New Jersey's combustible Governor Christopher Christie has exploded again. The new target is the state's entire judiciary whom he lambasts as a "cliquey group of 432" who receive "lavish salaries" [of $165,000] and have gotten "one of their own" - Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg to protect their privileges.
Feinberg last week declared unconstitutional the new legislation sharply increasing judges' share of pension and health benefit contributions. The state's constitution bars any legislation which would "diminish" the "salary" of a judge. Mercer County - where the state's Trenton capital is located - is the venue for such actions against the state government. Although a handful of judges were appointed after the law took effect in July none of them has tenure, so Feinberg herself assumed the task, provoking Christie's ire.
Christie's immediate and ad hominem attack on Feinberg drew sharp rebukes from the State Bar Association and the New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board. The Board declared:
Feinberg last week declared unconstitutional the new legislation sharply increasing judges' share of pension and health benefit contributions. The state's constitution bars any legislation which would "diminish" the "salary" of a judge. Mercer County - where the state's Trenton capital is located - is the venue for such actions against the state government. Although a handful of judges were appointed after the law took effect in July none of them has tenure, so Feinberg herself assumed the task, provoking Christie's ire.
Christie's immediate and ad hominem attack on Feinberg drew sharp rebukes from the State Bar Association and the New Jersey Law Journal Editorial Board. The Board declared:
Gov. Chris Christie's most recent attack on the judiciary is even more troubling than his past ones, not just because it was a conscious effort to intimidate a co-equal branch of government, but because it was laced with distorted demagoguery. The governor knows better.
The governor went after Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg with a vengeance for her decision that the recent changes requiring judges to contribute more to their health and pension benefits along with all other state employees violated the state constitution's prohibition against reductions in judicial salary during their term of appointment. The decision is subject to debate and we understand why many people who are doing much less well these days might resent the protection the constitution gives to judges. But there is no justification for the governor's attack on the personal integrity of Judge Feinberg and the judiciary as a whole.
Judge Feinberg's detailed and thorough analysis in a 59-page opinion turned in large measure on whether the use of the term "salary" in the subject constitutional provision rather than the arguably broader terms "compensation" or "emoluments" was intended to narrow the scope of the prohibition so that it only applied to an actual reduction in salary and not to an effective reduction in salary caused by a mandated increase in benefits contributions. As she detailed, the evidence of the intent of the drafters of the state constitution that the term "salary" be broadly interpreted and the legislative history evidencing the longstanding understanding of the Legislature that the constitution was intended to protect judicial "salaries" as synonymous with "compensation" is overwhelming.
Nevertheless, one could make a good argument that increased contributions to benefits do not constitute "salary" as set forth in the constitutional provision and that this decision should have been decided the other way. Either the Appellate Division or the Supreme Court will decide that soon enough.
But the governor couldn't wait. His press conference the day after the decision represented all that is wrong with politics today — a personal attack on the entire judiciary laced with an appeal to mob resentment. Among his statements:
• Judge Feinberg's decision came as a result of extraordinary hubris and self-interest; it was not only legally, but morally indefensible.
• "I'm not going to stand idly by and let a self-interested judge, standing up for a group of her self-interested colleagues, destroy the work we did on a nonpartisan basis [for pension reform]."
• "New Jerseyans should have a say in whether or not judges should be treated like everyone else, or whether they should be treated as Judge Feinberg wants them to be, as a special class of private citizens who don't have to pay their fair share for their lavish salary and the extraordinary benefits they receive while in office or when they leave office."
• "To show how elitist they are," she refused to allow other public employees challenging the suit to join it, "but her friends, the judges, the people she goes to dinners with, the people who vote on giving each other awards, the little cliquey club of 432, they are the only ones who can receive these extraordinary benefits."
***
"Judge Feinberg, in order to put more money in her pocket and the pocket of her cronies, has decided that the pension system being broken is fine by her, as long as she gets hers, and her colleagues get theirs."
***
Even if Judge Feinberg was wrong on the law, the governor was even more misguided in his approach. Judge Feinberg can be reversed. Gov. Christie's tirades have done their damage. They are an effort to use class resentment to diminish respect for the judiciary and make it subservient to the political branches of government.
The Editorial Board commended State Bar Association President Susan Feeney, who had called Christie's comments
"an attempt to intimidate the courts and unduly influence the judicial process." Describing the judiciary as "elitist," and as a "little cliquey club of 432," and accusing Judge Feinberg of a self-interest worthy of impeachment is singularly inappropriate for a governor, especially for one who is lawyer and who knows the process perfectly well. As a lawyer, he has an obligation not to impugn the integrity of the courts.
The governor's defense is that he has a First Amendment right to speak out. Not everything that the law allows to be said is right. As chief executive, the governor has a moral duty to defend the rule of law, which is the power of an independent judiciary to determine what the political branches of the government may and may not do under the constitution that the governor has sworn to defend.
Ironically, as observed by Judge Feinberg, the very purpose of the constitutional prohibition on judicial salary reduction was to retain a strong and independent judiciary by protecting it against political retaliation. ***
The Board concluded
Judge Feinberg was doing nothing more than carrying out her responsibilities. She was interpreting the law. Gov. Christie, on the other hand, has again demonstrated a total disregard for separation of powers and a disdain for the notion of a strong, independent judiciary. These personal attacks and intimidation tactics diminish the office of governor, reinforce the wisdom of those who drafted our constitution, and require all of us to strenuously defend the independence of our judiciary.
No comments:
Post a Comment