Talk:New Jersey Supreme Court

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Jersey Supreme Court has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	To-do list for New Jersey Supreme Court:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Important info/cases from ~1844-?1960

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

New Jersey Supreme Court has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	NJ Portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

It was proposed on 28 May 2006 that this article should be moved to Supreme Court of New Jersey. The result of the debate was not moved.

[edit] New Court Nominations

Couldn't figure out how to indicate a source for the new information I added on the NJSC nominations made by Governor Corzine yesterday but the article is at: http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1158905284220350.xml&coll=1&thispage=1.

It seems to be a dead link now... 68.39.174.238 21:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious POV evident

I am writing this up now. Please be patient. When I'm done I will add a POV-check tag. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 03:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This wiki article either suffers from serious POV, or no balance is provided for certain statements. Some statements are facially incorrect.

• "The main difference between the versions, the composition of the court, reflects the change in jurisprudence from the colonial British concept of "Law Lords", or legislators serving part time as judges, to the current form of an independent and nonpartisan court uninvolved with the other branches of government."

Here the Court is described as "independent and nonpartisan," but later in the article appears this: "New Jersey is generally considered a state with fairly liberal institutions and officers (nearly all elected offices pertaining to the state held by the United States Democratic Party), the Supreme Court not excepted. Because of frequent left leaning rulings, it is derided by some conservatives as "activist".[39]"

So which is it? Independent and nonpartisan or nearly all Democratic? This article contradicts itself.

• "Because of frequent left leaning rulings, it is derided by some conservatives as "activist".[39]"

Use of the word "derided" is POV. Use if the word "conservatives" is POV. Placing the word "activist" in quotes is POV. Instead the section should be significantly expanded, the POV language should be dropped, and cites should be liberally sprinkled about.

In reality, the Court does indeed legislate from the bench. For example, in the Mount Laurel decision, the Court chose to create new law instead of invalidating existing law and deferring to the legislature. And in October 2006, the Court ordered the Legislature to, within six months, either change the definition of marriage or provide rights to those of the same gender to have the same rights marriage otherwise confers to those of different genders. (Note I am not taking a position here on this issue, no soapbox, I am merely raising this case since the Court ordered the Legislature to legislate.)

The Court is indeed activist and it should be specifically pointed out again and again. Like in the Mount Laurel decision where dissenting Justice Mountain said, right in the opinion itself, that the Court did not need to create a new law when it could have just invalidated the existing law being challenged. Being "derided" by "conservatives" about "activism" is just not the truth, as this example shows.

Another example is the Court's October 25, 2006 decision to give the legislature 180 days to create a law that satisfies the Court's dictates. This is nowhere in the article. It is totally activist. Judges telling Legislatures what law to write is the very definition of judicial activism. The judicial branch is not supposed to legislate, and telling the legislature to legislate in 180 days the way the Court says is essentially legislating from the bench, like in Mount Laurel, only getting the legislature to do the dirty work. Imagine, 7 Justices deciding for an entire state what the law should be, then forcing the legislature to do as they say. Mind you, this law they seek has been voted down in every single state where is has been raised and only one other state has the law, but also because the Supreme Court there also ordered the Legislature to write the laws it dictated. Has anyone in New Jersey voted for the law the Court ordered? No. Would they? Not if they vote as the remainder of the country voted. Has any legislative body created such a law in NJ? No. Do people in NJ even know any of the people on the Court, have they voted for them, is there any representation of the people at all where the Court orders a law to be created that the people would not vote for or choose representatives to represent them in a representative republic? No, of course not. Yet this article, with its POV, does a total whitewash on the Court's activism in the past, present, and foreseeable future. Now I may be writing this comment with POV, but such POV should not appear in the article. There must be a NPOV way of writing out specific cases of judicial activism in NJ. There must be a NPOV way to rewrite the misleading and incorrect sentences and including entire counterbalancing ideas totally absent in this article.

The Mount Laurel decisions are mentioned. Any mention of the "Builder's Remedy" the Court created out of whole cloth awarded builders millions of dollars? Any mention that lawyers began suing statewide just to win the "builders remedy" and who cares if poor people never actually ever lived in the housing? Any mention that most Mount Laurel housing built did not go to the people for whom the Court ostensibly acted? Any mention that the late Chief Justice's family interest in the case? Any mention of Justice Mountain's dissent calling the judicial activism into question? This is an article on the NJ Supreme Court. It is supposed to be encyclopedic and factual, not as if it was written by the Court Administrator. And where the Mount Laurel decision is discussed, is there a reason why its write up makes it appear like all is love and kisses in Mount Laurel land?

