New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie found himself on the defense Monday over his two Supreme Court picks just a week after announcing that he was moving to diversify the state's all-white Supreme Court by nominating two firsts: an openly gay black man and an immigrant.
Christie said Bruce Harris, who is gay, told the governor he would recuse himself from hearing any gay marriage cases because the nominee, a former Chatum Borough mayor, has advocated for the issue.
Years ago Harris, 61, wrote to several state senators asking for their support of a same-sex marriage bill being heard by the Senate in late 2009. Christie, a Republican who supports civil unions but opposes calling it marriage, said Harris volunteered the information about his writing.
"He told me he favored same-sex marriage, had advocated for it in his political capacity and as a result, if he were confirmed to the court, would recuse himself from that matter because he did not want there to be the appearance of bias," the governor recalled.
18 Comments
Yeah right, did Walker recuse himself?
This is absurd. Will he recuse himself from affirmative action cases? Should Christian judges recuse themselves from any case involving a church? Should heterosexual judges recuse themselves from all marriage cases? Once again, NOM is supporting a special set if rules intended to marginalize LGBT people while claiming it's not bigotry.
Nonsense Bobby. Those of us who favor natural marriage are all in favor of the rights of people who identify themselves as gay. Just not as far as to compromise the civil and religious liberties of everyone else.
Oh, this is rich.
Christie yesterday:
"Christie said of Harris and his other nominee, Phillip Kwon of Bergen County, “I did not ask them about specific cases.”
Christie today:
"Christie said Bruce Harris, who is gay, told the governor he would recuse himself from hearing any gay marriage cases because the nominee, a former Chatum Borough mayor, has advocated for the issue."
And if he doesn't?
Oh, Christie will be shocked-shocked!- I tell you.
With friends like Christie, who needs Romney?
This will be a non- issue, there will be a veto-proof majority and marriage equality will win with a Christie posing as the opponent. Harris will not have to get involved at all, but the promise of recusal will speed up his approval.
As far as gay judges having to recuse themselves, the 9th circuit court beat your Chuck Cooper up over that and we know the Supremes will have nothing to do with that.
SOA: The same rationale could be used to require Christian judges to recuse themselves from cases involving gay rights: Those of us who favor freedom and social justice are all in favor of the rights of people who identify themselves as Christian. Just not as far as to compromise the civil and religious liberties of everyone else, especially LGBT citizens.
Wrong again Bobby; unless said Christian publicly lobbied against the adoption of marriage corruption.
You cannot assume that a judge would be bias just because he might be personally opposed to, or in favor of, engaging in same-sex sexual activity. But if said judge were to publicly advocate a position either way a reasonable person could assume biasness.
I say, why taek the chance...I think they should vote Harris down...
Be concern of politicians who say one thing but and act opposite to their message...
Bobby,the general welfare requires permanent enforcement of the "marginalization" of "LGBT" behavior.Characterization of indulgence of such behavior as "freedom and social justice" may be protected by freedom of speech,but public policy must remain unambigously negative in the best interest of humanity as a whole.
No, Louis, it does not. What you fail to understand is that you hold an extreme view based in ignorance and religious dogma (although you claim otherwise). I suspect there are a couple of other factors at play as well. Our government and our social, cultural and political systems are under no obligation to comply with such extremism and, since bowing to them would mean a severe infringement on the freedom and civil liberties of millions of American citizens, our secular institutions have a mandate to reject them.
The proper thing would be for the citizens to NJ to decide the issue. They should vote in a marriage amendment.
In a democracy no judge should be deciding these issues. The proper thing for any judge to do is simply say the laws of the land due not permit me to be a legislator.
This is why we have elections. We are supposed to live in a democracy of votes by the people. We do not live under a judicial dictatorship.
John, What is missing from your argument is a recognition of the hierarchy of state laws to state constitutions, to federal laws to the U.S. Cobstitution, which supersedes all. Judges have an obligation to uphold the principles of the governing Constitition, be it state or federal, and striking down conflicting laws. NJ's Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that denying the protections of marriage to gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
Randy King: So you disagree with NOM's position that Walker should have recused himself in the Prop 8 trial?
Bobby,it is your view that is based on ignorance.I don't know if you subscribe to any religious dogma,but I never have.Our secular institutions are obligated to guarantee preference to socially useful behaviors,and the principle that all sexual relationships must be between opposite-sex partners should be taught and expressed at every level of society.
To the extent that a state or national constitution can be construed to protect behaviors contrary to the general welfare and treat them as equal with behaviors that should be entitled to preference,that constitution must be amended to abolish the harmful and unintended protection.
Bobby-
You post at 11, you used rthe word, "our' twice referring to the general public and secular religion.
Would it be fair to say that "our" most NJers represent the heterosexual population who do not want SSMr equality or their government system advocating suchg rights? The "our", "we" should be able to discriminate what is good and bad for "our" State, and Country, and advocate for those common secular beliefs... You're the one who is confused and ignorant on the issues... Your delusion hinders your judgement to see what is wrong with SSM.
Walker should have revealed his proclivity prior to his prop 8 sham trial. His refusal to do so mandates that his ruling be vacated.
or to quote the 9th circus:
"The courts word has to mean something"
1) This is not a secular system
2) You cannot discriminate against religion
3) If you allow for exemptions based on secular ideology then you must afford the same exemptions based on religious ideology - as the 6th Circuit just stated...
4) You do not have the constitutional right to redefine words to appease your own selfish pursuits.
Declaration of Independence: 1776
Secularism coined: 1851
Do the math!
To poster #13 that would be true if that was what was really happening. The courts are supposed to uphold the constitution not become judicial dictatorships where leftists activist judges give the finger to the Bill of Rights and simply impose their own laws from the bench.
NJ was a perfect example. The one man/one woman law was perfectly constitutional. Of course their is no constitutional right to make up your own marriage laws. So just like in MA the NJ court simply gave the people and the constitution the finger and did as they damn well please. Since judges are not elected they are accountable to no one.
In a true democracy run by we the people we hold those in public accountable. This does not apply to judges. This allows judges to abuse their power and do things from the bench even though the law does not permit them to do so.
However I do understand your position. Your side knows it cannot win fair and square in a democracy and before we the people. So you favor lying and cheating by having your own self appointed zombies appointed to the bench so that they can supercede we the people.
I will pass on that form of democracy.