Booker should bark at Sweeney, not McConnell, over judges

By Alyssa LaFage | The Save Jersey Blog

Will someone give a call to Cory Booker (D-Twitter) and let him know his partisanship is showing?

It’s embarrassing, Save Jerseyans.

Booker has a lot of nerve hounding Mitch McConnell over not holding a confirmation hearing on an Obama nominee for the Supreme Court – Merrick B. Garland – when his buddy Steve Sweeney continues to hold up judicial confirmation hearings in New Jersey, namely Governor Christie’s nominee to the NJ Supreme Court. But that’s exactly what he did on the Senate floor this Thursday:

Let’s not forget what’s happening back in Senator Booker’s home state; he clearly has.

The Senate President has left a six-year vacancy on our state Supreme Court which has arguably caused a serious disruption in New Jersey’s judicial system. Earlier this month Sweeney declined to give a hearing to the Governor’s latest nominee for state Superior Court, David Bauman, citing concerns over balance on the court. Plenty of other lower-level court seats have remained vacant for long periods of time, too, while Sweeney’s team tries to score political points.

It’s justice that has suffered.

While both groups are declining to hold hearings for judicial nominees, the two situations are not the same because the reasons behind the delays are different.

One legitimately understandable, and one purely political.

The difference is in the “why.”

New Jersey Democrats are holding up the process because they don’t want another Republican judge on the court. Sweeney has made that crystal clear. He’s concerned with partisan “balance,” despite an active debate about his definition of balance and the fact that there isn’t any language in our state constitution dictating any “balance” requirement.

But what Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said and his Republicans colleagues in the US Senate have echoed, is president Obama is at the end of his term in office and it would not be right to confirm a nominee to the highest court in the land without any recourse (another election).

Their point is, regardless of who wins the White House in 2016, the new president should have the opportunity to nominate the next SCOTUS.

It would seem that Booker should be barking at Sweeney over judges, not McConnell.

Or maybe his own party’s vice president?

______

6 thoughts on “Booker should bark at Sweeney, not McConnell, over judges

Comments are closed.