Hugh Hewitt deserves a lot of credit for highlighting judges as an important issue in the 2016 election cycle. The next president is likely to appoint at least two justices, possibly three or four, establishing a new majority on a broad range of extremely important legal/constitutional questions. Continuing his interest in the topic, last week he interviewed Chris Christie and asked him about the Court and the kind of justices he would appoint.
And once again Chris Christie distorted his judicial selection record.
Hewitt asked about the pattern of appointing justices from elite law schools, to which Christie replied:
[The fact that all 9 justices came from Harvard or Yale] is not healthy, and the fact is that I’ve worked really hard to make sure that we have a representation of people on the court who have real life experiences. You know, you need folks who have real life experiences, who have had real struggles, and who have made a difference in their communities in ways that are different than just going to an Ivy League school. And so you know, that certainly wouldn’t be something that would preclude you of being a nominee of mine from the Supreme Court, to have gone to an Ivy League school, but it’s not going to be a requirement. I want people who have had real life experiences and know that the things they do on that court have an effect on real people’s lives every day in this country. Those are the kind of people I’ve appointed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, and those folks have done quite well, in my view, so far on the court.
* * *
And I’ve done it [broken the pattern of Ivy League justices] in New Jersey, and I will tell you that I would do it on the United States Supreme Court as well. The fact is I want real people on that Court who have had real life experiences. . . . You have to broaden our experience here in America. I’m proud University of Delaware graduate. I got a great education there. And I don’t think it’s held me back from doing anything. In fact, I’m running for president of the United States.
If what he’s trying to say is that judicial philosophy doesn’t have much to do with elite credentials, I think most of us agree, even though we don’t trust Christie himself to actually make judicial philosophy much of a priority.
But it’s more than a little eerie that Christie has previously been on the same page as President Obama about what to look for in a nominee. It’s even eerier that, true to form, Christie endorsed the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and is once again echoing President Obama’s approach to filling judicial offices.
And then Christie delivered this whopper:
[Hugh Hewitt]: Can we, do you think we could get the commitment at least not to make your first Supreme Court justice a Harvard or Yale law grad?
[Chris Christie]: Listen, let me tell you this, Hugh. I think you can be pretty sure of that fact, yeah.
Once again, Christie is trying to divert attention from his two worst nominees to the New Jersey Supreme Court: Stuart Rabner and Bruce Harris. Chief Justice Rabner – whom Christie reappointed for what amounts to life tenure – went to Harvard Law. Bruce Harris, the same sex marriage advocate whose nomination failed miserably because he had zero courtroom or litigation experience, went to Yale Law. Both nominees were liberal, and both went to elite law schools. As for the other appointees, they may not have attended elite law schools, but there was also no evidence that they were conservatives. (See here, here, or here.)
Christie wants everyone to think they can be “pretty sure” that his nominees would be principled conservatives. In reality, you can be “pretty sure” that Christie’s record says otherwise.