In a widely expected move, the New Jersey supreme court today ordered Governor Christie and the legislature to restore $500 million in funding to the state’s “Abbott” districts.
At a press conference, Christie said he disagreed with the ruling — calling it the product of a “failed” educational policy and representative of “everything that’s wrong with Trenton” — but affirmed that he was constitutionally obligated to comply with it. He called on the Democratically controlled state legislature to send him a budget that restored the $500 million without raising taxes. It has until June 30 to do so.
The “Abbott” districts are themselves a creature of a series of state supreme court rulings in the 80s and 90s that ordered the state to fund dozens of poor and “special needs” districts at levels similar to the wealthiest districts in the state. Educational spending in New Jersey is funded primarily by municipal property taxes and directed by local and regional school boards, but the Abbott rulings charged Trenton with paying to establish parity.
But after decades and billions in tax dollars spent, Abbott districts remain, by and large, absolute failures. Christie’s argument has been that the problem is not money but a perverse and corrupt tenure system and a lack of teacher accountability. The court here demured, though it notably did not go so far as to restore the full $1.6 billion in funding requested by the Education Law Center — a Newark-based outfit that filed both the original Abbott suit and the current one.
The court’s ruled 3-2 in favor of the Education Law Center, after two justices recused themselves from the proceedings (including the chief justice, who worked for the Democratic Corzine administration). Christie has zeroed in on the court and created controversy there by denying tenure to liberal John Wallace Jr., the first time a governor has failed to reappoint a sitting justice in the state’s history.
Incidentally, the $500 million figure is on par with what the state treasury is saying they expect in surplus tax revenue this year, over and above previous estimates. Christie had hoped to use the surplus to give New Jerseyans property tax relief and shore up the woefully underfunded state pension system.
The people of New Jersey know who to "thank" for the tax relief they won't be receiving and poor students will continue to be poor and not very well educated. It's ashame that people who are smart enough to sit on the Supreme Court of New Jersey aren't smart enough to realize that throwing money at the problem doesn't improve education and doesn't move poor students out of the Abbott districts. Unfortunately, the "smart" folks who run things in this country will continue to throw our money at problems that never get resolved and hope that some day some of it might stick.
I have read Article VIII of the NJ State Constitution. I can't find anywhere in it, where authority to draw money from the treasury is ceded to the Judiciary.
The Judiciary, both federal & state, have grown empowered to make these kinds of spending decisions because weak Executives and Legislatures have rolled over when these kinds of decisions have come down.
It's ridiculous to assert that the framers of either the US or the NJ Constitution envisioned a day when non-elected government agents would be spending the people's money. Didn't we fight a war over "taxation without representation", or am I getting that wrong?
Interesting. I was wondering how a court could order the legislative branch to pass a specific law and mandate the executive to sign it. It just didn't make sense.
Scratch Christie off the list of Republicans with presidential potential. The courts get to say what the law is for the purpose of determining their own rules of decision. They don't get to tell the other branches of government what their constitutional obligations are. A court presuming to reorder the state budget is a constitutional abomination in the federal system and in all 57 states. The first prerequisite for an effective executive is the courage to cut the courts down to size. Christie hasn't got it. Another one bites the dust.
The funny thing here is how the legislature just rolls over for this stuff. In a better time, the judges would have feared impeachment if they usurped the authority of the legislature in such a way.
It will never happen, but man it would be nice if some governor, after such a ruling, send the militia over to arrest the judges until the legislature can impeach them. A man can dream....
Just once I would like to see a judge enforce accountability on the teachers union as well as the government. How about putting all the teachers union officials, (from shop steward on up,) in jail for contempt of court until the students in these 'abbott schools" achieve scholastic parity with their wealthy counterparts? And dissolving the teachers union (and their contracts) because they haven't raised test scores like the judges wanted?
OK, I know that's not exactly legal, but neither is a judge legislating an "abbott school" from the bench. If Progressive judges were truly impartial, they would attack the teachers union as well as the govenment.
