing Senator Hubert Humphrey and then (and current) California Governor Jerry Brown, defeated Carter by a wide margin. Carter’s primary win in Ohio the same day however, cinched the nomination for him. I attended a campaign rally for Governor Brown the day before the election at Airport Plaza in Hazlet on June 7, 1976. The story was the lead in the next days Red Bank Register and can be viewed here:
As a Ron Paul supporter, one concern I occasionally hear from potential voters is that they “like Ron Paul’s stances, except on foreign policy”. It’s a concern that is understandable and also one that I personally held until recently.
Ron Paul usually scores high marks with both republican and independent voters on taxes and spending. For decades, Dr. Paul has warned the American people of the dangers of the Federal Reserve system and of periodic government intervention in the economy. His strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution while in elected office is also something to be praised.
In fact, Dr. Paul has been praised by many of his colleagues who are currently running for President. Mitt Romney punted a question regarding the U.S. Constitution to Paul during a New Hampshire debate, bestowing the title of ‘Constitutionalist’ upon Dr. Paul. Newt Gingrich frequently compliments Paul on his fight against the Federal Reserve. Gingrich even went so far as to mention Paul’s Fed stance during his South Carolina victory speech. Ron Paul’s economic platform has slowly entered the mainstream of the GOP political discourse, and has finally broken through with great reception from conservative voters.
Without Ron Paul, the gold standard, the federal reserve, the dangers of a fiat currency, and a nation continually saddled with debt would have gone by un-raised. At least until it was too late.
What drives a big chunk of conservatives up a wall is the mention of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Many syndicated ‘conservative’ pundits label Ron Paul’s foreign policy as ‘extreme’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘isolationist’. With this context in mind, it’s easy to see why many establishment republican voters would turn their backs on Dr. Paul. The position of bringing the troops home along with talking heads like Hannity and Beck, jumping and screaming about Paul’s apparent ‘isolationism’ would strongly encourage many conservatives to not take a second look at Ron Paul and dismiss him entirely.
First and foremost, Ron Paul is many things. However, an isolationist isn’t one of them. An excellent example of an isolationist country would be North Korea. The ironically named ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ has closed itself off from the rest of the world. There is no trade. There is no diplomacy. There is no immigration or emigration. Being isolated from the rest of the world is the antithesis of what Ron Paul believes, and the notion that he is anything close to an ‘isolationist’ should be expelled from any informed voter’s mind.
Non-interventionism, the foreign policy of Ron Paul, put’s America’s needs and concerns first, instead of the needs of other nations. It is important to know that at present the United States has over 900 military installations in over 130 foreign countries.
The overreach and spreading thin of our troops throughout the world leaves our home front vulnerable. One has to look no further than the United States’ own borders, which are seriously undermanned and without any protection whatsoever for many miles. Another example closer to home is the recent shut down of the Fort Monmouth Facility in Monmouth County. The federal government shut down the base late last year as a means of cost savings.
The simple fact that we’re closing bases in New Jersey to open new bases abroad does not make me feel safer as a United States citizen.
The United States military currently has:
◦52,440 military personnel in Germany.
◦35,688military personnel in Japan
◦28,500military personnel in Korea
◦9,015military personnel in the United Kingdom
◦9,660military personnel in Italy
America’s fighting men and women should only be sent overseas when our nation is at war. Our nation should only be at war when the Congress, representing the American people, passes a Declaration of War, as mandated by our Constitution. These used to be conservative principles that our nation held dear up until recently in our history. Since our founding and up to 1945 we declared wars, won them, and the troops have come home. This has been due to our government picking its battles carefully, and only entering conflicts with clear, concise objectives, and naturally, voting on the war in the congress.
As President, Ron Paul has made it clear that he would not hesitate to go to war if necessary, but only as a last resort. The war would obviously have to be legitimized by a vote in the congress, as stated in the constitution.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is approved by the most important pundits of all, the troops. Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty military personnel than all the rest of the candidates, including President Obama, combined.
If you listen to the troops (particularly those who support Ron Paul), they’ll tell you that the United States Military is creating enemies faster than they can kill them overseas. The troops would tell you, that bringing them home and building our defense here would be more profitable than sending our money and young men and women to the sands of some foreign land.
Military veterans like Adam Kokesh and active duty Cpl Jesse Thorsen have been speaking out about the dangerous foreign policy that the U.S. Government currently engages in, and they offer Ron Paul’s foreign policy as a clear alternative to the lunacy that exists today.
The extreme fiscal expense that the United States incurs by stationing troops around the world will leave our treasury bare and we’ll have nothing to show for it. It is a fiscally conservative position, as well as a constitutional position to support a strong national defense and a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which is the position Paul holds. We can either elect to withdraw from our international installations now, or we’ll be forced to leave in a few years when our government can no longer afford anything and we’ve run out of creditors.
