Sunday, December 12, 2010

Is Rivera-Soto Right?

Rutgers Professor Earl M. Maltz seems to think so. From Judicial Crisis Network citing Maltz:

"When a sitting justice is temporarily unavailable for any reason, the New Jersey constitution does not vest either the governor or the state legislature with the power to replace him. Thus, if one takes the view that the assignment of a replacement is “necessary,” the chief justice would be the only person with the authority to make the necessary appointment. But when a justice leaves the court permanently, the constitution clearly vests the power to name a replacement not with the chief justice, but rather with the Governor and the state senate.

Of course, a political deadlock between the Governor and the state senate might in theory leave the court short-handed for an extended period of time, but even if this concern is considered to be of constitutional magnitude, the power to deal with the problem is not vested in the chief justice. Instead, the state constitution provides the Governor with the authority to deal with the problem."

Read the full article here.

The Senate should get its act together before irreparable harm occurs. It's unconscionable that a confirmation hearing hasn't taken place.


Anonymous said...

The funny part in all this is that certain Democratics are accusing Soto of being derelict in his duty and are calling for him to be impeached. about the pot calling the kettle black!

I think the biggest cause for their anger toward him is that he broke rank...not that they think he's the worst judge or derelict in his duty!

NFS said...

The democrat's drama over Soto makes me laugh too.