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.
Showing posts with label judicial activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judicial activism. Show all posts
Monday, June 4, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
GOV. CORZINE ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL’S “JERSEY JUSTICE” BAD OMEN ON NEXT SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE
“And thus I clothe my naked villany with odd old ends stol’n forth of Holy Writ, And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.” Richard III.
The Ethics Advisory Panel’s “legal opinion” in the Corzine-Katz matter is so untrustworthy that it appears to be little more than a public relations tool to silence critics, spin the Press, and create an unfounded public impression of blamelessness. The fact Governor Corzine readily embraces the Panel as is and accepts its “vindication” without further action raises serious question of whether Governor Corzine’s appointments to the NJ Court, Supreme Court, or its Chief Justice are based on political expediency or judicial temperament.
BACKGOUND SUMMARY
It seems beyond dispute the March – April outcry surrounding the Corzine-Katz relationship and its possible impact on the New Jersey-Communication Workers of America contract, rather than going away, grew loader with each official denial. It also seems beyond dispute that both Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz, aside from making denials, had no intention of offering proof of their statements. When Bogota’s Mayor Lonegan asked the Ethic’s Advisory Panel to intervene, the Governor also asked for a review and the Panel assumed jurisdiction.
During the period that followed the Governor Corzine was critically injured in a car accident. On his way to meet with the Rutgers’ Basketball team and Don Imus, the SUV hit a guard rail. The SUV was traveling at 91 miles per hour although the Governor has stated there was no rush because the meeting had been pushed ahead. Moreover, although the Governor was sitting in the “death-seat”, he was not wearing a seat belt.
Governor Corzine returned to work on Monday, May 7, 2007 and the Panel issued its “legal opinion” the next day.
PUBLIC RELATIONS IN PRACTICE
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” U.S. President James Madison, 1822.
The quasi-judicial opinion appears to be mostly public relations as it is untrustworthy. There are four reasons. First, it was conducted by persons who lack judicial independence as they are solely appointed by the Governor for three year terms. Second, the “hearings” were secret. Thus, there is no record except for the opinion which is based on secret communications between advisors acting as quasi-judges and the witnesses, who are giving testimony about other secret communications about union points that actually took place between the Governor and Ms. Katz during the State-Union negotiations. Without copies of transcripts and copies of the emails, and without a fair but reliable process of distinguishing between relevant and person communications, there can be no transparency or public oversight. Without a record of the proceedings there is no way to test, let alone clarify or challenge, the facts revealed by Justice O’Hern’s telephone “depositions.” Three, the O’Hern Panel failed to distinguish between the appearance of impartiality and actual impartially. The O’Hern panel held there were secret communications between the Governor and Ms. Katz. Thus the appearance of impropriety. They also held the communications did not influence the negotiations as a matter of fact. Hence, the lack of actual bias. They only problem is that in both instances no one has seen or heard the evidence. Moreover, the O’Hern panel failed to discuss if and why an ex-husband and wife would or would not be allowed to appear together in Court as Judge and lawyer. Finally, although the ex parte communications between Governor Corzine and CWA President Katz create the appearance of impropriety the Panel can only advise against such communications. It has no power to provide a remedy because of the rule of necessity, only the Governor, and not Senator Codey Acting as Governor, can negotiate the contract. Thus, there is no offense.
NEW “JERSEY JUSTICE”
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. Hamilton or Madison, Federalist Papers #51.
One cannot say that Governor Corzine’s request the Ethics Advisory Panel advise him as to any conflict between his personal and political relationship with Ms. Katz is a deal with the devil. One can say, however, Governor Corzine was certainly willing to accompany him on the journey.
Governor Corzine could, as Governor, have insisted on a meaningful and credible review. And, it is only necessary and proper it be independent, fair and reliable. Instead, Governor Corzine went alone for the ride, apparently because he has stated on numerous occasions he didn’t want a public record and thus did not want public scrutiny. Yet it was he who requested the review.
As important, Justice O’Hern could have refused to participate in a shame proceeding. Can you image anything more abhorrent to traditional democracy and more partisan than Justice O’Hern agreeing to act unchecked as judge, prosecutor, defense counsel and jury? Can you imagine sitting in a court where the judge leaves the bench and calls the witnesses from a phone in his or her office? Or, can you imagine not being able to challenge the completeness, authenticity or veracity of the verbal and written evidence.
THE PUBLIC RELATIONS RESULT
The actions of the Ethics Advisory Panel are presumed to be a search for the truth and the light it purports to shed to fairly resolve the matter. They do not. Still, the Corzine-Katz favorable Report corroborates and enhances political support for Governor Corzine while it simultaneously contradicts and discredits the opposition. Over 82 stories (using corzine & ethics) headlined the Ethic’s Advisory Panel had found no ethics violations from Governor Corzine’s involvement with Ms. Katz. Such generous, but short lived, press coverage of the Report thus strengthened the decree because the reporting press is presumed to be a guardian of the people against government wrongdoing. In short, massive, repetitive, and rapid distribution of the vindicating headline is social proof. The cumulative result of the spin process is to mislead the public by substituting hidden details for proof and appearances for reality.
GOVERNOR CORZINE’S EMBRACE OF THE “QUASI-JUDICIAL “LEGAL OPINION” IS AN OMINOUS SIGN ON JUDICAL APPOINTMENTS.
Soon Governor Corzine will announce the appointment of a new Supreme Court Chief Justice. How will that person respond to things not in the Governor’s or his partisan interest? Like when the “devil is in the details?” In light of the above, the cautionary words of Publius are appropriate.
