Views on New Jersey Corruption

Most Corrupt State Strikes Out First!

Democracy suffers when courts overreach

Most Corrupt State Strikes Out First!
By Ted Lang -- Exclusive to Rense.com

7-10-07 -- Loyal and consistent readers of this column know two things: I reside in the state of New Jersey, which qualifies me to observe, as I have frequently, that New Jersey is the most corrupt and legally backward state in the nation. And now, our illustrious governor, Jon Corzine, who spent $62 million of the $400 million fortune he made with Goldman Sachs on Wall Street to buy his New Jersey U.S. Senate seat, and another $40 million to buy the governorship, has passed gas legislation. That's right folks! The government of the most corrupt state is now concerned that God messed up when He constructed the universe, and towering scientific geniuses such as the "Zeen" and Gore have to join forces to plug the gas genie's bottle.

And of course, the way to accomplish this is to use the threat of government force and violence to "persuade" businesses, energy providers, and ordinary Dick and Jane American homeowners that they better shape up and comply with American dictatorial government force and obey THE LAW! And if businesses, energy providers, and innocent homeowners do not comply with THE LAW, well then, they will have to be penalized and TAXED! And if all do comply with THE LAW, well then, they will be penalized and TAXED anyway! Heads, the government wins; tails, you and I lose. Now we know why it is the tax-and-spend Democrats that are pushing so hard for universal acceptance of their new religion: global warming and greenhouse gasses. There's money in them there gases!

As I have often articulated in this space, New Jersey's corruption and backwards laws exceed that of all other states in America. And because of this, New Jersey has the highest income taxes, sales taxes, real estate property taxes, auto insurance premiums, highest medical malpractice insurance, highway tolls, and the greediest tax-grabbing government in the nation. And of course, it is the most crime-ridden state as well, due to the fact that it has the toughest law-abiding citizen-targeting gun control in the nation. 

The list of corrupt and law-breaking New Jersey politicians is virtually endless: Senator Robert Torricelli; State Senator Donald DiFrancesco; Governor and EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman; Chief Justice Deborah Poritz; Attorney General Zulima Farber; State Senator, John Lynch; State Senator, Wayne Bryant; Newark Mayor Sharpe James; Essex County Executive, James Treffinger; Hudson County Executive, Robert Janiszewski; Governor James McGreevey and his high rolling funder Charles Kushner, as well as an endless list of other high rollers comprising the money power behind these politicians.

Corruption built upon partisan politics cronyism: New Jersey is the showcase example of the destructive force the Founding Fathers recognized so early on during the very birth of our former republic thought to be so cleverly engineered via our failed Constitution. New Jersey is the showcase of legislation and government dedicated to cash pay-offs and bribes perfumed over as campaign "contributions." The state exemplifies government of, by and for the minority interests of lobbyists. [More]

© THEODORE E. LANG 7/8/07 All rights reserved 
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.

Democracy suffers when courts overreach
By Jay Webber and Thomas Weisert
Originally Published in New Jersey Star Ledger

What do New Jerseyans believe about "legislating from the bench" in the federal and state courts?  Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind Poll recently tapped into that question. The results are disturbing for New Jersey and its judiciary  New Jerseyans, across party and ideology, believe that the courts are overstepping their rightful role as interpreters of the law.

• Whether Democrat, independent, Republican, liberal, moderate or conservative, the people see the courts overreaching. Three-quarters believe that legislating from the bench is a serious problem in federal courts, and two-thirds think its a problem in state courts.  These results are consistent with a CBS poll in which 77 percent of Americans believe that a judge's personal ideology should not affect judicial decision-making.

An especially troubling result in the PublicMind Poll is that 80 percent perceive New Jersey judges as mere partisans, wielding raw power in favor of their political parties.  This state rejects election of judges and grants them tenure precisely to provide the judiciary insulation from partisan politics.  New Jerseyans, however, still see their judges succumbing to party and/or ideological preferences over legal principles.

Although most citizens don't refer to the Federalist Papers on a regular basis, they have an intuitive sense of the role our founders intended for the courts in a republican government.  Courts are supposed to solve individual disputes; the job of policymaking is for the legislative and executive branches.  In other words, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.

