|
An interesting analysis - promoted from the diaries by Rosi
Top row, L to R: Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto; Justice Barry T. Albin; Justice John E. Wallace, Jr.; Justice Helen E. Hoens; Front row, L to R: Justice Virginia Long; Chief Justice Stuart Rabner; Justice Jaynee LaVecchia.
More than any previous gubernatorial contest in recent memory, the outcome of this November's election will have a lasting impact on the composition and ideology of the New Jersey Supreme Court.
The brief campaign has already included Republican criticism of several of the Court's high profile decisions. However, little attention has been paid to the fact that the terms of four out of seven justices will expire on the watch of the next Governor. Justices Virginia Long and John E. Wallace, Jr. will reach the age of mandatory retirement in 2012. Additionally, the non-tenured terms of Justices Roberto A. Rivera-Soto and Helen E. Hoens will expire, allowing whoever is Governor the option of reappointment or selecting a new jurist to join the bench.
These days it's popular to beat up on the Supreme Court in conservative circles. As such, the potential to reshape the Court's majority is significant when one considers that that criticism has been a centerpiece of the Republican primary campaign.
Former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan has pledged to overturn judicial decisions mandating affordable housing and funding for the state's poorest school districts. While he has proposed taking the matter to voters in the form of referenda to amend the state constitution, the unlikely passage of such measures no doubt guarantees that a Governor Lonegan will work to achieve his agenda through the judicial selection process.
Assemblyman Rick Merkt (R-Morris), a longshot candidate for his party's nomination, labeled the coming Supreme Court appointments "a critical issue for New Jersey's future." If elected, he wants to "drive a stake into COAH's [affordable housing] heart, bury it, and make sure it never rises again."
Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, the presumed front runner, echoed his opponents and pledged, "If I am governor, I will gut COAH and I will put an end to it."
These ambitious goals can only be accomplished by overturning previous Supreme Court decisions. By tradition, Governors maintain a partisan balance on the Court. However, is it difficult to imagine a Republican Governor appointing justices - even those who are registered Democrats - sympathetic to conservative views? Such a reversal would signal not only an end to COAH and Abbott funding, but a reorientation of the ideology of the Court, a shift with implications beyond these two issues.
Take the ongoing campaign for marriage equality in New Jersey. In October 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that same sex couples are entitled to the same rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals. This decision led the Legislature to pass the landmark civil union law. The ruling also set the stage for marriage equality by leaving the decision to lawmakers. Will a refashioned and more conservative Supreme Court find same sex marriage unconstitutional? Will it reverse the previous decision on civil unions? Considering conservative views on the subject, it is hard to conclude otherwise.
New Jersey is a socially liberal, environmentally conscious state. That said, Democrats need to make it clear that while we oppose legislating from the bench there is a compelling case for complying with affordable housing, education, and equality mandates. We should raise the appointments issue. A right turn by the Supreme Court should alarm not only progressives, but the moderate Democrats and Independents critical to victory in November. New Jerseyans should know that changes to the Court's ideological composition will result in conservative decisions that impact life in our state for a long time to come. |
