BROKEN TRUST: GOV. CORZINE HAS A.G. RABNER ON SUPREME COURT SPIN CYCLE

Governor Corzine appears to have initiated the second go-round in his multi-part strategy to put A.G. Rabner in the seat of retiring Chief Justice Zazalli.

The first phase was to create Brand Rabner in the public’s mind by making him the Governor’s Counsel and Attorney General.

The second phase was to wait until the last minute to announce the appointment and thus provide enough uncertainty to prevent any opposition from zeroing in on a sitting target.

The third phase began on Thursday, May 31, 2007, when anonymous "administration officials" leaked to the press that Governor Corzine will announce, at a press conference scheduled for Monday, June 4, 2007, A.G. Rabner is his choice to replace C.J. Zazalli on June 17, 2007. And, of course, Governor Corzine's Office refused to comment (1).

The purpose of the Thursday’s release, therefore, is threefold. First, it gives the press a "scoop" and thus a reason to quickly print the story, i.e. to create buzz. Second, it sets the tone and frames the buzz in those stories by sending otherwise busy reporters scurrying to put together some relevant combination of facts, quotes and analysis by deadline. Third, it uses the timing as a foil to unfavorable news . Without more then, Monday's announcement is old news, out of the headlines - a fate resigned to. By Monday night the media's eyes and reporting attention will be on the State's primary elections. And, in a week, plus or minus, Rabner will be quietly confirmed.

Based on newspaper articles it appears Governor Corzine's early head count makes the appointment of A.G. Rabner a go. But, as your read them, ask yourself some questions: Do the things said about A.G. Rabner show essential and enough attributes, as opposed to being good but not necessary nor enough characteristics, to warrant making him the next Chief Justice? Do they identify Governor Corzine’s mission, what he wants the Court to be?

Peter G. Verniero (Disgraced former Justice) "... From what I know of Stuart, he’s up to the task.” COMMENT: Then again, racial profiling is up.

Senate President Richard Codey: " 'This was expected all along.' ... Rabner 'is an excellent choice. I think he's fair,' said Codey, who represents Rabner's hometown … . 'I don't necessarily think he tilts either way, ideologically. He's a man of integrity and a voice of reason.'" COMMENT: What the hell did he say? Without a legal ideology there is neither a legal mode nor method and thus only arbitrary, as opposed to fair, judgments. Isn’t that called judicial activism?

Senate Minority Leader Leonard Lance "said he did not want to 'pre-judge' the confirmation process, but 'as a starting point, I would say that Stuart Rabner received our support when he was confirmed to be attorney general.' Lance also said he worked well with Rabner when Rabner was Corzine's chief Counsel last year." COMMENT: Looks good, feels good.

Senator Adler (Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) "who graduated from Harvard Law School a year before Mr. Rabner, said of his qualifications: 'I have a very high regard for Stuart Rabner as an attorney, as a public servant and as a person. And in whatever capacity he serves New Jersey, New Jersey is better off.'” COMMENT: Rabner for Governor!

Senator Gerald Cardinale said "it would be 'one of the better appointments' that Corzine has made." COMMENT: Seems to imply Governor Corzine has pretty low standards.

The Fourth phase will begin with NJ Bar provided unsubstantiated anointing, followed by a short Judiciary Committee hearing, ASAP, with an equally quick Senate vote. Speed of approval is necessary to prevent in depth review and legislative accountability. It facilitates ignoring, silencing or ridiculing any opposition. Why? Because when you scratch the surface, Meagan's Law litigation aside, one might find A.G. Rabner to be neither qualified nor impartial.



FOOTNOTES:
(1) This post was ready for release on the morning of 06 - 04 - 07, but was not published. Please accept our apology. Because it is an analysis of Governor Corzine's strategy, however, for better or worse, it is unchnaged. thus, the decision was made to publish it today. Thank you for you patience.

(2) Monday's announcement may or may not be as advertised. It could be a feint and the Governor might name someone else. But that would anger a lot of reporters. Such an Administration in-your-face on the heels of the anonymous official certainty incorporated by so many reporters into creating their stories would hurt the reporters (source checking) and their employers' credibility (the Fourth Estate) and damage the administrations ability to spin future leaks. Or, the announcement could be a variant of the leak. If, over the weekend, an opposition with the power to stop A.G. Rabner appears stronger than anticipated, Governor Corzine could appoint him to the Supreme Court as a justice. Someone else, like tenured Justice Virginia Long, might be elevated to Chief Justice. Justice Long retires no later than 2012. This path would advance A.G. Rabner to the Court and give him another chance within 5 years. An improbable, but practical Plan B.

