Leave a Comment Sagesse
NJ Senate Democrats reject gay Supreme Court nominee
June 1, 2012
By Jacob Combs
After a four-hour hearing, New Jersey Senate Democrats yesterday rejected the nomination of Bruce Harris, the gay, black, Republican mayor of Morris County, by a vote of 7 to 6. Harris is second nominee by Gov. Chris Christie to be rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee; the first was Phillip Kwon, who failed by the same margin. From the AP:
Democrats who control the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Harris’ lack of courtroom experience and vow to recuse himself from deciding gay marriage cases.
Harris says his prior support of gay marriage creates a perception that he would be biased on the issue.
The 61-year-old would have been the state’s third black justice and the court’s first openly gay jurist.
The seven-member Supreme Court is all-white with two vacancies.
In an editorial, the Newark Star-Ledger argued that Harris’s nomination was “a mistake,” saying that despite the fact that he is “a decent, intelligent man” and that he “would bring needed diversity to the court,” he was simply not qualified for the position:
Harris has been a successful lawyer, but not a distinguished one. He has never written a legal opinion.
He is a stranger to the working of a court, having never argued a case.
He has a narrow range of experience, working exclusively as a transactional attorney, mainly on bond deals. And while he has worked at two major firms, he has never made partner.
No one piece of that is a disqualifier. But put it together and it’s clear Harris is not among the best qualified lawyers the state has to offer for the Supreme Court.
Of course, politics played a large role in yesterday’s confirmation process: Democrats worry that Christie’s nomination of Harris was an attempt to end what has traditionally been a partisan balance on the state’s highest court. But there was a broader issue of principles at play as well, one that could have had a significant effect on marriage equality in the state. In his confirmation hearing, Harris testified that he would recuse himself from the marriage case that could end up at the Supreme Court, citing his concern that his past personal support for marriage would undermine any court decision upholding marriage that he signed on to.
But as both District Court Judge James Ware and the Ninth Circuit have ruled in the Prop 8 case in California, a gay or lesbian judge should be under no obligation to recuse him or herself from marriage equality cases; in fact, making such an argument undermines the American tradition of judicial impartiality. Once a judge puts on his or her robes, personal identities like sexual orientation, race, religion or creed should be immaterial to the judicial questions at hand. While it may seem that Democrats pounced on Harris’s words simply because they want a win at the Supreme Court when marriage equality comes up for a vote, Harris’s statement was in fact damaging to his own qualifications to sit on that court.
Not surprisingly, Gov. Christie is not happy now that two of his nominees have been rejected by the state Senate. Bruce Harris’s confirmation, though, it a reminder of just how important it is to have a judiciary that is not only diverse, but also impartial, and proudly so.
Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
13 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Gregory in SLC | June 1, 2012 at 8:39 am
AGREE!!!!!
@ a gay or lesbian judge should be under no obligation to recuse him or herself from marriage equality cases;
Similarly, I disagree with the notion "loving/long-term couples are being denied marriage" that our side often uses as a note of persuasion. Is being "loving" or "long term couple" a requirement of opposite-sex marriages. We want equality, not a different status/recognition.
2.
Sagesse | June 1, 2012 at 9:17 am
If I recall, Christie pretty much made it condition of the nomination that he would re use himself from any marriage equality case.
3.
erasure25 | June 1, 2012 at 10:23 am
Ridiculous. Utter nonsense. Straight judges that are biased against marriage equality need to recuse themselves too, then.
4.
Seth from Maryland | June 1, 2012 at 10:31 am
-Michigan voters have moved significantly on the issue of gay marriage since PPP polled on it last summer. They still think it should be illegal by a 4 point margin, 45/41, but that's a 16 point shift from last July when they thought it should be outlawed by a 53/33 spread.
The big shift has come among Democrats, perhaps in response to President Obama's recent announcement. They now support it 63/21, up from only 48/36 favor for it a year ago. Independents are now almost evenly divided it on, 44/43, after previously opposing it 50/36.
When you expand the discussion to civil unions 70% of voters support some form of legal recognition for gay couples to only 27% completely opposed to any. Even 51% of Republicans at least support civil unions http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/06/m…
5.
Scott Wooledge | June 1, 2012 at 11:09 am
Is it not true that the principle contention against marriage equality is it's a danger to "traditional marriage?"
In light of that, anyone in a "traditional marriage", or who aspires to have a traditional marriage should be obligated to recuse themselves. They obviously can't be objective as they wouldn't risk harming traditional marriage.
Sounds like this guy was not terribly qualified for the position. One would think they could find a litigator, not a transactional attorney. New Jersey is a pretty big state.
6.
Seth from Maryland | June 1, 2012 at 12:17 pm
new ppp poll in Missouri :Missouri voters are warming up slightly to the idea of marriage rights for gay couples. 64% of voters believe gay couples should either be allowed to marry or form civil unions, up from 60% when we last asked about the topic in January.
President Obama’s nod of approval continues to influence black voters’ own opinions. African-American voters lead the spike in support for gay marriage after a complete turnaround from just four months ago. 50% of Missouri African Americans think gay marriage should be legal, twice their level of support in January. 81% of Missouri African Americans believe gay couples should either be allowed to marry or form civil unions, a 31-point upswing from the previous survey.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/06/m…
7.
bayareajohn | June 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Appointing a judge on the condition that they not judge except as promised is nothing but fraud, a corruption of the judicial system.
8.
bayareajohn | June 1, 2012 at 1:48 pm
And a judicial candidate who agrees to such terms is unfit for the bench.
9.
Sagesse | June 1, 2012 at 3:24 pm
That's Chris Christie… And New Jersey politics.
10.
Larry | June 2, 2012 at 11:26 am
I thought the reason Harris said he would recuse himself wasn't because he was gay, but because he had been an activist in the past. So he'd already shown himself not to be neutral and wouldn't have judged effectively.
11.
Seth from Maryland | June 2, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Minnesota United Methodist conference opposes marriage amendment
http://www.startribune.com/blogs/156351865.html
12.
bayareajohn | June 3, 2012 at 4:21 pm
To opt out of a system that increasingly deals with LGBT issues because you have a position isn't appropriate. As has been mentioned, should every judge with an opinion recuse themselves on cases on point, the system will fail entirely. Blacks would opt out in cases of injustice to Blacks, woman judges would recuse on woman's issues, maybe any judge with a political leaning would drop out of any case dealing with politics?
More important here, it is reported that this candidate promised a governor in advance that he would not participate in LGBT cases, as a condition of the nomination. If you are willing to barter your participation, knowing it affects the outcome of justice, you aren't a judge.
13.
louis vuitton bags outlet online | April 17, 2013 at 12:47 am
That one had the lock and key on it. The sales lady in the Austria said that they all come with a lock and key. So I’m bummed. Anyone else.
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.