Our citizens understand that the judiciary is intended to be the least among equal branches of government because it is the least accountable to the people.  And the people rightly become uncomfortable when the judiciary assumes too much power.

Judicial policymaking diminishes citizens' faith in the ability of the democratic process to serve the public interest.  When the undemocratic branch of government sets the course of public policy, and citizens no longer believe they can affect the laws that govern them, democracy atrophies.

A government dominated by an overly aggressive judiciary creates other problems.  It provides fertile ground for the agendas of narrow special interests.  Many such groups are unable to implement their agendas through the democratic process.  Those undemocratic end runs only weaken our republican government, however, and frustrate its ultimate purpose: the common good. As James Madison warned us more than 200 years ago, the sum of all special interests is not the public interest.

Not only does judicial overreach undermine the authority of our elected representatives, marginalize the electorate and frustrate the common good, but it also weakens the courts. The judiciary damages its own institutional integrity and prestige in overstepping its bounds.

The PublicMind Poll reveals that judicial overreach has eroded the courts' credibility with the public.  With that erosion comes an unavoidable decline in respect for the rule of law.  After all, if the public believes that "law" is merely pretext for partisanship and politics, then the concept of "courts as sham" takes hold of the public consciousness.

New Jerseyans feel the effects of judicial policymaking on their lives every day.  The poll indicates that 61 percent view as a serious problem that New Jersey courts overrule elected representatives.  Consider what the judiciary's school spending decisions have imposed, directly or indirectly, on New Jerseyans.  The state income tax.  Disproportionate funding of a few school districts while property taxes skyrocket for families in the rest of the state. The Schools Construction Corp. debacle.  Beyond school funding, the courts have also dictated to New Jerseyans affordable housing mandates and nationally ridiculed election laws, to name just two more.

To be clear, we write here not to encourage "court-bashing".  We value the honorable role of the judiciary in resolving disputes, including constitutional cases with broad implications for society at large. Indeed, as judicial law clerks, we chose to stake a portion of our professional lives to service to our courts. The PublicMind Poll results alarm us precisely because of our respect for the judiciary.

Make no mistake, however. Contrary to some judicial apologists, the public perception that judicial legislation is a serious problem emanates first and foremost from the felt effects of judicial conduct itself and not from constructive efforts, such as ours, to hold  the judiciary accountable.

We hope our concern is not confined to ourselves. The PublicMind Poll underscores the need for New Jersey decision-makers from all three branches of government to revisit and rethink the proper role for the judiciary in our tripartite government. We have often heard that the courts take on thorny policy issues only because they must save the Legislature and executive from themselves. The elected branches, some jurists say, are either too afraid of public opinion, or too controlled by it, to legislate the "correct" policy. So the courts intervene to save their sister branches from themselves.  Ironically, the self-inflicted institutional damage of that approach might lead our elected representatives to start reforming the judiciary to save it from itself.

Jay Webber and Thomas Weisert, former law clerks to justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court, are members of the executive board of the New Jersey Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society.  Webber is an attorney with Drinker Biddle & Reath in Florham Park, and Weisert is an attorney joining Ogletree Deakins in Morristown.

FDU PublicMind Polls

Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind^TM is a research center that conducts polling, survey, and other research on politics, society, popular culture, consumer and economic trends.

July 24, 2006 Blacks and whites differ on trust in state's criminal justice system . . . . Even the fairness of the jury system is subject to different perceptions: 77% of whites . .

March 15, 2006 Criticizing the Courts While 40% say federal courts legislating from the bench is a very serious problem, just 33% say . .

FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site may contain some copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of legal and judicial reform that is needed today in the United States. Changes that we hope are affecting such issues as the Constitutional Rights, Substantive & Procedural Due Process, a fair and honest judicial system both federal and state. When we include the full text of an article originally posted on the Internet rather than a simple link, it is because links frequently go "bad", that is the links change over time or the web page is removed after a brief period. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the USA Copyright Law (see below). In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed on this web site without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and education purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Victims-of-Law, Inc. does not give permission for credit citation of other sources.