The rhetorical skirmishes over the replacement of retiring Supreme Court Justice John Broderick have produced some interesting contrasts. We are told by those wishing for prompt action that failing to appoint judges could have an adverse affect on the peoples rights which I have to admit makes sense, except when you consider that there are four superior court and nine district court vacancies (as reported in the Union Leader) languishing somewhere in the appointment/replacement process. I’m no expert but “the people” rarely find themselves looking for justice that far up the food chain so whose ‘rights’ are we really talking about in this context?
The scheduling priority for this appointment has little to do with the peoples rights and everything to do with politicians rights, ideological influence and political power. Lynch and his supporters on both sides want the ability to have as much influence as they can on the politics of the court before November when they may be denied the opportunity and who can fault them for that. Someone keeps electing these lunatics into power, or has let them get elected as a result of their own apathy, and if this is their punishment then so be it.
That’s not to say we shold let it happen without consequence to Lynch. We need to ask questions. For example, if justice is that damn important Mr Lynch explain your political indifference to 13 vacancies in the court system?
Were you thinking of borrowing judges that don’t exist from DC and calling the holes in the court system filled? You seem quite willing to call the budget balanced on similar terms.