Still fuming over a ruling that his pension and health benefit plan illegally penalizes judges and justices, Christie once again Tuesday directed a flood of stinging criticism at the judge Watch video
Gov. Chris Christie called for limits on New Jersey judges' pay after a ruling was made that exempted judges from state pension and benefits changes. TRENTON — Still fuming over a ruling that his pension and health benefit plan illegally penalizes judges and justices, Gov. Chris Christie once again yesterday directed a flood of stinging criticism at the judge.
"Judge Feinberg made a decision that is on its face is self-interested and outrageous," Christie said at a hastily called news conference at the Statehouse. "This is a blatant attempt to exact for themselves special treatment because they have the power to do so."
To get around the courts, the governor said he would seek a constitutional amendment to render the ruling by Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg moot, though only lawmakers have the power to put it on the ballot.
Christie’s criticism ran the gamut, from accusing Feinberg of protecting "cronies" to describing all judges as "elitists" trying to take money from taxpayers. Then Christie compared Feinberg to Bryan Christiansen, whom the governor ousted as head of the scandal-plagued Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission.
A response from the president of the New Jersey State Bar Association, Susan Feeney, was swift and stinging. She said the governor’s tirade was a "blatant attempt to mislead the public and influence the judicial process."
"Further, his personal criticism of Mercer County Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg is unwarranted and irresponsible," Feeney said in a statement. "Judge Feinberg has a sterling record for integrity as one of the most respected members of the New Jersey bench, as well as a long, distinguished career as a public official."
The dispute arose after Feinberg issued a ruling in response to a lawsuit filed by a Hudson County Superior Court judge. She concluded that the increased contributions Christie is requiring of state employees is an indirect reduction in pay that the state Constitution specifically forbids for judges and justices.
The case could now move to the appellate court or go directly to the state Supreme Court.
Christie said he did not want to wait and see how the courts rule, however, and called instead for a constitutional amendment that would eliminate the question and make the increased contributions legal. An amendment must be passed by the Legislature and then approved voters through a referendum.
Christie, who was an attorney in private practice before serving as U.S. attorney in New Jersey for seven years, is a member of the state’s Bar Association and subject to its code of ethics. But he said Tuesday he was not concerned about being censured by the organization because it is his First Amendment right to speak out.
Frank Askin, a law professor and director of the constitutional litigation clinic at Rutgers Law School in Newark, said Christie’s bashing of Feinberg wasn’t a good move.
"It’s probably not good form to be denouncing a judge for her decision," Askin said. " We have an appellate process. He’s a bit of a bully at times. He occasionally lapses into inappropriate tirades against those he disagrees with."
Feinberg was appointed to the bench in 1991 by former Gov. Jim Florio, a Democrat, and reappointed by former Gov. Christie Todd Whitman, a Republican, giving her tenure and rendering her unable to be removed without cause.
She did not return a request for comment, nor did Winnie Comfort, a spokeswoman for the judicial branch.
The governor’s difficulty with the judiciary flared up shortly after taking office, when he announced he would not reappoint Justice John Wallace Jr., who was 68 at the time, prompting outcries from Democrats and members of the legal community.
This year, Christie repeatedly criticized the state Supreme Court, including calling out members by name, as they weighed a request to compel him to put more money into the state’s poorest school districts. When the court ordered him to direct $500 million more in aid to the schools, Christie complied.
Tuesday the bar association president fired back. "The governor’s continued attack on the judiciary denigrates the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary as a separate branch of government," Feeney said.
For his part, Askin said Feinberg’s decision was "a questionable call" and acknowledged Christie’s concern over a conflict of interest.
"All the judges have a conflict,’’ he said. "It’s something of a problem since they have a vested interest in the case."
A Seton Hall law professor, Edward A. Hartnett, put it this way: When all judges have a conflict, the accepted practice is that in turn no judges have a conflict.
In this case, Hartnett said, the suit might have been heard by judges who had either been appointed after the change in the state law or whose first term had expired since the measure was signed in June.
"That might offer another pool of judges who wouldn’t have a claim and therefore wouldn’t be disqualified," he said.
By Ginger Gibson and MaryAnn Spoto/Statehouse Bureau
Related coverage:
• Gov. Christie calls for constitutional amendment to cap judicial pay, benefits
• Judge rules state pension, benefits overhaul does not apply to N.J. judges