Thu May 06, 2010 at 12:00:00 PM EDT
|
It's pretty amazing that no one in the media has really talked about this. As he rails against the court for being activist saying that Justice Wallace has participated and therefore must go, Christie is the one who keeps talking about changing the court:Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said Christie "has been consistent and clear that he wanted to change the direction and philosophy of the court. That was what this decision was all about, and nothing more." So let me see if I understand. The guy who wants to make drastic change in the direction and philosophy of the court isn't the activist, right? Wallace wasn't even on the court when many of the decisions that the right doesn't like were handed down. Christie says he doesn't want people who will "legislate from the bench." It appears he just ones that will approve his policies when they are challenged in the courts, because we all know they will be challenged. A Bergen Record editorial even called it "Executive Activism."
On why the media hasn't looked at the substance of the issue: there's no foe, no dragon to slay. It doesn't sell newspapers or get ratings. But the controversy and conflict between the Governor and the Legislature? That's some exciting news to talk about. I'm not saying the showdown isn't newsworthy, but the media isn't telling the full story, which is a disservice to their audience. |
| Jason Springer :: Christie doesn't want activist judges, just people who will change the direction of the court |
|
|
Featured Stories  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.gif)