Did I miss something or is the entire Frank Lautenberg switched in for Torricelli matter completely absent. Basically, Torricelli withdraw from a political race for reasons of corruption after the deadline for withdrawing from a political race. The Court decided that, oh well, the law really didn't matter, we'll violate the law in this case and everyone in the state will just have to accept that, so, despite the law as expressed by the Legislature, Lautenberg was allowed to run. Does this appear in the article anywhere? I don't see it. I may have missed it.

So we have the Court ignoring the Legislature and we have the Court ordering the Legislature to legislate what the Court wants. And it is totally absent in the article barring a little in one POV sentence. Instead there are statements about how the Court is "nonpartisan" and "independent." That is totally false, and this article can easily back that up with appropriate links. So let me not hear this is my opinion, my soapbox. Don't go there. My soapbox will not appear in the article. I have no soapbox here -- I'm merely commenting on the obvious bias in this article and explaining in for others to consider. But let's call a whitewash a whitewash where we see it.

This article, in sum, contradicts itself, whitewashes truths, ignores inconvenient truths, provides little balance, appears to have been written by someone favoring the Court, ignores instances where Justices criticize other Justices for judicial activism, uses serious POV language, and just plain needs a serious rewrite with an eye toward being fair and balanced (and grammatical). It's totally lacking as it stands now. And I am not suggesting I'm the one to make the appropriate changes. I am merely raising the issues as part of what we fellow wikipedians do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is judicial activism in the Court's own words: "15. To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision. (p. 65)" Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris, etc., et al. (A-68-05) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 05:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed

Just a note that I have removed the section on "Political standing," which was the subject of some of the comments above. Most of it was indeed POV, not to mention just plain incorrect. There is a tradition of partisan balance on the Court, which was hinted at in the "Current Membership" section, and which I have made explicit (with the source that was cited, though misquoted, in the "Political standing" section.) This does not, however, stop the Court from being "liberal" and, at least to a degree, "activist." I do not think there is any point debating those attributes (and not everybody views them as negative), so I have just added a brief mention (without POV words like "derided") to the "Important decisions" section. The fact is that in New Jersey, Republican governors tend to be fairly liberal while Democratic governors are usually solidly liberal, so who do you expect to get appointed to the Supreme Court? Former Chief Justice Poritz is as Republican as they come, and appointed by a Republican governor (Whitman), but she was the author of what is possibly the most "liberal" opinion in a major case in many years, that is the dissenting opinion in the recent "gay marriage" case. (Hers was the opinion that said that nothing short of "marriage" for same-gender couples would satisfy the constitution.) Meanwhile, the more "moderate" opinion (the one that says "civil unions" will satisfy the constitution) was written by a Democrat, Justice Albin. So this is not a matter of political party, it is a matter of the general ideological leaning of the state as a whole. It's not something to be too concerned about -- there are more than enough "conservative states" to make up for New Jersey.  :) Neutron 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Neutron, nice work! Thanks! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article previously peer-reviewed

Hi there LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, I wonder, have you read the peer review of this article? The term "legislate from the bench" is a recent indignant construct coming from the right. Another take on yestrday's decision would be the simple action of our system of checks and balances. State Supreme Courts, and the federal high court, have been instructing the legislative branch since shortly after the ratification of the constitution. Adams would call it America's "athletic democracy." A huge amount of the twentieth century's gains in voting rights accessibility, public accomodations, and education and housing acccesibility come from the courts instructing the legislature to make restitution.CApitol3 11:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You said, "Another take on yestrday's decision would be the simple action of our system of checks and balances." Correct, but it would be a misinformed take. A court ordering a legislature to legislate would be like the legislature ordering the court to decide a case the way the legislature orders. Should a legislator order a judge to decide a case the way that legislator wants? Should a judge order a legislator to write a law the way he wants? This is the whole reason for a separation of powers. And where that separation is violated, that's wrong.

You also said, "A huge amount of the twentieth century's gains in voting rights accessibility, public accomodations, and education and housing ... come from the courts instructing the legislature to make restitution." First, restitution is not the same as telling the legislature what to legislate. Second, your argument as I think you meant it is essentially that past judicial activism justifies present judicial activism. I think not. Separation of powers doesn't go away just because the courts got away with activism in the past and the people in NJ have no ability to right that wrong. I know it's politically correct to say the ends justifies the means, but that doesn't make it right or protect it from being included appropriately in an encyclopedic article.

Besides, even without my input, I've shown that the article is internally inconsistent with itself. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. Question: why is it inappropriate and "unecyclopedic" to list a landmark court decision in an article on the court? Next up: I am not suggesting anything of the sort of "the ends justifies the means," or, that "separation of powers goes away." And, I am surely not worried about political correctness, left or right. What I am suggesting is that this back and forth between the branches of our government is at once dynamic, and homeostatic, it actually contributes to stability. No one group wins or loses everything, maybe that's partly why we don't see fighting in the streets. The problem may be we haven't seen the system of checks and balances in action on the federal scale for, oh, I dunno, maybe six years? I was suggesting, and continue to here, that the moniker "legislate from the bench" is new and originated with a certain amount of indignation of people not liking where the court's decisions have led. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you probably don't love the idea of homosexuals marrying. Courts have instructed legislatures since the 1790s. This is not new. What's new is the vitriol suggesting some miscarriage of justice or separation of powers has occured when it is exactly what our government is designed to do. You know what my biggest complaint about the article is? The crappy sad looking court building. It looks like an office park or a mall, not the temple of justice it is. Anyway, did you read the peer review? Best, Jim CApitol3 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just read your discussion page, I have some insight where you come from, and though I disagree, I respect it, you look to be 100 percent intellectually honest. Jim CApitol3 18:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think this will be an "agree to disagree" thing. It's not bad to list a court decision, but to hold it up as an example without disclosing the whole truth is not right. Indeed to say the court is "independent and nonpartisan" without either removing that POV or including some balance is not wiki worthy. Might be worthy of a Court owned web site about itself, but not a supposedly unbiased wiki article.

And regarding the "back and forth" between branches of government, I agree that's good, but the following is not back and forth: "15. To bring the State into compliance with Article I, Paragraph 1 so that plaintiffs can exercise their full constitutional rights, the Legislature must either amend the marriage statutes or enact an appropriate statutory structure within 180 days of the date of this decision. (p. 65)" Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris, etc., et al. (A-68-05)

You said, "I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you probably don't love the idea of homosexuals marrying." Note that the bulk of my arguments pertained to the Mount Laurel decision precisely because one of the Justices in the decision itself commented on the Court's own judicial activism. In other words, my support for claiming the Court is activist is the Court itself, and I do this to avoid claims that this is just my POV. I included the recent decision not because of its subject matter but because of its clear judicial activism in line with the Mount Laurel decision. The issue of the subject matter of the case is irrelevant to the arguments I am making, but may be relevant to someone trying to marginalize my arguments by using ad hominem arguments. Not saying you did that as you admitted "going out on a limb," but that is where you were headed if you were not so polite.

You said, "Courts have instructed legislatures since the 1790s. This is not new." True. But that instruction should never include direction to a legislature to write up a law, as in the recent case, or the direct writing of a "law," as in the Mount Laurel decision. In coequal branches, who allowed the judges to tell the legislators what law to write? The answer is no one.

You said, "You know what my biggest complaint about the article is? The crappy sad looking court building." There! We agree! But I also think the article is generally not well written from a writing point of view, leaving aside other issues.

No, I did not read the peer review. If this article came out of peer review as lopsided and internally inconsistent as it is, then the peer review may need to be peer reviewed!

Thanks, Jim. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

New we'd agree on something! Best, Jim CApitol3 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, read this at the Wall Street Journal. It could be added to the article: 'We Have Decided', October 27, 2006; Page A14. It basically says what I have been saying, and the WSJ is main stream media.

"This week's New Jersey Supreme Court's judicial diktat on same-sex-somethings (name to be determined later) is a remarkable arrogation of power by the judiciary." .... "Apparently New Jersey voters are supposed to be grateful that their judicial overlords have delegated this policy ornamentation." .... "All in all, the ruling reveals judges writing law entirely on their own but trying to cover their political tracks." That last sentence is what I said about the difference between Mount Laurel and this latest judicial activism. You might have to agree that I am legitimate, and even compelling!!!!  ;) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 22:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Photo

An updated official NJ Supreme Court photo is on the judiciary web site at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/supreme/images/newsupreme.jpg. It has the Justice Zazzali in the center chair and new Associate Jusice Hoens looking hopeful if cautious in the upper right. (This could be because she is the only justice that the anti-gay-marriage-rights-decision folks aren't trying to impeach.) Regrettably, the fact that Justice Rivero-Soto is wearing a bow tie has not changed. Anyway, I will let someone else grab and upload the photo -- and jump through Wikipedia's fair-use-justification hoops. (You could just copy what the person who uploaded the last photo -- presumably from the exact same site -- wrote, but that assumes that they were correct.) Neutron 07:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yuck! Green backed reporters! Anyway, I'd recommened someone overwrite the current version with the new one. 68.39.174.238 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, those green-covered reporters (New Jersey Superior Court Reports) cover the lower courts, not the Supreme Court. New Jersey Reports, which covers the Supreme Court, have off-white covers. Neutron 21:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I was responsible for the last FUI-rationale and it should hold exactly the same for this image. I'm fully willing to defend the image against any claims of fair use impropriety if it gets uploaded. 68.39.174.238 23:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)