UPDATE – 12:30 p.m.
Senators from the right side of the aisle are dissenting from this morning’s NJ Supreme Court decision. My inbox is full of press releases, Save Jerseyans.
Diane Allen (R-LD7) is actually proposing a constitutional fix; her proposed amendment (SCR 72) would compel all New Jersey judges to make healthcare and retirement contributions commensurate to cost:
Requiring the contributions that judges make to their pensions and healthcare plans to keep up with the costs of providing these very rich benefits does not threaten judicial independence. Doing so is common sense economics that private sector workers and every other New Jersey public employee face every single day. If the Supreme Court believes that it is illegal to require judges, who enjoy the most lucrative benefits in state government, to pay more as costs are rising,then the law needs to change. I call on the Senate President to post a constitutional amendment – submitted by myself and others – to rectify this situation at once.”
Tom Kean, Jr. offered his own reading of Article VI, Section 6 cited in the Court’s opinion:
The pension and healthcare reform law does not diminish judges’ salaries as cited in the state constitution. Rather, it requires that judges’ contributions for their retirement benefits and healthcare keep up with the cost of providing them.”
ORIGINAL – 11:00 a.m.
[Below the fold…]
This morning, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled 3-2 (with one abstention – Justices Hoens and Patterson were the dissenters) that Governor Chris Christie’s 2011 pension and health benefits reforms do not apply the sitting state judiciary; it could apply, however, to judges appointed after the law’s effective date.
Judge Paul DePascale of Hudson County initiated the law suit.
The Court rested its conclusion on constitutional grounds:
No court of last resort — including the United States Supreme Court — has upheld the constitutionality of legislation of this kind.
Specifically, the State Constitution provides that judicial salaries “The Justices of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the Superior Court shall receive for their services such salaries as may be provided by law, which shall not be diminished during the term of their appointment.” (Article VI, Section 6). Whether benefits are included in this clearly-intended protection against political retaliation against the judiciary, as you might expect, has been a point of major contention and at the heart of this instant litigation.
Click here to read the full opinion and develop your own, Save Jerseyans.
So it's unconstitutional to treat judges like normal, everyday people?
It should be quite clear just why CC wants to change the courts …….
They have to keep open the road to taxing your benefits as income, so they declare their benefits protected as salary.
Christie's losses are piling up.
Since these healthcare benefits are "salary" for judges, I wonder if these judges have been paying income taxes on the value of the coverages received. Perhaps the IRS would be interested to know how each of the judges prepares their income tax returns….
certainly makes the union worker /teachers look like chumps