Never mind the 1% to 99% rhetoric that has worked its way into our lexicon since the Occupy movement moved into Zuccotti Park. With yesterday’s 3-2 decision that judges are exempt from New Jersey’s pension and health benefits reform, our State’s judiciary have declared themselves the .005%. They are the truly elite. The 400 of New Jersey’s 8.8 million citizens. They don’t have to share in the sacrifice.
As Governor Christie said in Atlantic City yesterday,
“What we did, the administration and the Legislature, was demand that everybody in public employment pay their fair share for the benefits they’re going to get like people in the private sector do every day. And I cannot believe that we’re going to permit one small sector of folks (to be exempt), who consider themselves special, and who by the way granted themselves this special treatment themselves. That doesn’t make any sense to me.’’
“If you’re a police officer, or a fire fighter, or a teacher in this state, and you’re paying more for your health benefits and your pension, I’ve got a feeling you’re pretty frosted if it turns out that a group of judges decides for the whole group of judges that they don’t have to pay their fair share.’’
Christie told NJ 101.5’s audience on his monthly Ask the Governor show last night that if the legislature puts a Constitutional Amendment on the ballot this fall, he will campaign for it. That will be the easiest campaign in the history of the world. There will likely be 3.9 million New Jerseyans voting on November 6. There are about 400 judges. If all of the judges got all of their family members and friends to vote against the Constitutional Amendment, would that add up to even 10,000 votes? I don’t think so.
As Senator Joe Kyrillos said yesterday, “Judicial independence does not mean judicial supremacy and exceptionalism.” If the legislature acts by August 6, and it looks as though they will, the people of New Jersey will be sending the Judicial branch an overwhelming reminder that they work for us. In America, even in New Jersey, the people are Sovereign. “All political power is inherent in the people.”
Even though there is not much time, the legislature should consider recommending other changes to Article VI, Section VI of the State Constitution to the people, since we’ll be making changes to the clause anyway.
Is seven years too long before a Judge is reviewed and reconfirmed? How about 3 or 4 years? Is tenure after 7 years, if reconfirmed, until mandatory retirement at age 70 still appropriate? How about a review and reconfirmation every 4, 5, or 7 years until retirement. When the retirement age of 70 for judges was affirmed by Constitutional Amendment in 1978, the average life expectancy in the United States was 73.5. Now, the average life expectancy is 78. Why not increase the mandatory retirement age to 75 or 80? How about establishing a voluntary retirement age before being eligible to collect a pension at 70. Those would create some pension savings.
The Judiciary has given the Legislature an opportunity to make substantive adjustments to the .005%’s superiority and exceptionalism.
As Governor Christie told a Town Hall meeting audience in Garfield on May 2, it is extraordinarily difficult to hold judges accountable in New Jersey. Now would be a good time to make some changes.
If you agree, contact your legislators and the governor. Pass this column on and ask others to do the same. Time is short.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 3-2 with Chief Justice Stuart Rabner not participating, this morning in Paul M. DePascale v State of New Jersey that the pension and health benefits reforms passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Christie last year violates the State Constitution’s provision prohibiting a reduction in judges salaries during their terms. Thus, New Jersey Judges will not be contributing more to their pensions and health benefits, unless the Constitution is amended.
The issue now goes back to the Legislature. Legislation putting a Constitutional amendment on the ballot this fall was held up in June pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
Governor Chris Christie will hold a press conference at 4:30 this afternoon. It is expected that he will be addressing the Senate Judiciary Committee’s rejection of Bruce Harris’s nomination to the State Supreme Court.
The Star Ledger’s Tom Moran is back to his old tricks of using the race card while attempting to advance his political agenda.
In early 2010, shortly after Governor Chris Christie took office, Moran tried to derail the Christie administration by teaming up with Assembly Speaker Shelia Oliver to call Christie and his team “…white men, most of them political neophytes…” who never rode a bus and couldn’t understand how their deeply their economic policies were impacting “working poor families.”
