Shane, last week you wrote on The Pulse about Chris Christie’s history of New Jersey Supreme Court nominations and why you “would hate to see what a ‘Christie-type’ Supreme Court looks like.” Looks like others think so too.
Over at National Review, Carrie Severino agrees and expanded on just how bad “Christie-type Justices” might be:
Since [being elected], Christie has had the opportunity to fill five seats on the court. But instead of nominating judges with a proven record of following the Constitution and traditional legal principles, and fighting for those nominees, he nominated liberals and cronies.
Turns out, Christie’s judicial appointees even tried their hand at the economy:
In 2013, two of his appointees joined a unanimous decision opening the floodgates to class actions by applying a very broad interpretation to a state consumer-protection law. Similarly, in 2014, three of his appointees joined a unanimous decision making New Jersey an even more favorable environment for class actions by holding that contracts have to expressly waive court rights even if they have a clear and express arbitration clause. It’s almost as if Christie’s nominees want more class-action litigation in New Jersey.
You can read the rest at National Review.
Noah Muscente works for American Principles in Action.
