New Jersey court reverses Governor Christie’s budget cuts to public school aid

Daily Caller ^ | 03/23/2011 | Amanda Carey

[OldDeckHand]

A New Jersey court, Tuesday, took a step further in effectively tying Republican Governor Chris Christie’s hands on budget and education reform. Superior Court Judge Peter Doyne ruled that Christie’s budget cuts to school aid left public schools unable to provide a “thorough and efficient” education to New Jersey children.

Now, the case goes to the state Supreme Court where those seven judges will decide whether to act on it or not.

Doyne’s decision is based on a decades-old ruling in the case Abbott vs. Burke that says the New Jersey state government has to equalize funding for all public schools. The intent was to make sure low-income or poorly performing schools weren’t left out during the appropriating process, but today, the ruling is considered to be one of the most progressive in the country.

[OldDeckHand]

OK, let's see: Not only do Republicans have to have control of the Governor's mansion, but they also have to have control of the state house and NOW they have to make sure they control ALL the judges, before the beasts that are state budgets can be controlled.

I can't say I'm familiar with the constitution of the state of New Jersey, but I'm pretty confident that constitution cedes ZERO power to the judiciary to tax and spend.

[headstamp 2]

This is ultimately where all the budget cuts will go. Judges will rule that in effect, budgets can’t be cut.

This will effectively stop states from getting their fiscal houses in order thanks to judicial fiat.

[PieterCasparzen]

We need a massive Judicial impeachment.

Virtually all NJ Judges find for increased government spending regardless of anything which is a tactic of the revolutionary commuzzie cabal. They also always rule in favor of immorality and anything subverting the Constitution.

Many need to be tried for treason.

[bill1952]

Betcha that State Constitution cedes the power to IMPEACH those judges.

Anyone with the gonads to do it?
Plus the Legislature can ignore these rulings and not fund.
By law the legislatures are immune from prosecution for any act of congress.

[Williams]

If you are familiar with the “republicans” on the NJ Supreme Court, putting republicans there will not do the job.

And they probably hate Christie because he wouldn’t give a liberal judge lifetime tenure.

Keep in mind the NJ Supreme Court for decades has been forcing every town to buld a quota of affordable housing.

[Roklok]

Is the court going to cough up the money to cover the debt?

[listenhillary]

How about Christie decree that state judicial buildings thermostats be set on 85 degrees in the summer and 58 degrees in the winter. It’s for the children.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Take it from the judges’ salaries and pension plans.

[oldbrowser]

This is ultimately where all the budget cuts will go. Judges will rule that in effect, budgets can’t be cut.

Isn't there a separation of powers anymore?

It sounds like we are slipping into a situation where everything is run by judicial fiat.
I wonder what would happen if the governor said that he could not follow the judges ruling because it was incomplete. The ruling does not indicate where the additional money will come from. Will it come from higher taxes? which ones?
Will it come from reducing services in another area? which area?
The judge should be asked to provide a complete budget for the year.

[bigbob]

Just like Wisconsin, they control so much of these blue states the only solution is to take control of everything.

[trapped_in_LA]

Judges will eventually be ignored in these types of cases simply because there is no money. Will be interesting to see how these egomaniacs in black robes deal with that slap in the face when it comes.

[Mr Rogers]

I would tell the judges to pound sand. No judge has any right to tell the taxpayers what they must pay for education.

[OldDeckHand]

"Judges will eventually be ignored in these types of cases simply because there is no money."

You're right, or at least I hope that you're right and they'll be ignored.

It comes down to basic arithmetic, especially considering states don't have the privilege of running annual deficits.

I predict that before this is over - and this speaks directly to your "egomaniac" comment - one of these judges is going to "order" either a new tax, or an increase tax to pay for the spending he's ordered.

It's tyranny. Judicial tyranny.

[devistate one four]

They are inserting themselves in lawmaker positions!

Pass the law and let them take you to court and see who wins.

They are covicting the law before it even takes effct.

[Cheerio]

We need a massive Judicial impeachment.

I have a better plan to get rid of RATS.

[BobL]

What is the point of even having elections in New Jersey, if the judges are permitted to run the government?

[PENANCE]

I've posted this before. It's longish; sorry about that. However, I think those unfamiliar with it should read it. It is about the Federal gov't, not necessarily States; but it seems to apply to NJ among other States, too: Antifederalist No. 78-79: The Power of the Judiciary by Brutus from The New York Journal on March 20, 1788. "The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control. The business of this paper will be to illustrate this, and to show the danger that will result from it. I question whether the world ever saw, in any period of it, a court of justice invested with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible. Certain it is, that in England, and in the several states, where we have been taught to believe the courts of law are put upon the most prudent establishment, they are on a very different footing. The judges in England, it is true, hold their offices during their good behavior, but then their determinations are subject to correction by the house of lords; and their power is by no means so extensive as that of the proposed supreme court of the union. I believe they in no instance assume the authority to set aside an act of parliament under the idea that it is inconsistent with their constitution. They consider themselves bound to decide according to the existing laws of the land, and never undertake to control them by adjudging that they are inconsistent with the constitution-much less are they vested with the power of giv[ing an] equitable construction to the constitution. The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven. ... I have showed, in a former paper, that this court will be authorised to decide upon the meaning of the constitution; and that, not only according to the natural and obvious meaning of the words, but also according to the spirit and intention of it. In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature. For all the departments of this government will receive their powers, so far as they are expressed in the constitution, from the people immediately, who are the source of power. The legislature can only exercise such powers as are given them by the constitution; they cannot assume any of the rights annexed to the judicial; for this plain reason, that the same authority which vested the legislature with their powers, vested the judicial with theirs. Both are derived from the same source; both therefore are equally valid, and the judicial hold their powers independently of the legislature, as the legislature do of the judicial. The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void; and therefore in this respect their power is superior to that of the legislature."

[MinorityRepublican]

Nah, we just need an Andrew Jackson.

"The Court had made its decision. Now let them enforce it!"

[kearnyirish2]

“Judges will eventually be ignored in these types of cases simply because there is no money.”

That’s right; here in NJ every company or taxpayer that can get out is getting out, and these judges will end up hearing paternity suits from 14 year-old girls who are either illegal aliens or part of our permanent underclass. Not exactly a solid tax base to continue spending among the highest costs per-pupil in the country...

[Just A Nobody]

You need to do "penance" for not using paragraphs. ;*)

Enter < p> (without a space within the <>) at the end of the sentence before a new paragraph.