A Tale of Two Executives

Governor Christie’s disagreement with the New Jersey Supreme Court on its decision pertaining to the Council on Affordable Housing was not the first time that an executive disagreed with a high court.

Remember Barack Obama’s reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing unlimited secret political contributions by special interest groups? In his 2010 State of the Union Address, the President said

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.”

Compare that statement to Governor Christie’s reaction to the COAH decision

“The chief justice’s activist opinion arrogantly bolsters another of the failures he and his colleagues have foisted on New Jersey taxpayers. This only steels my determination to continue to fight to bring common sense back to New Jersey’s judiciary.”

While Obama’s remarks attacked the decision and not the decision-makers, Christie impugned the integrity of the justices personally. That’s a big difference.

Whether you agree or disagree with President Obama, his reaction shows respect for the court, their processes, and the justices. But Christie’s childish bullying reaction shows disdain and immaturity. Christie may be able to snooker the voters of New Jersey, but he has proven time and again that he is not presidential material, and not ready for prime time on the world stage.

America deserves better than Chris Christie. And so does New Jersey.

Comments (4)

  1. Bill Orr

    above and past comments bode ill for  the judiciary as an independent co-equal branch of government. The Chief Justice is up for tenure next year. The long held tradition of granting tenure (short of “bad behavior”) was broken by Christie when he failed to grant tenure to the respected Judge Wallace.  Other justices who would reasonably expect tenure must feel threatened by this bully.

    Christie has the right to appoint justices who reflect his ideology (and the Senate has the right to confirm or not confirm), but he does not have the right to intimidate or refuse tenure on a whim. It’s no way for an executive to act, and it can lead to a judiciary weighing its decisions based not on the law but on what the governor wants.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *