State Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos

KYRILLOS STATEMENT ON LONG NOMINATION

Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos, Jr. (R-Monmouth/Middlesex) issued the following statement regarding the Senate vote on the re-nomination of Virginia A. Long as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court:

Senator Joseph M. Kyrillos, Jr. (R-Monmouth/Middlesex) issued the following statement regarding the Senate vote on the re-nomination of Virginia A. Long as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court:

“I voted in opposition on the re-nomination of Virginia Long to the Supreme Court not as a Republican, but rather as a member of the Senate who is deeply concerned with the future of this State and the relationship between the co-equal branches of government that stands at the heart of a republican form of government.

I do not take issue with the intelligence, temperament or qualifications of this particular nominee, and I readily admit that the arguments I have made against this nominee could be just as easily leveled against members of the Judiciary who share my party affiliation. I voted in opposition to this nominee’s reappointment, because it reflects a discouraging and potentially perilous development in our constitutional scheme that we as Senators must address.

Today, New Jersey’s government stands at a tipping point. We are beset with a number of policy problems. But most of all, the State Government finds itself at the center of a crisis of credibility. I believe that this crisis is at least in part attributable to the fact that the people who elect the Legislature are increasingly coming to the realization that their votes mean less and less. Unfortunately, the Legislature has ceded more and more authority to the Executive, and increasingly, the Judicial, branches of government.

Article III of the State Constitution establishes our “republican� – with a small “r� form of government, and provides that the people in one branch shall not exercise the powers that properly belong to the others. Yet, this is precisely what has been permitted to occur. I believe

(-More-)

the constitutional system is out of balance, and the Senate must use its advice and consent powers to restore the balance that has been lost.

This nominee and her colleagues have in recent memory obliterated the Legislature’s role in establishing rules for the conduct of fair elections, and choose instead to rely upon nebulous notions of ‘administrative feasibility’ over clear and understandable rules that all political parties should adhere to. The court has ignored five decades of commonly understood statutory construction regarding fish and game policy, simply because they wanted to pursue the policy goal of banning a bear hunt. And most damagingly, they have eroded one of the central powers of the legislative branch, the power to appropriate money, in order to impose their own educational policies, which in turn have contributed mightily to the fiscal chaos that has overtaken Trenton.

The court has routinely tortured and twisted the statutory enactments of the Legislative Branch of government to obtain policy results with which they agree. I submit that this is not the proper role for the courts, and if it is left unchecked, it will diminish the faith of the people in a Legislative Branch of government that will over time become an increasingly less relevant force in the future of this State.

My point is not to dispute the policy judgments that this nominee and the Supreme Court have made. Indeed, many people in this Legislature who regard themselves as being at the vanguard of the progressive movement will no doubt look upon the court’s decisions approvingly. My point is that the policy judgments are not the problem, although to be sure I disagree with many of them. The problem lies in the fact that these judgments should be made in the Senate and in the General Assembly, by the elected representatives of the people, and not in the courtroom.