Moran did that before he realized that Christie is a “force of nature who could probably make a dog sing if he put his mind to it.”
In a column posted on Tuesday that defends the President’s constitutional pronouncements about the Supreme Court’s right to overturn ObamaCare Moran employed Jeanane Garofalo’s tactic of accusing Obama’s critics of being racist.
Because Moran is smarter and prettier, his accusation is sublter than Garofalo’s crude remarks, yet it is no less offensive:
Obama went on to make an important point: That if the court overrules the health care law, it will be practicing judicial activism. Conservatives have been complaining about judicial activism since the Supreme Court struck down Jim Crow segregation laws in the South, and the heat rose considerably after Roe v. Wade.
Maybe fellow Star Ledger columnist Paul Mulshine can explain the difference between judicial activistism and constructionism to Moran.
Activistism is when a Court finds, invents or redefines a constitutional provision in order to make new law that is consistent with its political or ideological preference. That is what the U.S. Supreme Court did in Roe v Wade and what the NJ Supreme Court did in the Abbott decisions.
Constructionism is what a court does when it decides that the legislative or executive branches exceeded the power granted to them in the Constitution, like mandating people buy something they don’t want.
Moran, like Obama, probably knows the difference. Also like Obama, he probably just doesn’t think the Constitution is that important. That’s OK for Moran who hasn’t sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. It’s not OK for the President who has sworn that oath.
The race card worked well for liberals in 2008. The invoked it successfully to mute Obama’s poltical opponents in the Democratic primary and during the general election. They appealed to ‘white guilt” to get Obama elected. It was a disgusting and effective strategy.
But the race card is played out. It didn’t work in the politicization of the Trayvon Martin tragedy. It didn’t work when Garofalo played it. It didn’t work in 2010.
Moran should stop playing the race card. Conservative opposition to ObamaCare has nothing to do with the Jim Crow laws, just as Governor Christie’s economic policies have nothing to do with how many of his cabinet members and staffers have ever ridden a bus.
Moran’s job is the inform, educate and persuade. He should leave the obfuscation to politicians, activists and B-rate entertainers looking for their next gig.
The New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold hearings on the nominations of Bruce Harris and Phillip Kwon for seats on the State Supreme Court this morning.
The hearings can be followed live on the Legislature’s website.
If you want to understand what rule by liberal judges looks like on the state level, you need only look at New Jersey, which is teetering on bankruptcy though it remains one of America’s wealthiest states. ~ Steven Malanga, writing in City Journal
If you want to understand how, despite being one of the wealthiest states in the country, New Jersey is teetering on the brink of fiscal disaster, read Steven Malanga’s The Court That Broke New Jersey.
If you want to know why no governor or state legislature can reduce New Jersey’s oppressive property taxes, read Steven Malanga’s The Court That Broke New Jersey.
Malanga traces the roots of New Jersey’s tyranical Supreme Court all the way back to Arthur Vanderbilt, the first Chief Justice under the 1947 state constitution. In his opinion in Winberry v. Salisbury, Vanderbilt layed the foundation for judicial tyrnany by ruling that the court, not the legislature, has the power to make rules for the state judiciary.
That ruling set New Jersey’s judiciary apart from the court systems in most other states—as well as from the federal judiciary, which ultimately derives its authority from Congress. Some critics have even argued that Winberry violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that every state must have a republican form of government. “Under the doctrine of Winberry v. Salisbury,” wrote New Jersey lawyer Anthony Kearns in a 1955 ABA Journal article, “we can only conclude that laws of practice and procedure are exclusively in the hands of men who are not elected.”
Malanga clearly lays out how New Jersey’s Supreme Court has taken over the state’s education policy and funding with no improvement in urban education to show for the $40 billion that has been wasted as a result of the Abbott decisions. He lays out the history of how the court usurped local zoning power with the Mt. Laurel decisions and COAH. He connects the dots in explaining how those two extra-constitutional power grabs have resulted in massive wealth redistribution, with no societal benefit, and an oppressive system of goverments.
Malanga stressed the importance of Christie’s promise to reshape the court with judges who will interpret the constitution rather than relating to it as a “living document.” However, he is not optimistic because of “…a Democrat-controlled legislature that’s often happy to dodge responsibility for heavy spending by letting the court mandate it.”
Hat tip to InTheLobby for bring this important article to our attention.
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.
Controversial Traditional Marriage Advocate Says Christie’s Supreme Court Nominee Lacks Judicial Temperment
Bob Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, sent an email blast this evening asking the recipients to contact New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and ask him to withdraw Chatham Mayor Bruce Harris, an African-American, openly gay Republican, as a nominee to the State Supreme Court.
Brown said the Harris nomination appeared to be failure a vetting, “not a deliberate backhand betrayal by New Jersey’s governor.”
The email, which directs readers to the organization’s website where they are prompted to send a pre-written email to Christie, reads as follows:
I need your help right now to stop Gov. Christie from making a horrible mistake-appointing a radically pro-gay marriage anti-Christian judge to the state supreme court.
Gov. Chris Christie has been the hope of millions of Americans across the country looking for honest conservative leadership.
Last week we asked you to thank Gov. Christie for saying he will follow through on his campaign promise to veto same-sex marriage.
This week, we have urgent and terrible news to report-Gov. Chris Christie’s nominee to the New Jersey Supreme Court is not only an outspoken advocate for gay marriage, he has extreme and hateful views equating traditional Christian views on sex and marriage with slavery.
This kind of intemperate and extreme view should be totally unacceptable in a GOP judicial nominee.
Yet Gov. Christie’s proposed supreme court nominee Bruce Harris sent this email in 2009 to State Senator Joe Pennacchio urging him to vote for gay marriage:
“When I hear someone say that they believe marriage is only between a man and a woman because that’s the way it’s always been, I think of the many “traditions” that deprived people of their civil rights for centuries: prohibitions on interracial marriage, slavery, (which is even provided for in the Bible), segregation, the subservience of women, to name just a few of these “traditions.”
I hope that you consider my request that you re-evaluate your position and, if after viewing the videos, reading Governor Whitman’s letter and thinking again about this issue of civil rights you still oppose same-sex marriage on grounds other than religion I would appreciate it if you you’d explain your position to me. And, if the basis of your opposition is religious, then I suggest that you do what the US Constitution mandates-and that is to maintain a separation between the state and religion.”
Governor Christie says that Harris has promised to recuse himself when the same-sex marriage comes before the court, but even this unenforceable promise misses the bigger issue: a man who cannot tell the difference between supporting our traditional understanding of marriage and wanting to enslave a people lacks common sense and judicial temperament.
And to suggest that legislators should ignore the views of religious constituents, that moral views grounded in the Bible are somehow illegitimate in the public square, seriously compounds the offense.
These are not the words of a judicial conservative, a man who believes in common sense, strict construction of the state constitution-the kind of judge Gov. Christie promised to appoint to the court.
How did this happen?
When Assemblyman Mike Carroll was sent a copy of that email by a reporter, he had one word in response: “Yikes.”
Gov. Christie’s nomination of Bruce Harris appears to be a result of a failure in the vetting process, not a deliberate backhanded backroom betrayal by New Jersey’s governor. If so, the Governor can and must honorably withdraw the nomination.
The next generation of GOP leadership on the national level have to understand: knowingly appointing radical anti-religious justices is unacceptable.
Please, right now, send Gov. Christie a message keep him from making a terrible mistake marring his record. Tell Christie: Withdraw the Bruce Harris nomination today. Protect our judiciary from radically unconservative judges with extremist views pushing gay marriage and equating Christianity with slavery.
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)