“. . . no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day.” Hamilton, Federalist Papers #78.
The Ethics Advisory Panel’s “legal opinion” in the Corzine-Katz matter is so untrustworthy that it appears to be little more than a public relations tool to silence critics, spin the Press, and create an unfounded public impression of blamelessness. The fact Governor Corzine readily embraces the Panel as is and accepts its “vindication” without further action raises serious question of whether Governor Corzine’s appointments to the NJ Court, Supreme Court, or its Chief Justice are based on political expediency or judicial temperament.
BACKGOUND SUMMARY
It seems beyond dispute the March – April outcry surrounding the Corzine-Katz relationship and its possible impact on the New Jersey-Communication Workers of America contract, rather than going away, grew loader with each official denial. It also seems beyond dispute that both Governor Corzine and Ms. Katz, aside from making denials, had no intention of offering proof of their statements. When Bogota’s Mayor Lonegan asked the Ethic’s Advisory Panel to intervene, the Governor also asked for a review and the Panel assumed jurisdiction.
During the period that followed the Governor Corzine was critically injured in a car accident. On his way to meet with the Rutgers’ Basketball team and Don Imus, the SUV hit a guard rail. The SUV was traveling at 91 miles per hour although the Governor has stated there was no rush because the meeting had been pushed ahead. Moreover, although the Governor was sitting in the “death-seat”, he was not wearing a seat belt.
Governor Corzine returned to work on Monday, May 7, 2007 and the Panel issued its “legal opinion” the next day.
PUBLIC RELATIONS IN PRACTICE
“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” U.S. President James Madison, 1822.
The quasi-judicial opinion appears to be mostly public relations as it is untrustworthy. There are four reasons. First, it was conducted by persons who lack judicial independence as they are solely appointed by the Governor for three year terms. Second, the “hearings” were secret. Thus, there is no record except for the opinion which is based on secret communications between advisors acting as quasi-judges and the witnesses, who are giving testimony about other secret communications about union points that actually took place between the Governor and Ms. Katz during the State-Union negotiations. Without copies of transcripts and copies of the emails, and without a fair but reliable process of distinguishing between relevant and person communications, there can be no transparency or public oversight. Without a record of the proceedings there is no way to test, let alone clarify or challenge, the facts revealed by Justice O’Hern’s telephone “depositions.” Three, the O’Hern Panel failed to distinguish between the appearance of impartiality and actual impartially. The O’Hern panel held there were secret communications between the Governor and Ms. Katz. Thus the appearance of impropriety. They also held the communications did not influence the negotiations as a matter of fact. Hence, the lack of actual bias. They only problem is that in both instances no one has seen or heard the evidence. Moreover, the O’Hern panel failed to discuss if and why an ex-husband and wife would or would not be allowed to appear together in Court as Judge and lawyer. Finally, although the ex parte communications between Governor Corzine and CWA President Katz create the appearance of impropriety the Panel can only advise against such communications. It has no power to provide a remedy because of the rule of necessity, only the Governor, and not Senator Codey Acting as Governor, can negotiate the contract. Thus, there is no offense.
NEW “JERSEY JUSTICE”
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. Hamilton or Madison, Federalist Papers #51.
One cannot say that Governor Corzine’s request the Ethics Advisory Panel advise him as to any conflict between his personal and political relationship with Ms. Katz is a deal with the devil. One can say, however, Governor Corzine was certainly willing to accompany him on the journey.
Governor Corzine could, as Governor, have insisted on a meaningful and credible review. And, it is only necessary and proper it be independent, fair and reliable. Instead, Governor Corzine went alone for the ride, apparently because he has stated on numerous occasions he didn’t want a public record and thus did not want public scrutiny. Yet it was he who requested the review.
As important, Justice O’Hern could have refused to participate in a shame proceeding. Can you image anything more abhorrent to traditional democracy and more partisan than Justice O’Hern agreeing to act unchecked as judge, prosecutor, defense counsel and jury? Can you imagine sitting in a court where the judge leaves the bench and calls the witnesses from a phone in his or her office? Or, can you imagine not being able to challenge the completeness, authenticity or veracity of the verbal and written evidence.
THE PUBLIC RELATIONS RESULT
The actions of the Ethics Advisory Panel are presumed to be a search for the truth and the light it purports to shed to fairly resolve the matter. They do not. Still, the Corzine-Katz favorable Report corroborates and enhances political support for Governor Corzine while it simultaneously contradicts and discredits the opposition. Over 82 stories (using corzine & ethics) headlined the Ethic’s Advisory Panel had found no ethics violations from Governor Corzine’s involvement with Ms. Katz. Such generous, but short lived, press coverage of the Report thus strengthened the decree because the reporting press is presumed to be a guardian of the people against government wrongdoing. In short, massive, repetitive, and rapid distribution of the vindicating headline is social proof. The cumulative result of the spin process is to mislead the public by substituting hidden details for proof and appearances for reality.
GOVERNOR CORZINE’S EMBRACE OF THE “QUASI-JUDICIAL “LEGAL OPINION” IS AN OMINOUS SIGN ON JUDICAL APPOINTMENTS.
Soon Governor Corzine will announce the appointment of a new Supreme Court Chief Justice. How will that person respond to things not in the Governor’s or his partisan interest? Like when the “devil is in the details?” In light of the above, the cautionary words of Publius are appropriate.
“. . . no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day.” Hamilton, Federalist Papers #78.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
