PDA

View Full Version : Dem SC Justices reappoint themselves in defiance of Chris Christie




Agorism
12-12-2010, 07:28 AM
http://www.redstate.com/lexington_concord/2010/12/11/gov-christie-and-the-fight-over-judicial-reform/



In order to remake an ultra-liberal Supreme Court, Governor Chris Christie exercised his prerogative and refused to reappoint ultra-liberal Justice John E. Wallace when his term was up. This is within the governor’s powers, although New Jersey tradition dictates that governors keep on reappointing justices for all eternity.
As a result, the state senate refused to confirm Christie’s nominee, Anne M. Patterson.
Then Chief Justice Stuart J. Rabner decided to appoint a justice himself! “Justice” Edwin Stern was “appointed” by the chief justice, in defiance of the governor and the state constitution, and even though the Supreme Court had a quorum of justices.
As a result, Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto, a Democrat appointee, took the unprecedented step of abstaining from decisions as long as “Justice” Stern remains on the court.
Who knows how this will end? One thing is clear: The Lib-Dems in New Jersey have taken another step towards bringing that state to third-world status.

puppetmaster
12-12-2010, 09:45 AM
http://www.redstate.com/lexington_concord/2010/12/11/gov-christie-and-the-fight-over-judicial-reform/

interesting....judges are power hungry scum as well. Some people think that they are a beacon of our society.

james1906
12-12-2010, 09:49 AM
Christie should ask Napolitano if he wants his old job back.

Agorism
12-12-2010, 12:09 PM
bump

nate895
12-12-2010, 12:31 PM
I'd have him impeached. If the legislature was unwilling to remove the justice despite the clear and obvious violation of the state constitution, then I'd have have him forced out.

virgil47
12-12-2010, 12:37 PM
I'd have him impeached. If the legislature was unwilling to remove the justice despite the clear and obvious violation of the state constitution, then I'd have have him forced out.

I'd have him arrested for violations of the state constitution by a justice. Essentially the judge is trying to over throw the gov. of New Jersey. If other judges are assisting charge them all under the RICO act.

specsaregood
12-12-2010, 12:38 PM
This article is somewhat inaccurate.


As a result, the state senate refused to confirm Christie’s nominee, Anne M. Patterson.

They didn't refuse to confirm her, they have just refused to hold hearings to confirm her.



Then Chief Justice Stuart J. Rabner decided to appoint a justice himself! “Justice” Edwin Stern was “appointed” by the chief justice, in defiance of the governor and the state constitution, and even though the Supreme Court had a quorum of justices.

The judge has been appointed as an "interim" justice, meaning temporary. This is allowed, BUT Rivera-Soto is saying it isn't allowed as long as they already have enough on the bench to render decisions. Whether it is allowed or not is unclear....

It will be interesting to see what Christie does.

kkassam
12-13-2010, 03:50 AM
Thanks for the clarifications specsaregood, something didn't smell right about the above presentation of the facts. Here's NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/nyregion/11court.html?_r=1) w more on the "temporary nomination":

"On Friday, Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto issued an opinion calling Judge Stern’s elevation unconstitutional. Explaining why he was not taking part in the unrelated ruling on a racial discrimination case, he wrote that he would abstain from all decisions as long as Judge Stern was on the court. The state Constitution allows a chief justice to fill a vacancy “when necessary.” But Justice Rivera-Soto wrote that “any such assignment at this juncture simply is not necessary,” because the court has a quorum.

The Senate president, Stephen M. Sweeney, called on Justice Rivera-Soto to resign.

Another justice, Helen E. Hoens, wrote that she, too, had grave reservations about the temporary appointment, but did not formally oppose it.

The court’s majority held that temporary appointments were an accepted practice and that the court needs its full complement.

In theory, the dispute should resolve itself in March 2012, when former Justice Wallace turns 70, the mandatory retirement age. Senator Sweeney has said the Senate would consider a nomination to fill that seat then."

So what do we know of Anne Paterson? Good nominee?