Quote of the Day: This empowers the chief justice in an unprecedented way

Not really (0.00 / 0)

Milton Conford, a judge in the Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court from 1953 until 1979, twice filled extended vacancies in the 1970s, Comfort said.

Conford . . . was an acting justice from July 1972 to March 1973 and March 1975 to March 1977. He was one of two appellate judges brought up to fill two spots on the bench, Comfort said

http://preview.bloomberg.com/n...

The situations may be different, but the principle's the same.  Wouldn't surprise me if an Appellate Division judge is elevated again.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed May 05, 2010 at 19:07:48 PM UTC

Christies checkmate (0.00 / 0)

 State constitution ..Article V, Section 1, Paragraph 12:
The Governor shall communicate to the Legislature, by message at the opening of each regular session and at such other times as he may deem necessary, the condition of the State, and shall in like manner recommend such measures as he may deem desirable. He may convene the Legislature, or the Senate alone, whenever in his opinion the public interest shall require. He shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all the military and naval forces of the State. He shall grant commissions to all officers elected or appointed pursuant to this Constitution. He shall nominate and appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, all officers for whose election or appointment provision is not otherwise made by this Constitution or by law.
simply put Christie can summon the State Senate and make them sit in the State House for the entire summer and then some  if he so chooses .....now we are talking about not a line in the sand but a duel at 20 paces  

---

by: speedkillsu @ Wed May 05, 2010 at 19:41:04 PM UTC

And? (0.00 / 0)

He can call them into session and they can simply adjourn.  Plus, they don't sit every day when they are in session anyway.  There's nothing in there that permits the governor to require the senators to sit continously as if they were hostages.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed May 05, 2010 at 20:07:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So I guess you see (0.00 / 0)

nothing wrong with this tactic of NO  ? .....when the R's do the same to O's nominee ?

---

by: speedkillsu @ Wed May 05, 2010 at 20:25:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

we don't think the situation is comparable (0.00 / 0)

Here's a better comparison: FDR's court-packing scheme was legal but broke traditions. What would you like the US Senate to do if Obama appointed 3 liberals to the court?

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Wed May 05, 2010 at 21:47:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Different situations (0.00 / 0)

Christie is removing someone from the court, not merely nominating.

Anyway, if they're going to do it, why shouldn't Democrats do it.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Wed May 05, 2010 at 20:31:25 PM UTC

Two wrongs don't make a right (0.00 / 0)

I've read "well sniffle if the mean evil Republicans are sniffle doing it at the Federal level, why can't we at the State?" Ummmmm..... as I tell my children, two wrongs don't make a right.

Wallace is gone.  The governor exercised his right to not reappoint.  If you don't like a Governors power to do this, then amend the state constitution.  McGreevy was about to not reappoint Peter Venerio due to the profiling issues in the 90's until the Justice stepped down to not force that situation.

The question is what does the Senate want to do now?  Take the high road and grill his replacement or sit back and pout like my 7 year old?

---

by: AreYouWithMe? @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 11:36:38 AM UTC

Two wrongs don't make a right (0.00 / 0)

As I said, different situations.  Christie acted to remove someone from the court, not simply nominated a replacement.  And the Venerio example is somewhat distinguishable.  There were ethical concerns about him and his qualfications.  No such concerns were expressed about Wallace.  However, in the spirit of your "two wrongs don't make a right," I agree that McGreevey would have been wrong not to grant him tenure.  Why?  Because Venerio proved himself to be a competent justice.  That's the whole point of the tenure process.  Despite Christie's sneering on this point yesterday, Poritz was right that the intent of the seven-year period was to examine the justice's performance, not his or her ideology.

---

by: 12mileseastofTrenton @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 12:34:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]