Sometimes it's not the ideology of the Progressive judiciary that gets to me, it's the partisanship.
The ultra liberal state supreme court in NJ has been destroying the state for years. Clowns like Assoc Justice Barry Albin do not have a clue as to the role of the judiciary. His questioning and comments in this case should have gotten him impeached.
Take a ride to the Abbott district schools. Brand new buildings, swimming complexes, the best facilities (Long Branch, Asbury Park)
And the kids fail because the moronic liberal judges on the Court are brain dead stupid. Here's a clue for you dopey judges...take a look at the out of wedlock birthrate in the Abbott districts. Legislate that.
Agreed with other commentators: the court can't tell the other two branches of government what to do in the course of their job. Christie really wussed out on an opportunity to make a great point: tell the Jersey court to find their own $500 million.
I would argue that the governor does not have to comply with the NJ Supreme Court ruling. The NJ Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally and the governor has a right (and a responsibility) to resist this usurpation of the rights of the legislature and the executive branches on NJ.
mjk -- Right on -- the Governor has both the right and responsibility to resist the NJSC's usurpation of power. Christie has been weighed in the balance and found wanting (in spite of his avoirdupois).
I am so sick of executives who meekly cave whenever a court issues some brain dead command. From Romney on same sex marriage to Brown on prison overcrowding, nobody seems to want to do the job they're elected to do. And there's always a crowd of commentators howling that the rule of law demands absolute obedience to the courts, no matter how daft they may be. This is, of course, the antithesis of the truth, but it's part of the left's catechism and the world is full of fools who believe it.
Can't we get just one Governor out of fifty willing to tell the courts where to get off? Just one?
Much as I cannot stand this decision, the court here is enforcing a statute passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.
Instead of paying the extra half a billion, I'd repeal the statute. Then the court would have nothing to enforce.
If they THEN told the legislature to appropriate the extra half a billion and instructed the executive to distribute the extra half a billion according to the judicially mandated plan, telling the court to pound sand would be an appropriate response.
This is, unfortunately, yet another example of the law of unintended consequences that rules over so much extraneous legislation.
Of course, the reason for the ill-conceived legislation was to make an effort to put into place a judicially mandated expropriation of funding specifically distributed according to judicial fiat....
The time for the backbone was before making the legislation, or signing it into law.
I wonder if any posters here actually read the linked article:
"The court ruled 3-2 that current spending levels violated the School Funding Reform Act of 2008, which lays out a formula to support the districts. Christie, a first-term Republican, and the Democratic-controlled Legislature failed to honor their constitutional obligations to adequately fund the 31 poorest school systems, known as Abbott districts, the court said."
...
"Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, a Republican appointee, wrote the majority opinion. She was joined by Judge Edwin Stern, a lower- court judge sitting temporarily. Justice Barry Albin, a Democrat, wrote a separate, concurring opinion. Justice Robert Rivera-Soto, a Republican who plans to retire in September, dissented, as did Justice Helen Hoens, a Republican."
"Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, a Democrat who worked in former Governor Jon Corzine’s administration when the 2008 school-aid formula was developed, and Justice Virginia Long, a Republican, didn’t participate in the vote."
The vote was 3-2: two Republicans voted no, two Democrats wrote yes, and the deciding majority opinion was written by a Republican.
The NJSC did rule that the state was violating the School Funding Reform Act of 2008. However, the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 was passed to satisfy a NJSC ruling that was based on the NJ constitution, which merely states that the “legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system.” So todays ruling is indeed the result of a prior "unconstitutional" ruling of the NJSC, not simply a statue.
I completely agree with Christie on this. The NJSC is meddling in matters that should be the province of the legislature and the Governor. I say, repeal the statute (if that's politically possible, which I doubt), and then tell the NJSC to butt out. What can the NJSC do, order Christie to arrest himself? I suppose there would be the little matter of a possible impeachment, but I say bring it on.
