re: #268 lawhawk

He wasn’t pulled from the bench. His term was up, and tradition had it that justices were renominated as a matter of right until their retirement. Christie decided to change that policy and chose not to renominate.

The state constitution requires a thorough and efficient education. The state spends more per capita on education than nearly every other state. It’s a good question as to whether the state’s getting what it should out of that spending before you start demanding more money to get a thorough and efficient education.

I understand the deal about the judge. But failing to renominate him is the same as pulling him off the bench, given the precedent that renomination was a given.

As for the financial aspect, is it the Supreme Court’s responsibility to decide how the money is raised and used? Changing the composition of the court does not change the constitution, nor address the root problem. It’s an attempt to silence the messengers.