Jon Corzine is set to nominate Stuart Rabner as the next Chief Justice on New Jersey’s Supreme Court.  Republicans must be very cautious before voting in favor of his appointment considering the potential length of time he may hold that post (possibly more than 20 years), This is particularly the case in light of Corzine’s philosophy on judicial appointments.

Republicans must make Rabner confirm two things before approving his appointment:  (1) he will not legislate from the bench, but will defer legislative decisions to the elected branches of government; and (2) he does not view the Constitution as a “living” document.

As for the former, we know the problems this State has encountered due to judicial fiat and oligarchical rule over the past 25 years; Abbott, Mt. Laurel, spending issues, debt accumulation, rewriting election laws, Lewis, and the goes on. 

But, the more concerning issue is the latter, the misguided idea that a constitution is a “living” document that changes with the time.  Corzine has said he believes the Constitution evolves with the times and it is the role of the Courts to provide for that evolution; however, that necessarily puts all the power in the hands of the Court and takes it away from the people.  If Rabner believes his role is to rewrite the Constitution and impose his views upon the people without their input then Republicans must vote against his confirmation; they are seeking to confirm a judge, not a king.

A constitution does not change; while times may change, the pace and manner in which the laws should change along with the times must be left to the people for them to make changes in the law through voting and/or their elected representatives.  A constitution is like a contract among the people as to how their government will operate.  The terms of a contract cannot be changed by anyone other than the parties to the contract, in the case of a constitution all the people through voting and their elected representatives. 

To allow four unelected people to change the terms of the contract without the input of the people is comparable to your neighbor changing the terms of your employment contract because your neighbor thinks your boss should get something else; and neither your nor your boss have a say in the decision. 

However, contracts don’t change unless the parties to the contract agree to the change; such changes are not imposed upon the parties to the contract by a third person; rather, they are negotiated between the parties and a new, or amended, contract is agreed upon.  The same process should apply for a constitution.  Anything to the contrary is a return to the authoritarian rule our Nation fought against; a deprivation of individual Liberty.