I can’t imagine how someone who considers themselves to be a fiscal conservative can possibly support the fiscally liberal position of excessive spending to subsidize other nations’ defense. Not only do the troops like Ron Paul, but defense employees from companies like Lockheed Martin contribute to Ron Paul as well because they know Dr. Paul would build up our national defense, not engage in careless militarism abroad. Under Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America, we’d still spend four times more than China on Defense and reduce all other budgetary obligations to 2006 levels. The total savings from rethinking our defense and other careful cuts would result in $1 Trillion of savings in the first year. This would effectively save social security and medicare, without touching promised benefits to seniors or the less privileged. Sounds pretty fiscally conservative to me.
We’ve been trained by the media to believe that same-sex attraction is biologically determined, that it is unchangeable and damaging to attempt to change it, that it has no correlation whatsoever with decreasing mental health, and that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships in every significant way, including stability. Therefore, homosexuality must be treated like other non-prejudicial differences, such as skin color. Science says so, or so we are told.
But does it really? In a word, no.
In a major article in the February 2012 issue of First Things, Stanton L. Jones—a professor of psychology at Wheaton College—provides a thorough review of the relevant scientific studies. While Jones acknowledges that there is a great deal science does not know about homosexuality, he concludes that sufficient studies have now been done to give the lie to all of the common assumptions listed in my opening paragraph.
To repeat the scientific literature would be to duplicate Jones’ efforts, so I’ll content myself with summarizing his findings. These are:
The best and most comprehensive studies available suggest that depression and substance abuse are 20 to 30 percent more prevalent among homosexuals. This is typically dismissed by the claim that it results from social stigma, but (in Jones’ words), “the possibility that the orientation and all it entails cuts against a fundamental, gender-based given of the human condition, thus creating distress, is not raised.” Tellingly, the percentages do not appear to drop in cultures which are deliberately gay-friendly.
Early claims that homosexuality is biologically determined were based on a theory of pregnancy which posited that the mother’s body increasingly reacted against male hormones with successive male children, thereby causing a higher percentage of younger brothers to be incompletely masculinized, and so to be homosexual. This thesis that homosexuals have a disproportionate number of older brothers has now been disproven.
Genetics is, of course, another area of research into homosexual biological determinism. But the latest and most comprehensive studies of twins and siblings show that heritability for homosexuality is relatively weak (no stronger than for other behavioral tendencies); further, there is no evidence to support the notion that these tendencies are not as modifiable as other tendencies (such as a tendency to watch a great deal of television, which appears also to be heritable).
In addition, there are many studies which correlate homosexuality with environmental factors such as broken families, absent fathers, older mothers, childhood sexual abuse, and even being born and living in urban settings.
Despite the uniform proclamation of the psychiatric establishment that homosexual orientation cannot change, no body of properly-conducted studies proves this contention. Jones himself has led studies of groups of persons who are trying to change their orientation, resulting in either a completely successful change in orientation (23%), or the ability to live chastely (30%), or at least a continuing effort with limited success (27%). Only 20% abandoned the effort and affirmed their homosexuality more strongly. Jones concludes that “homosexual orientation is…sometimes mutable.”
Conclusive evidence exists that committed relationships between homosexual men are 50% more likely to break up than heterosexual relationships. Between homosexual women, the dissolution rate is 167% higher than the heterosexual rate.
Professor Jones also raises in passing two issues which involve value judgments unprovable by science, and to which CatholicCulture.org has called attention on a number of previous occasions. The first is the issue of sexual identity. To claim that the fundamental sense of identity of the human person is based on their sexual attractions is not a scientific statement, but an overall personal judgment of a an incredibly complex and varied question which no scientific study could ever fully explore. Many people, probably most, have in fact reached a different conclusion, understanding themselves not as having identities determined by their feelings but rather “telic” identities, that is, identities determined by teleology—our natural understanding of the design, purposes and ends of the human person.
This brings us back to a fundamental point. For even if all the claims in the opening paragraph could be proved by science, they would tell us nothing about whether or not homosexuality is a disorder. Even if same-sex attraction were biologically determined and unchangeable, and even if the psychological health of homosexuals equaled that of heterosexuals in the ways measured, and even if homosexual relationships had the same durability as heterosexual relationships, we still would have no grounds to argue that same-sex attraction is a well-ordered human affectivity.
This is because we already know from teleology, from our perception of the very nature and purposes of things, that same-sex attraction is incapable of carrying the full range of goods appropriate to sexuality in the natural order. Thus same-sex attraction is identifiable as a disordered condition in and of itself, whether its cause lies in biology or elsewhere, or in a combination of things. Ultimately, one can claim homosexuality is well-ordered only by ruling out of court the most obvious and widely-accessible factors in the case, the ordinary factors of judgment about the nature and purpose of human sexuality, the factors that are available to all of us.
