courts – Hank Kalet

When a story is not a story

A story in today’s New York Times is likely to raise eyebrows.

According to the paper,

The American Bar Association has secretly declared a significant number of President Obama’s potential judicial nominees “not qualified,” slowing White House efforts to fill vacant judgeships — and nearly all of the prospects given poor ratings were women or members of an ethnic minority group, according to interviews.

The rate, according to the story, is three times the previous two presidencies, which makes it seem as though we are looking at a run of unqualified judicial candidates being nominated.

A closer look, however, makes it clear that there is a lot more smoke than fire to this story:

the association’s judicial vetting committee has opposed 14 of the roughly 185 potential nominees the administration asked it to evaluate, according to a person familiar with the matter.

That’s 7.5 percent who were opposed by the ABA — or, to put it another way, 92.5 percent approved.

The administration points to a shift in philosophy — the push to appoint more judges with varied backgrounds, including those who have not worked as courtroom lawyers. This could be at odds with the ABA’s apparent preference for courtroom litigators and explain the higher number of rejections.

In any case, it seems like a non-issue, though I have a sneaky feeling that we’ll be hearing from conservatives on this one claiming that Obama is damaging the federal bench with unqualified judges. These, of course, will be the same conservatives who applauded when George W. Bush opted to stop sending nominees to the ABA for review because he felt the organization was ideologically biased.

Send me an e-mail.
Read poetry at The Subterranean.
Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

A coming constitutional crisis?

The governor floated the idea yesterday of ignoring the state Supreme Court if it rules against him. The question, which has no answer at the moment, is what comes next? Would the court step in as it did in the 1970s and close the schools until the crisis is resolved? Would a Democratic Legislature move to impeach the governor? Could it? What might that do politically in a year when the entire Legislature is up for election?

In the end, a constitutional crisis is bad for every single resident of the state.

Send me an e-mail.
Read poetry at The Subterranean.
Certainties and Uncertainties a chapbook by Hank Kalet, will be published in November by Finishing Line Press. It can be ordered here.
Suburban Pastoral, a chapbook by Hank Kalet, available here.

Sex-offender decision:Not popular, but correct

South Brunswick Mayor Frank Gambatese — like most mayors around the state — are not happy with a Tuesday appellate panel decision invalidating local ordinances that limit where in a community convicted sex-offenders can live.

The panel

ruled that laws in Galloway and Cherry Hill townships that prevent offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school, park, playground or day-care center conflicted with Megan’s Law, and violated due process and double jeopardy clauses of the New Jersey Constitution.

According to the decision, municipalities do not have the authority to pass their own laws regarding sex offenders because the Legislature had claimed all authority to do so by passing Megan’s Law. ”In our view, the legislature’s enactment of comprehensive legislation, the development of Attorney General Guidelines, and the adoption of (Department of Corrections) regulations monitoring and post-conviction behavior of the (Convicted Sex Offenders) demonstrate the legislature’s desire to exclusively occupy the field,” the decision said.

The three-judge panel reviewed a pair of separate appeals from two Superior Court jurisdictions — Atlantic and Camden counties — invalidating ordinances in Gallaway and Cherry Hill. The municipalities, both of which had lost Superior Court rulings on their ordinances, argued that their ordinances complemented Megan’s Law

They argued that Megan’s Law required registration and notification, but had no provisions restricting residence. So the township ordinances served a different purpose by protecting residents in a different way.

The appellate panel, however, saw things differently.

”The far-reaching scope of Megan’s Law and its multi-layered enforcement and monitoring mechanisms constitute a comprehensive system chosen by the Legislature to protect society from the risk of re-offense by (Convicted Sex Offenders) and to provide for their rehabilitation and reintegration into the community,” the decision said. “The system is all encompassing regarding the activities of (Convicted Sex Offenders) living in the community. We conclude that the ordinances conflict with the expressed and implied intent of the Legislature to exclusively regulate this field, as a result of with the ordinances are preempted.”

I think the court got it right on this one. As The Star-Ledger points out in an editorial today, the court was correct to assume that

the more stable the living situation for someone with a history of sex crimes, the less likely he or she will commit such a crime again.

Living with relatives or others who can exert a positive influence, and also living close to work and support groups, enhances stability and the chances an ex-convict will stay on the right path. But ordinances that block sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school or church or park, or even a convenience store, end up putting whole towns off-limits. So opportunities for living stability are undermined.

Just as significantly, these rules could undermine enforcement efforts, the paper said.

(I)f every municipality in New Jersey adopted such an ordinance, eventually all the sex offenders in the state could end up crammed into one small area. That would only increase the potential danger for others unlucky enough to live there.

Even the toughest rules on where sex offenders can live can’t guarantee a community’s safety. The appellate judges recognized that local rules do not, and cannot, control where offenders can walk, drive or sit. Those who are intent on committing another crime can still do so.

I’ll add one other note: Ordinances like this do little more than chase sex-offenders from town to town, which makes no sense and could undermine the reporting provisions of Megan’s Law. After all, if enough towns pass these ordinances, many of those sex-offenders may just go underground.

As the Ledger notes,

The impulse to set up these barriers is natural. No one wants his community or neighborhood to be at risk. But the appeals court got it right. For legal and practical reasons, a ghetto of sex convicts is not an attractive idea.

Housing plan nixed

The state Supreme Court has invalidated the most recent housing plan crafted by the state Council on Affordable Housing, saying the new “rules frustrate rather than further, a realistic opportunity for the production of affordable housing.”

Responding to an appeal brought by the Fair Share Housing Center and three other organizations, the court found the state Council on Affordable Housing in 2004 had watered down the towns’ housing obligations through bogus calculations, arbitrary rules and unconstitutional changes. Overall, the court found COAH eliminated 100,000 affordable housing units without adequate reasoning.

This should not have been a surprise to anyone. The state’s approach to the third round — letting towns come up with their own numbers — was rife with conflicts, giving suburban municipalities too much leeway to underestimate their need.

The court’s ruling opens the way for the state Legislature to come up with a more sensible approach, including the elimination of so-called regional contribution agreements that allow towns to pawn off their own obligations on needy urban centers.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick