I predict New Jersey will very shortly be the California of the East. The voters' insistence on punishing the Democrats in the last gubernatorial election leaves the heavily populated state in the hands of someone who's very unsympathetic to anyone who isn't white, suburban and Republican. Already he's pulling the same accounting tricks utilized by Christine Todd Whitman - the same tactics that left the state in a massive financial hole.

But hey, he promised no tax increases!

TRENTON -- On a court known nationally for its judicial activism, state Supreme Court Justice John Wallace’s legacy may be bound to the one ruling that wasn’t his to make: Gov. Chris Christie’s decision to deny him tenure.

Christie’s action, unprecedented since the state revamped its constitution in 1947, fulfilled a campaign promise to reshape the court and drew cheers from the right.

Wallace is also the court's only African-American justice in a state that's 12 percent black.

It also brought cries from Democrats that the governor is politicizing the high court, threats that they will stall the nomination of Morris County attorney Anne Patterson and a virtually unheard of rebuke from the state’s chief justice.

The looming fight extends far beyond this one justice and could have an impact on the New Jersey court for decades to come.

"Batting the ball back and forth on political grounds is not going to be good for the independence of the court," Rutgers Law School professor Robert Williams. "If judges have to gauge the perception their cases are going to receive in the political world, they may be a little less assertive in interpreting the constitution."

Justices should look over their shoulders, said Steve Lonegan, a conservative whose Americans for Prosperity group waged a phone and e-mail campaign imploring Christie to keep his promise to change the court — starting with Wallace.

"This is what voters asked for," Lonegan said. "For decades, I’ve watched governors and legislators run in fear from this court. It’s about time ... it’s a great first step."

Ah, yes, our good friends at Americans for Prosperity! Just another in the long list of wingnut front groups funded by right-wing billionaire David Koch! They're the group behind the "grassroots" Tea Party, too. In fact, they front for just about any wingnut cause you can name - including climate change denial.

Christie will have the opportunity to reappoint or dismiss two more justices, and another will reach retirement age.

That could change the nature of the court, which has a national profile for rulings that include the Karen Ann Quinlan right to die case, the Baby M decision that condemned surrogate motherhood and the finding that the Boy Scouts’ ban on homosexuality violated state anti-discrimination laws. The court’s decisions also include school funding and affordable housing rulings criticized by some because of their price tag. "The Supreme Court is the driving force behind New Jersey’s high taxes," Lonegan said.

Alan Tarr, director of the Center for State Constitutional studies at Rutgers, said there’s always been a political element to judicial appointments. More significant, he said, is Christie is "trying to give himself more leeway in school finance."

By "more leeway," he means Christie wants to channel extra funds to the heavily-Republican suburban districts. The court's interpretation of the state constitution calls for equitable distribution -- and we can't have that, can we?

What a sweetheart of a human being this guy is. Not only did he buy himself the chief justice of his state Supreme Court, he's a poster boy for corporate America who squeezes every last dime out of the workers - even if it kills them:

As more details continue to surface about the checkered safety record of the Massey Energy coal mine where 25 workers perished Monday, the lavish lifestyle and allegedly cavalier attitude of the company's controversial chief executive, as described in lawsuits and corporate documents, are now coming under intensifying scrutiny.

One miner who worked in Massey mines most of his 25-year career said working for CEO Don Blankenship was "like living under a hammer. It's all about the bottom line, we all know that." The miner, who would only agree to speak with an ABC News reporter if his name was not used, said Blankenship believes in "stretching the men to the limit … they want every ounce out of the men that they can get."

The public record describing Blankenship's bottom-line approach is long, much of it laid out in a series of investor lawsuits filed against Blankenship and his company, and in SEC documents submitted by a Wall Street investment house that made a failed bid to take control of Massey Energy four years ago. In these records, Blankenship was repeatedly criticized for both his approach to safety, and for what one investor called his "extravagant" package of pay and perks.

In just one year – 2005 -- Blankenship was paid $33.7 million in compensation, according to a 2008 lawsuit. He flies to resorts on a company-owned Challenger 601 luxury jet. And he lives in a house owned by Massey Energy that by contract becomes his property if he leaves.

[...] The safety complaints were also the subject of increasing unease from investors, who worried Blankenship's management style was putting the future of Massey Energy at risk. In June 2007, two board members resigned from Massey's board of directors. Daniel S. Loeb and Todd Q. Swanson submitted a resignation letter saying they were stepping down in part because of Blankenship's "poor risk management" and the company's "confrontational handling" of regulatory matters.

I've been worried about the money pouring into judicial elections ever since I read John Grisham's "The Appeal."

The book is based on Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal in West Virginia, detailing the strong financial support and friendship between the judge and the defendant. The judge refused to recuse himself. And as blogger AngryYoungDem points out:

Elected judges become additional legislatures. Want to get rid of punitive damages against corporations? Bankroll a candidate who supports corporate interests. Can't get the legislature to pass a gay-marriage bill? Bankroll 3-5 gay-marriage supporters and stack the state supreme court. Judicial elections are cheaper anyway, so you save money by focusing on elected judges instead of elected representatives.

And now, even Supreme Court justices are speaking out:

In rare public remarks last week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the money involved in electing judges remains one of the most pressing concerns facing the American court system. And she joined her former colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor, in calling for reform.

"If there's a reform I would make, it would be that," Ginsburg said when asked about the issue at the National Association of Women Judges Thursday night.

Yet money has continued to pour into the campaign accounts of state judges around the country, and ABC News has obtained an advanced copy of a study showing the amounts involved are unprecedented.

In the past decade, candidates for state judgeships raised more than $206 million, more than double the $83 million judges raised in the 1990s, according to the soon-to-be released study by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and Justice at Stake, two non partisan groups that advocate for reforming the judicial selection process.

Three of the last five state Supreme Court election cycles topped $45 million. And judges shattered fundraising records in all but two of the 21 states with contested Supreme Court elections in the last ten years, the report found.

"State judicial elections have been transformed," the report says, and the money involved has created "a grave and growing challenge to the impartiality of our nation's courts."

I was taking a look at Gov. Chris Christie's budget today and then I saw this. Will New Jersey follow in California's footsteps and start governing by mood ring?

A state appeals court today ruled New Jersey’s secretary of state must accept a petition a citizens group filed to recall U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, but left open the question of whether the removal effort itself is constitutional.

The three-judge panel stayed its ruling to give Menendez (D-N.J.) the opportunity to appeal to the state Supreme Court.. The senator has 45 days to file an appeal but did not say today whether he would. He called the recall effort a "political stunt" that won’t distract him from doing his job.

"This an organization trying to undemocratically and unconstitutionally overturn an election in which more than 2 million New Jerseyans voted," said Menendez, whose term expires in 2012. "My focus continues to be on job creation legislation and delivering a successful extension of my local property tax relief bill."

The court found existing New Jersey law and the state’s constitution both allow U.S. senators to be recalled. For that reason, the appeals court said, the removal effort can proceed. But noting the absence of case law and precedent, it left the ultimate question of the constitutionality of the state’s recall law and amendment to a higher court.

"There are a host of genuine arguments and counterarguments that can be articulated and debated about whether or not the Federal Constitution would permit a United States Senator to be recalled by the voters under state law," the appellate judges said.

"I’m pleased," said Dan Silberstein, attorney for the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by the New Jersey chapter of the conservative Tea Party movement. "I think the appellate court made the right decision on where the case is procedurally."

Menendez’s attorney disagreed.

"The U.S. Constitution is clear that a senator’s term is six years and is not subject to recall," said Marc E. Elias. "The state attorney general correctly argued before the court that a recall is unconstitutional and a clear disservice to voters who take part in a petition process that is invalid. We are pleased the court stayed this opinion until the appeals process is completed."

Those classy guys in the GOP. Will Bunch:

Some of 55 years after the vicious, Red-baiting tactics of Joseph McCarthy were repudiated by America's better angels, the state GOP is picking up the tattered banner of McCarthyism and running with it -- literally, in fact, with this banner ad (top) on a popular political Web site. In this case, it's hard to say what is more appalling -- equating the sitting president of the United States with the Soviet dictators who slaughtered their political enemies and sent others to brutal gulags, or the cause this ad is promoting: The election of a judge to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The ad was was first noticed on the Pennsylvania blog Gort42 (also h/t downwithtyranny) -- it appears on the top of the website GrassrootsPA, which is the leading state-oriented conservative Web site in Pennsylvania. Last night, the image -- as captured and posted by Gort42 and now here -- and this ad was at top of the site when I first visited there around 10:30; later in the night, the same banner displayed a different message -- about bailouts, healthcare and the stimulus. It's not clear whether the image with the hammer-and-sickle "Obama" was replaced or whether it alternates with the other message.

It's not the first time that the Pennsylvania Republican Party has used extreme rhetoric about Barack Obama. Last fall, when he was the Democratic nominee -- as reported here at Attytood -- the state GOP chairman Robert Gleason issued a press release that called Obama "a terrorist's best friend." This new ad also picks up a theme that gained attention earlier this fall in Kansas City, when an anti-Obama billboard placed on I-70 had the Soviet hammer-and-sickle emblem with the message: ""How do you like your change now? Obama Nation. They are coming for you! The Taxpayer. First and Second Amendments are in jeopardy. Live free or Die."

My god, these are the same party who destroyed CDs and sent death threats when the Dixie Chicks said they were embarrassed to be from the same state as GWB and demanded Congress react to MoveOn's ad "Gen. Betray-Us?". But yet they throw around loaded symbols and allusions to some of the most brutal regimes of the last century, and think nothing of it.

In a political and judicial climate where secretiveness and obfuscation seem to be the order of the day, it's nice to see a score for sunshine and openness.

Contra Costa Times:

The salaries of government employees in California, including police officers, are a public record and must be available upon request to "ensure transparency," the state Supreme Court ruled in a decision released Monday.

"Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in a 30-page opinion, ending a lawsuit the Contra Costa Times filed more than three years ago against the city of Oakland.

Justices found that government employees should not have an expectation of privacy about their gross salaries even if disclosure of the information "may cause discomfort or embarrassment."

The justices wrote that police salaries must also be made public except in narrow circumstances "where an officer's anonymity is essential to his or her safety," the decision states. The justices affirmed that police cannot use broad claims of officer safety to make blanket denials of salary information.

The ruling overturns a 2003 appellate court decision involving five cities in San Mateo County where employee unions blocked the release of salaries to the Palo Alto Daily News.

"Monday's court ruling put Priceless in its rightful place. It's a great win for the First Amendment," Keane said.

Nanny Sues Imus Over Ranch Wrangle

The Smoking Gun:

Toy gun, tiny knife triggered woman's firing by radio star

NOVEMBER 30--A New York woman who briefly worked as a nanny for Don Imus has sued the radio host for wrongful termination, claiming she was canned for bringing a harmless cap gun and pocketknife with her during a trip last Thanksgiving to the family's sprawling New Mexico ranch. Nichole Mallette, 24, also claimed in her New York State Supreme Court lawsuit, a copy of which you'll find below, that she was defamed when Imus later announced on his program that he had been forced to "disarm" his nanny, whom he labeled as dangerous and a "terrorist." read on

A judge will ask the state Supreme Court on Wednesday to let him stay on the bench after a commission that oversees judges ordered him dismissed because he has three wives...read on

What more can I say?