This is rather like claiming it is not a disorder to be born with only one leg because we do not know that the human person was designed or intended by God or nature to have two. Or, perhaps more to the point, it is like claiming a person suffering from bilumia is not suffering a disorder because we have no way of knowing whether eating constantly with no proportion to our need for food is a normal condition in human nature or not. In all such cases, to define the person down to a set of his own peculiar characteristics is to rob him of his full identity as a person, which is essential to his self-understanding, development, growth and maturity. A man with one leg has been prevented by a disorder from having two, but he will live as much as possible as if he had two legs. A woman with bulimia will know that the full measure of her personal identity is inhibited by a disorder, and she will strive to overcome it in order to be fully what she is called by God and/or nature to be.
It is essential to understand that such faulty judgments cannot be proved (or disproved) “scientifically” because they arise from a fundamentally human and personal way of knowing which science cannot (and does not seek to) utilize in its own tightly restricted purposes and methodologies. This manner of seeing things whole is natural to the human person (among formal mental disciplines, philosophy comes closest to it).
But it remains very important to know whether specific claims which can be addressed scientifically are true or false. Without ignoring the larger issues, Stanton Jones has done an exemplary job of answering this question, based on the full range of scientific studies available to us now.
Nominees Bring Experience, Distinctive Career Paths and the Highest Integrity to New Jersey’s State Supreme Court
Trenton, NJ – GovernorChris Christie today made two historic nominations to the New Jersey State Supreme Court with Bruce A. Harris, Mayor of Chatham, a lawyer with over 20 years of legal experience, and Phillip H. Kwon, First Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Law and Public Safety and former Deputy Chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division. Both Harris and Kwon will not only bring accomplished and respected legal careers and records of service to the state’s highest court, but also a historic level of diversity to the membership of the Court.
“I am extraordinarily proud to announce these two historic nominations to the New Jersey State Supreme Court. Bruce and Phil are each accomplished and talented individuals with skilled legal minds who are highly respected in the legal community. Just as importantly, each of them has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to serving their state and communities,” said Governor Chris Christie.
“Additionally, not only do their different backgrounds and career paths bring distinctive and important perspectives to the Supreme Court, Bruce and Phil also capture our state’s diversity in a way never before seen in the history of the Court,” continued Governor Christie.
Today’s nominations build upon Governor Christie’s commitment to diversity on the courts in four historic ways. Bruce Harris will become the third African-American to serve on the State Supreme Court and the first openly gay member of the Court. Phil Kwon will become the first Asian-American to serve on the Supreme Court and the first immigrant to serve since the 1947 Constitution created the Court. Furthermore, Justice Anne Paterson, nominated by Governor Christie and confirmed, created the first female majority in the history of the Supreme Court, one of only five in the nation.
“Today is an important and historic symbol for New Jersey and our country. I am proud to be nominating two legal professionals who not only have a passion for this state and a dedication to the legal system, but also capture New Jersey’s great diversity,” concluded Governor Christie.
Bruce Harris is a lawyer with over 20 years of legal experience, most recently working at the law firm of Greenberg Traurig and previously at Riker, Danzi, Scherer, Hyland and Perretti. His work has focused primarily on issues of public finance and commercial lending. Harris graduated magna cum lade from Amherst College and graduated with honors from Boston University Graduate School of Management and Yale Law School.
Harris has a long record of service to his town and community, including his recent election as Mayor of Chatham Borough and previously service as a member of the Chatham Borough Council. He has served on the Chatham Environmental Commission, the Chatham Historic Preservation Commission, and on the boards of the UMDNJ Foundation and the New Jersey Health Foundation.
Phillip Kwon currently serves as First Assistant Attorney General where he has been the principal legal and strategic adviser to the Attorney General. Previously, he served New Jersey as part of the United States Attorney’s Office as the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, the Chief of the Violent Crimes Unit and the Assistant US Attorney of both the Special Prosecutions Division and the Criminal Division. In that capacity, he was the lead prosecutor on a diverse range of federal crimes and public corruption matters, in addition to taking on cases against some of New Jersey’s most notorious and violent groups, such as the Bloods, Crips, and Latin Kings.
Kwon graduated from Georgetown University and from Rutgers Law School where he was an editor of the Law Review.
Both nominations are subject to Senate confirmation. In an agreement reached last May to end the impasse over the nomination of Justice Anne Patterson, Senate President Sweeney promised an expedited confirmation process for these nominations, with an appropriate review process and up-or-down vote taking place in time for each to be seated by March of this year.
·Senator Sweeney: “The Governor has a couple of nominations come March of next year and one of the things I hope the Governor keeps in mind is racial diversity of the courts. We need to make sure we have a racially diverse court that looks like the state of New Jersey but there’s a commitment from me to move the nominations come March also.” (Senator Steven Sweeney, Press Availability, 5/2011)
