Replies

That appears to be the set-up. My feeling is that the time limit was set to get the NJ Legislature to do something, soon. If it doesn't, I expect that the court would then be asked to do something.

By who?
Are you suggesting the plaintiffs might ask someone other than the legislature to write a law?

If such an extra-constitutional course of action was taken it's up to the legislative branch to protect their own balance of power turf and remove the unconstitutional justices.

The court in its ruling has asked the legislature to take legislative action to implement its decision and has given it 180 days to do something. IMO, if the legislature fails to act at all, the plaintiffs (the seven homosexual "couples")( along with the cabal of activist attorneys that would rush to support them) would go back to the court and inform it that the legislature had not honored its ruling. They would probably do this by filing a lawsuit alleging the state (all the defendants in the suit were members of the state executive branch) was engaged in a continuing violation of the state constitution's guarantee of equal civil rights (since such a violation was the basis of the original suit and today's court ruling).

As is his/her duty, the state attorney general would file papers explaining and defending the legislature's actions. There would probably be extended legal proceedings, but if the court stuck by today's ruling and found for the plaintiffs again, the legislature and the executive would still be staring at the same ruling only now they would be a lot lighter in the wallet due to the public monies spent on the court proceedings.

The court then has a decision to make about how to implement its decision in the face of this opposition and would likely issue a very directive ruling to do so.
IMO, the court would probably not overturn the legislation defining marriage as the union of one man with one woman. But it could levy painful fines on the executive officer defendants for each day of delay in implementing administrative changes to the various existing laws needed to create the equal civil rights effect it has directed. As I understand it, such fines would, in theory, be paid out of the affected department's budgets. They would be unable to stand this very long without either additional funding or legislative relief. When it became painful enough, the executive would have to go to the legislature and ask it either for additional money or for the needed changes in the law so that it has the legislative authority to implement the court's ruling.

Or they (legislature and executive) could try to appeal the ruling in the United States federal courts. Since this is a state consitutional matter, that's not likely to get far but start the big $ meter while the lawyers and judges figure it out.

As for impeachment, it is not such an easy matter.

You have to allege an impeachable offense and issuing a civil rights ruling you don't like is unlikely to be on the list of such acts. Assuming the accusers can get past this obstacle, executing the impeachment process might also be difficult. You would need to get separate super majorities in the legislature to impeach and to convict. Is this really likely given the present political composition of the NJ legislature?