If Christie and the legislature fail to pass a budget that satisfies the funding levels set by the NJSC, then what? Lawsuits get filed and the plaintiffs win. So? The Governor and the Legislature have the power to say no to the NJSC. What's worse: a government that disregards a ruling of its supreme court, or a supreme court that disregards its consitution to assume powers properly vested in other branches of government? At some point, the answer becomes - the latter. If the NJSC were to lose that battle, they would only have themselves to blame.
>"Much as I cannot stand this decision, the court here is enforcing a statute passed by the legislature and signed by the governor."
The legislature passed and the governor signed the statute in question in order to comply with previous judicial orders.
"In 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its latest Abbott ruling, holding that the State satisfied its constitutional burden by passing the New Jersey School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA). The Court released the State from prior remedial orders."
The people of New Jersey know who to "thank" for the tax relief they won't be receiving and poor students will continue to be poor and not very well educated. It's ashame that people who are smart enough to sit on the Supreme Court of New Jersey aren't smart enough to realize that throwing money at the problem doesn't improve education and doesn't move poor students out of the Abbott districts. Unfortunately, the "smart" folks who run things in this country will continue to throw our money at problems that never get resolved and hope that some day some of it might stick.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have read Article VIII of the NJ State Constitution. I can't find anywhere in it, where authority to draw money from the treasury is ceded to the Judiciary.
The Judiciary, both federal & state, have grown empowered to make these kinds of spending decisions because weak Executives and Legislatures have rolled over when these kinds of decisions have come down.
It's ridiculous to assert that the framers of either the US or the NJ Constitution envisioned a day when non-elected government agents would be spending the people's money. Didn't we fight a war over "taxation without representation", or am I getting that wrong?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe Scott Wilson
Interesting. I was wondering how a court could order the legislative branch to pass a specific law and mandate the executive to sign it. It just didn't make sense.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseScratch Christie off the list of Republicans with presidential potential. The courts get to say what the law is for the purpose of determining their own rules of decision. They don't get to tell the other branches of government what their constitutional obligations are. A court presuming to reorder the state budget is a constitutional abomination in the federal system and in all 57 states. The first prerequisite for an effective executive is the courage to cut the courts down to size. Christie hasn't got it. Another one bites the dust.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe funny thing here is how the legislature just rolls over for this stuff. In a better time, the judges would have feared impeachment if they usurped the authority of the legislature in such a way.
It will never happen, but man it would be nice if some governor, after such a ruling, send the militia over to arrest the judges until the legislature can impeach them. A man can dream....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust once I would like to see a judge enforce accountability on the teachers union as well as the government. How about putting all the teachers union officials, (from shop steward on up,) in jail for contempt of court until the students in these 'abbott schools" achieve scholastic parity with their wealthy counterparts? And dissolving the teachers union (and their contracts) because they haven't raised test scores like the judges wanted?
OK, I know that's not exactly legal, but neither is a judge legislating an "abbott school" from the bench. If Progressive judges were truly impartial, they would attack the teachers union as well as the govenment.
Sometimes it's not the ideology of the Progressive judiciary that gets to me, it's the partisanship.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe ultra liberal state supreme court in NJ has been destroying the state for years. Clowns like Assoc Justice Barry Albin do not have a clue as to the role of the judiciary. His questioning and comments in this case should have gotten him impeached.
Take a ride to the Abbott district schools. Brand new buildings, swimming complexes, the best facilities (Long Branch, Asbury Park)
And the kids fail because the moronic liberal judges on the Court are brain dead stupid. Here's a clue for you dopey judges...take a look at the out of wedlock birthrate in the Abbott districts. Legislate that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed with other commentators: the court can't tell the other two branches of government what to do in the course of their job. Christie really wussed out on an opportunity to make a great point: tell the Jersey court to find their own $500 million.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would argue that the governor does not have to comply with the NJ Supreme Court ruling. The NJ Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally and the governor has a right (and a responsibility) to resist this usurpation of the rights of the legislature and the executive branches on NJ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemjk -- Right on -- the Governor has both the right and responsibility to resist the NJSC's usurpation of power. Christie has been weighed in the balance and found wanting (in spite of his avoirdupois).
