Supreme Court of New Jersey (2008 group portrait)
In a split decision, the Supreme Court of New Jersey yesterday refused to hear a motion brought by the original plaintiffs in the case of Lewis v. Harris, on the grounds that the matter at hand was not a continuation of the old case, but a new case that needed a proper trial in Superior Court.
Mark Lewis filed a "motion in aid of litigants' rights" shortly after the legislature, in January, failed to pass a bill specifically conferring the term "marriage" on existing civil unions between same-sex roommates. Chief Justice Stuart Rabner issued this terse denial of the motion:
This matter cannot be decided without the development of an appropriate trial-like record. Plaintiff's motion is therefore denied without prejudice to plaintiffs filing an action in Superior Court and seeking to create a record there. We reach no conclusion on the merits of plaintiff's allegations regarding the constitutionality of the Civil Union Act, NJSA 37:1-28 to -36.
Presumably the Chief Justice means either that a full examination of the Civil Union Act is not possible in the oral-argument format (in which the Court hears from attorneys only, and not from any witnesses), or simply that the Court disclaims original jurisdiction.
Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens joined the Chief Justice in that decision. But Virginia Long wrote a two-page dissent, in which Justices Jaynee LaVecchia and Barry Albin joined.
Officers of Garden State Equality and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund indicated that they would indeed file new legal actions alleging that the denial of the full dignities of "marriage" is unconstitutional. (In fact, how the original Supreme Court came so to decide is far from clear, as this Examiner has said previously.)
The seventh seat on the Court remains vacant after Governor Chris Christie refused to reappoint Justice John E. Wallace, and the Senate has thus far refused to schedule hearings on Christie's nominated replacement, Anne M. Patterson. Predictably, the sniping against Christie for that refusal broke out afresh. This may or may not be significant: Rabner, Rivera-Soto, and Hoens all are serving their initial 7-year terms and require reappointment during Christie's term. Long, LaVecchia, and Albin are all tenured--though Long will reach the mandatory retirement age in 2012, as Wallace would have.
Paul Mulshine definitely believes that the Wallace firing influenced the votes on this motion, and probably has good reason: Rivera-Soto, the next Justice to face reappointment, was not only on the court for the original Lewis decision, but joined Barry Albin's majority opinion in that case. His vote to deny Lewis' motion was therefore a flip--and a crucial flip, because had he not flipped, the Lewis motion would now be scheduled for oral argument, if not yet granted. Wallace also joined the original opinion. His departure, besides removing yet another vote for the motion, probably had its effect on Rivera-Soto and perhaps Rabner and Hoens as well, according to Mulshine.
Christie definitely said that he has his eye on the Court, which is why he fired Wallace. If Mulshine's attitude is at all indicative, the eyes of all New Jersey residents are also on this Court, especially as it continues to consider another momentous constitutional matter (Cmte. to Rec. Robert Menendez fr. Ofc. of US Sen. v. Wells & Giles) that went to oral argument two months ago, before those same six Justices and that same empty chair.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
Where in the Constitution is it stated that marriage is anything other than a union between a man and a woman? The male/female concept was the operative one in the minds of those who wrote both the US Constitution and the Constitution of New Jersey.
Waiting to hear about Christy and "Snooki and the Jersey Shore" Thanks Terry, hope you received my other comment. I'm going to check ;)
NJ deserves as much justice as the Governor they elected is willing to provide. Too bad Christie has damaged the amount of justice provided by the NJ Supreme Court.
From NJ.com:
Christie opposes gay marriage, prompting speculation that the three justices who voted his way (to deny a motion from six gay couples to have the high court hear the case immediately) did so because they all face reappointment and don't want to share Wallace's fate. The dissent (which favored the same-sex couples) came from the three justices who are already tenured.
The disturbing perception, correct or not, is that half the court's justices are ruling in ways to please a governor who can choose not to reappoint them.
And it was caused mostly by Christie's corrosive action, a New Jersey first, to ditch Wallace on ideological/political grounds!!!!!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!