Gov. Christie shows contempt for courts - NJ Law Journal

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:

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.

NJ Paper: Christie ‘Seriously Rethinking’ And May Make Presidential Run | Election 2012

Chris Christie is a thin-skinned hothead, I can say from personal experience. But he is also smart and savvy and cocky. It must be very difficult to keep your wits about you when everyone around you is fawning and flattering. Hard to remind yourself that you are just a half-term governor and former prosecutor with a quick-lip and a bullying streak and maybe you need a good deal more seasoning.

So you count on your wife to talk sense into you. Then Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan call her...and now she begins to allow herself to entertain thoughts of life on Pennsylvania Avenue, and the arcade fire begins to build...

NJ Paper: Christie ‘Seriously Rethinking’ And May Make Presidential Run | Election 2012: " the Star-Ledger’s anonymous source, described as “close to the governor,” says the aggressive “Draft Christie” effort finally seems to be paying off.

“An adviser close to the governor” cites Christie’s wife, Mary Pat, as having previously been a major dampener on any White House ambitions Christie may have harbored. However, the source says Mrs. Christie’s objections to raising a family in the White House diminished after a call from former first lady Barbara Bush. A discussion with Nancy Reagan is also said to have helped change her mind."

'via Blog this'

Gov. Christie bluntly defends his nomination of Judge Sohail Mohammed

The blunt-spoken Governor of New Jersey Christopher Christie, whose politics and style made him a Tea Party hero, is the former United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey.  In this video he delivers an impressive defense of Sohail Mohammed as a Judge of the Superior Court, who rose to prominence as a key voice of New Jersey's Muslim community.  

Post 9/11 Mohammed was a bridge builder between law enforcement and the substantial Muslim community in Passaic County, New Jersey, says Christie.  He is a Muslim American lawyer who represented people who post 9/11 were "inappropriately detained by the FBI" is evidence of his upholding his oath as an attorney to uphold the laws and constitution of New Jersey and the United States of America.  He has now been sworn in as a judge.  Christie spoke at the ceremony. - GWC

N.J., Gov. Christie enter national spotlight with plan to cut $540M in Medicaid funding | NJ.com

Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) 

It's a long way from the War on Poverty and health care as a human right to to Gov. Chris Christie's plan to bar Medicaid benefits for a family of three earning more than $103/week. The state minimum wage of $7.25/hour would bring a gross income of $290/week.  Cruel is a word that comes to mind.

N.J., Gov. Christie enter national spotlight with plan to cut $540M in Medicaid funding | NJ.com: "TRENTON — As states across the country look for ways to trim billions off their spending on Medicaid, New Jersey is garnering particular attention for a proposal that opponents characterize as an unprecedented and draconian attempt to balance the state's precarious budget on the backs of society's most vulnerable populations.
The debates taking place in statehouses, clinics and living rooms crystallize the unfortunate truth about economic recessions: Citizens rely most on public services just when the government has the least money to spend on those services.
In New Jersey's case, changes would mean a parent of two earning more than $103 per week would be ineligible."

Poor N.J. districts must receive $500M more in school funding, state Supreme Court rules | NJ.com

Poor N.J. districts must receive $500M more in school funding, state Supreme Court rules | NJ.com: "TRENTON — In a widely anticipated decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the state to spend an additional $500 million on public education in poor districts next year.
The complex decision does not boost funding statewide, as education advocates had requested, and may avoid creating a gaping hole in a proposed budget of $29.4 billion. The 3-2 ruling, however, revealed sharp disagreements among the five justices who heard the case and issued a total of four opinions.
Justices could have ordered up to $1.7 billion in additional statewide education spending. Today's ruling gives Gov. Chris Christie and lawmakers some room to maneuver as they work to balance the state's budget by July 1
Christie will not defy court order

"We must acknowledge that money does not equal quality results," Christie said at a Statehouse press conference about an hour and a half after the decision was released.

He once again criticized the court by saying it's wrong for justices to say how the state should spend taxpayer dollars. But he made it clear he wouldn't fight the court order as he suggested during a radio talk show in April.

"I intend to comply with the Supreme Court's order," Christie said at a news conference "The constitutional ball is now in the Legislature's court."

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

Straight-talking Gov.Christie often doesn't have his facts straight - NY Times

Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ)

It's not New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's Republicanism that bugs me: it's that he's not Tom Kean or Christine Whitman.    From his grandstanding  as a prosecutor to his YouTube hit  bullying a schoolteacher Chris Christie has thrived on confrontation.  Instead of patrician moderation we have suburban gut check and bluster.   Now the New York Times details his reign of error.  It's fact-check time.