Christie beyond the pale

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie seeks to transform the New Jersey Supreme Court.  He objects strongly to two landmark liberal state constitutional rulings.  He recently personally attacked Justice Barry Albin who, at oral argument, asked if the Governor's veto of the so-called "millionaire's tax" did not create the budget shortfall which the Administration relies upon for its request to the Court to allow it to avoid the spending on urban education that the Court has mandated.

In the Mt. Laurel decisions, beginning in 1975, the state's Supreme Court ordered developing towns to make room for low income residents.  In Abbott v. Burke in 1997 the Court, again on state constitutional grounds, ordered a set of requirements that  schools must meet to satisfy the state's constitutional obligation to provide public school students with a "thorough and efficient" education.

The Abbott decision In the landmark Abbott IV (1997) and Abbott V (1998) rulings, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered a set of education programs and reforms widely recognized to be the most fair and just in the nation.  As told by the Education Law Center, the Abbott "education adequacy" framework includes:

• Rigorous content standards-based education, supported by per-pupil funding equal to spending in successful suburban schools
• Universal, well-planned and high quality preschool education for all three- and four-year olds
• Supplemental ("at-risk") programs to address student and school needs attributed to high-poverty, including intensive early literacy, small class size and social and health services
• New and rehabilitated facilities to adequately house all programs, relieve overcrowding, and eliminate health and safety violations
• School and district reforms to improve curriculum and instruction, and for effective and efficient use of funds to enable students to achieve state standards
• State accountability for effective and timely implementation, and to ensure progress in improving student achievement

     The goal of the Abbott programs and reforms goal is to give every child the opportunity to attain "his or her own place as a contributing member in society with the ability to compete with other citizens and to succeed in the economy." Abbott IV (1997)


In the latest of a series of editorials the New Jersey Law Journal editorial board lambasted Governor Christie:

At an April 26 town hall meeting in Hamilton, Gov. Chris Christie harshly criticized state Supreme Court Justice Barry Albin for having referred, during the recent oral arguments inAbbott v Burke , to the governor's decision not to extend the "millionaire's tax." The Court is considering whether the state has violated the "thorough and efficient" clause of our state constitution by shorting the education-funding law by $1.6 billion. The governor's insult is not only unfair but more importantly has no other purpose or effect than to diminish the Court as an institution.
The clear objective of the governor's remarks was to advance his longstanding argument that despite constitutional underpinnings, the Court has no business involving itself in school-funding issues, and that in doing so it is legislating from the bench. At oral arguments, the state insisted that education cuts were unavoidable as a consequence of the state's fiscal condition. Albin reminded the state's counsel that after the government committed to fully fund the new law, it then declined to extend the "millionaire's tax," which would have raised about a billion dollars in revenue. The point being that it's a bit disingenuous for the state to assert that it had no control over whether or not it could have fulfilled its commitment to meet its constitutional funding obligations, when it voluntarily — for whatever reason — reduced its revenue stream.
At the Hamilton meeting, Christie first claimed, incorrectly, that Albin urged the state to reinstate the millionaire's tax and spend the money on schools. Then, based on that erroneous assertion, the governor let loose a demonizing and personal barrage: "So let me understand this. A guy who wasn't elected by anybody to anything is now deciding what taxes should be raised, for what sector of our society, how much that tax should be raised and then as the kicker, where the revenue should be spent." Then, trying to mimic Albin's voice and imagining how Albin would respond if questioned by a taxpayer, he said: "Oh, I'm sorry. I'm a judge, I can't discuss it with you. I am a high and mighty judge." Then, Christie added: "But he can take his hand and put it in your pocket and take your money and you have no way to hold him accountable." He concluded: "So when I'm trying to change the Supreme Court, it's not just for philosophical reasons, it's [because] we need to reassert control of our own government."
In the context of the state's insistence that it cannot afford to fully fund public education, a question from one of the justices about the "millionaire's tax" was inevitable. Had the governor emulated his 10 predecessors in that office since the 1947 Constitution, he would have remained silent and awaited the Court's disposition. Instead, Christie, a smart former prosecutor, further reduced the political discourse in this state to the lowest national common denominator. The attack was all the more unseemly because Albin is ethically prohibited from even attempting to defend himself. But what makes the governor's comments so outrageous is that he ridiculed a sitting justice by distorting the meaning of Albin's comments at argument. The justice did not pass judgment on the merits of the "millionaire's tax," nor did he, by any stretch, suggest that the Court could decide who to tax, and for what. And if the governor heard the argument, he has to know that.
The damage, however, goes far beyond Justice Albin. The governor's remarks demonstrate, regrettably, that his interest in gaining a slick debate advantage outweighs his sense of responsibility to maintain separation of powers as the state's constitution contemplates. The governor's recent irresponsible and inflammatory comments in the same vein — that he might defy a Court decision with which he disagrees — have no purpose other than to denigrate and intimidate the Court and to gather public opinion against them. And these are not just words. Rather, Christie is making it clear — reinforcing the message he sent last year, when he refused to reappoint Justice Wallace — that he wants to put an end to our state's longstanding tradition of a strong, independent judiciary, an independence intended by the constitution's framers and one that has, in the past, won our judiciary national recognition.
Christie's penchant for blunt talk may have gained him a national audience, but it continues to threaten the stability of our state's commitment to sound government. His comments about Albin, and in suggesting he may defy the Court if it requires spending more than the state wants, suggests that the judiciary, the rule of law and the very essence of constitutional government in New Jersey are expendable if they stand in the governor's path. One can take a reasoned approach to either side in the Abbott case: These are hard decisions with much at stake. But there is no reasoned rationale for these toxic attempts to malign and destroy an institution that is so integral to the balance of power in our government. (c) American Lawyer Media 2011