BROKEN TRUST: GOV. CORZINE SUPREME COURT MOMENT NO TIME AT ALL

Governor Corzine resumed his offical duties on May 7, 2007. On May 18, 2007 Governor Corzine declared the goal of his next Supreme Court appointment would be made to make a lasting impact on the Supreme Court and would be made no later than June 4, 2007. Current Chief Justice Zazalli retires on June 17, 2007.

The Memorial Day Weekend is now upon us. Yet, the longer Governor Corzine waits to make the announcement, the less time, and consequently, the harder it will be, to publicly access the appointee, and the less likely it will be to evaluate the consequences of the candidate's confirmation. It also minimizes potential objections to or threats of rejection. Although for all intents and purposes the Supreme Court will soon vacation for the summer, there is little possibility the season will be an excuse for a vacant Chief Justice seat.

The bottom line is Governor Corzine sees the confirmation process as a superficial inspection and a perfunctory courtesy. Thus, a successful appointee is one that relies on public name recognition and / or logical public coherence.

However, calling someone "eminently qualified" or noting a "long period of public (even judicial) experience" does not identify the tangible standards that one must meet in order to be a Chief Justice. Nor are they proofs from a credible public process that specifically identifies how the candidate does or does not fulfill each benchmark.

The devil is always in the details. But, as Governor Corzine seizes the moment who will "seize the time?"

BROKEN TRUST: DON IMUS, GOV. CORZINE & ZAZALLI SUPREME COURT

Governor Corzine and the Zazalli Supreme Court seem to be "one toke over the line" in their approach to judicial credibility. Or, maybe it's just that they are "ten percent to the left of center in good times and ten percent to the right of center when it affects themselves." But, whatever the reason(s), their reliance on former Chief Justice Deborah Poritz as a watchdog over the State's judicial integrity only reinforces the long standing notion of "Jersey Justice" being nothing more than a continuum of broken trust. Prior to the Rutgers' incident, Governor Corzine has appeared on the Imus program a number of times. Nevertheless, Governor Corzine was quick to call Imus out and condemn the race and gender charged remarks that Don Imus made about the Rutgers' women's basketball team. And, Governor Corzine was schedule to act as a go-between at the team-Imus meeting, when traveling at an unecessary 91 mph and without weraring a seat belt, he had a accident(Ironically, the Governor gets a ticket, the trooper takes the fall, and the repentant sinner orders the public get his dose of medicine). The irony of the Imus affair is that Governor Corzine appointed former C.J. Poritz to the Judicial Advisory Panel. The panel suggests and reviews candidates for judicial appointments. C.J. Portitz was placed on the Panel even though she usurped the U.S. Constitution with the creation of the offense known as driving-while-black, i.e. racial profiling, during her stint as the State's Attorney General. Although her apologists note that was a while ago, racial profiling appears to be a growing problem. What makes this even better (or worse), is that Deborah Poritz's racism was rewarded by first being appointed to Supreme Court Chief Justice, and later by being given life tenure. (Again, the State Troopers took the fall). Conversely, Governor Corzine's Attorney General, Zulima Farber, was forced from office for defending her intimate companion in a, you guessed it, click-it or ticket-incident. Somehow reformer Corzine's higher standards of conduct apply to Ms. Farber but not C.J. Poritz, and certainly not to Governor Corzine himself. The investigation of Ms. Farber was relatively independent and open. The investigation of C.J. poritz consisted of a closed door, one person interview with a page of notes (Not even president Bush, AG Gonzales or the Democratic Congress have that one in their play book!). And, former Justice O'Hern's investigation of Gov. Corzine & Ms. Katz was not independent of the Governor, took place in secret and without a record (Maybe AG Gonzales should be held to Governor Corzine's "Due process" standards.). Would that it would end here - damage control, ya know - but it doesn't. The Zazalli Supreme Court must also find racism palitable as it appointed C.J. Poritz to head the "Ad Hoc Committee to Advise {the} Supreme Court on {the Judicial} Code of Conduct." "In particular, the committee has been asked to make recommendations in respect to Court Rule 1:12 and Canons 3 and 5 of the Code, which set the standards for cases in which a judge shoild not participate to preserve the appearance of the court's neutrality. MY, MY, MY! What have we here??? Canon 3(a)(4): "A judge should be impartial and should not discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, language, martial status, socioeconomic status, or disability." Canon 3(a)(6): "A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning a proceeding or impending proceeding... ." How would Don Imus describle this mess? What's the word he would use? Duplicity? Fits the facts, but, No. Hypocrites. Maybe. Weasels? Yep, Weasels. The word is Weasels. Labels:

draft