I am so sick of executives who meekly cave whenever a court issues some brain dead command. From Romney on same sex marriage to Brown on prison overcrowding, nobody seems to want to do the job they're elected to do. And there's always a crowd of commentators howling that the rule of law demands absolute obedience to the courts, no matter how daft they may be. This is, of course, the antithesis of the truth, but it's part of the left's catechism and the world is full of fools who believe it.
Can't we get just one Governor out of fifty willing to tell the courts where to get off? Just one?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMuch as I cannot stand this decision, the court here is enforcing a statute passed by the legislature and signed by the governor.
Instead of paying the extra half a billion, I'd repeal the statute. Then the court would have nothing to enforce.
If they THEN told the legislature to appropriate the extra half a billion and instructed the executive to distribute the extra half a billion according to the judicially mandated plan, telling the court to pound sand would be an appropriate response.
This is, unfortunately, yet another example of the law of unintended consequences that rules over so much extraneous legislation.
Of course, the reason for the ill-conceived legislation was to make an effort to put into place a judicially mandated expropriation of funding specifically distributed according to judicial fiat....
The time for the backbone was before making the legislation, or signing it into law.
the tail wagging the dog.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI wonder if any posters here actually read the linked article:
"The court ruled 3-2 that current spending levels violated the School Funding Reform Act of 2008, which lays out a formula to support the districts. Christie, a first-term Republican, and the Democratic-controlled Legislature failed to honor their constitutional obligations to adequately fund the 31 poorest school systems, known as Abbott districts, the court said."
...
"Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, a Republican appointee, wrote the majority opinion. She was joined by Judge Edwin Stern, a lower- court judge sitting temporarily. Justice Barry Albin, a Democrat, wrote a separate, concurring opinion. Justice Robert Rivera-Soto, a Republican who plans to retire in September, dissented, as did Justice Helen Hoens, a Republican."
"Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, a Democrat who worked in former Governor Jon Corzine’s administration when the 2008 school-aid formula was developed, and Justice Virginia Long, a Republican, didn’t participate in the vote."
The vote was 3-2: two Republicans voted no, two Democrats wrote yes, and the deciding majority opinion was written by a Republican.
So much for your "ultra-liberal supreme court."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe NJSC did rule that the state was violating the School Funding Reform Act of 2008. However, the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 was passed to satisfy a NJSC ruling that was based on the NJ constitution, which merely states that the “legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system.” So todays ruling is indeed the result of a prior "unconstitutional" ruling of the NJSC, not simply a statue.
I completely agree with Christie on this. The NJSC is meddling in matters that should be the province of the legislature and the Governor. I say, repeal the statute (if that's politically possible, which I doubt), and then tell the NJSC to butt out. What can the NJSC do, order Christie to arrest himself? I suppose there would be the little matter of a possible impeachment, but I say bring it on.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Christie and the legislature fail to pass a budget that satisfies the funding levels set by the NJSC, then what? Lawsuits get filed and the plaintiffs win. So? The Governor and the Legislature have the power to say no to the NJSC. What's worse: a government that disregards a ruling of its supreme court, or a supreme court that disregards its consitution to assume powers properly vested in other branches of government? At some point, the answer becomes - the latter. If the NJSC were to lose that battle, they would only have themselves to blame.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"Much as I cannot stand this decision, the court here is enforcing a statute passed by the legislature and signed by the governor."
The legislature passed and the governor signed the statute in question in order to comply with previous judicial orders.
"In 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its latest Abbott ruling, holding that the State satisfied its constitutional burden by passing the New Jersey School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA). The Court released the State from prior remedial orders."
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>"I wonder if any posters here actually read the linked article"
I don't have to wonder if you understood it. You did not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The vote was 3-2: two Republicans voted no, two Democrats wrote yes, and the deciding majority opinion was written by a Republican."
A Republican 'appointee'. There IS a difference. Souter is a 'Republican appointee'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse