Christie flips "his middle finger at conservatives", re-nominates Dem judge

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/27/5754444/chris-christie-supreme-court-chief-justice-democrat

Last week, Chris Christie announced who he was going to nominate as chief justice of New Jersey's Supreme Court — the current chief justice, Democrat Stuart Rabner. After years of fighting between Christie and the state's Democrats over court seats, Rabner's renomination is an olive branch from the governor. But in placating local liberals, Christie has angered national conservatives — and this could return to dog him in a future presidential primary. "If he's president then we can expect a Christie Court to look no different from an Obama Court," conservative activist Brent Bozell said in a statement.

Weakened by Bridgegate and recent bad fiscal news, Christie backed away from the fight. He made a deal to renominate Rabner, in return for Democratic approval of a new Republican nominee, Lee Solomon. Though Christie sometimes disagreed with Rabner, he said, "Never have I thought he brought any bias or partisanship to the execution of his duties as chief justice."

The reaction from national conservative activists, as reported by Eliana Johnson of National Review, has been very negative. Brent Bozell said Christie flipped "his middle finger at conservatives," and Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network told Johnson that Christie "is showing Republicans that the priority he places on the judiciary is very low." Christie defended his decision by saying, "The fact is that when you compromise you don't get everything you want." The problem Christie faces, though, is convincing conservative activists that he actually wants the same things they do.

[BaconBacon96]

Good, politics should have absolutely no influence on the court.

[Heimdal]

I am increasingly certain that Christie is the candidate the GOP needs to modernize the party, and reach out to new groups of voters.

Good for him that he can pick a fight with “activists” like Brent Bozell, Grover Norquist and Richard Viguerie. They still stuck in the 1980s. 

[NHI]

I am increasingly certain that Christie is the candidate the GOP needs to modernize the party, and reach out to new groups of voters.

Good for him that he can pick a fight with “activists” like Brent Bozell, Grover Norquist and Richard Viguerie. They still stuck in the 1980s. 

I firmly believe that; if he can only get through the primary!! (Fingers crossed)

[Joe Biden 2020]

Excellent move for Christie!  It's finally time for something good to come from the Christie camp in the wake of the scandals of the past six months.

I hope the base can get over this and nominate him.  He might have a great opportunity, if he survives the primary, to take plenty of votes away from Hillary and become our nation's 45th President!

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm definitely still a Christie fan, and the "scandal" never affected that.  Hope he's our nominee!

[windjammer]

I'm definitely still a Christie fan, and the "scandal" never affected that.  Hope he's our nominee!

Hope he's your nominee as well

[Maxwell]

I feel like this is more of a self-preservation move than a move that helps the state in any sort of way.

[Simfan34]

I doubt he's running.

[henster]

Doubt he even makes it past NH at this point.

[Iosif]

I doubt he's running.

I doubt he is either. And if he started I'd doubt he'd get very far.

[Never]

At this point, what's the use of electing a Republican like Christie? If he would re-appoint a Democratic judge in New Jersey, who is to say that he wouldn't appoint a liberal to the Supreme Court if he became President? We might as well have Hillary in the Oval Office. There is a difference between compromising and just giving up on something. In this case, it seems like Christie lacked the will to fight.

Hopefully he wouldn't make it past South Carolina in the primaries, but like others on this thread, I doubt he is even going to run for president.

[Maxwell]

Why wouldn't he though? Christie's record is similar to Romney's in Massachusetts, minus the corruption. They're both blue state Governors with poor records of success.

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm Christie is definitely still a corrupt [inks]hole Christie fan, and the "scandal" never affected didn't change that.  Hope he's your nominee!

FTFY

Yeah, b*tch all you want.  But it seems pretty pathetic of you to convict him of those allegations yourself, especially when there's zero evidence he was involved.

He's our best chance to win, and every Democrat knows that.  I'd relentlessly cling to a bygone scandal, too.  As for other Republicans hating on Christie, who's your offer to beat Hillary??

[Rockefeller GOP]

I'm Christie is definitely still a corrupt [inks]hole Christie fan, and the "scandal" never affected didn't change that.  Hope he's your nominee!

FTFY

Yeah, b*tch all you want.  But it seems pretty pathetic of you to convict him of those allegations yourself, especially when there's zero evidence he was involved.

He's our best chance to win, and every Democrat knows that.  I'd relentlessly cling to a bygone scandal, too.  As for other Republicans hating on Christie, who's your offer to beat Hillary??

Brian Sandoval, although hopefully Hillary won't be the nominee.

Okay, well I'd love Sandoval.  But I seriously doubt he runs.  I'd support him if he did.

[henster]

Why wouldn't he though? Christie's record is similar to Romney's in Massachusetts, minus the corruption. They're both blue state Governors with poor records of success.

Romney's fiscal record wasn't as bad as Christie's. NJ is facing massive deficits while other states are having surpluses, six credit downgrades under his leadership and a terrible business/job climate Romney left Mass is far better shape than Christie is with NJ now.

[Never]

I'm Christie is definitely still a corrupt [inks]hole Christie fan, and the "scandal" never affected didn't change that.  Hope he's your nominee!

FTFY

Yeah, b*tch all you want.  But it seems pretty pathetic of you to convict him of those allegations yourself, especially when there's zero evidence he was involved.

He's our best chance to win, and every Democrat knows that.  I'd relentlessly cling to a bygone scandal, too.  As for other Republicans hating on Christie, who's your offer to beat Hillary??

Scott Walker or Rand Paul, and possibly more candidates if the national environment is weak for the Democrats. Hillary is vastly overrated. Although she could have an advantage over Republicans in general, Hillary is not unbeatable by any means.

Christie shouldn't be completely written off at this point, but it would be in the best interest of Republicans who are hoping for a win in 2016 to realistically consider other candidates. It is doubtful that Christie's chances are any better than other serious Republican options right now.

[Mr. Illini]

It's so cute when hardcore red-state Republicans criticize bi-partisanship efforts by blue-state Republican Governors.

Democrats understand that Democrats in GOP zones have to compromise sometimes; Republicans throw GOPers in Democrat zones out of the party for compromising.

[Maxwell]

Why wouldn't he though? Christie's record is similar to Romney's in Massachusetts, minus the corruption. They're both blue state Governors with poor records of success.

Romney's fiscal record wasn't as bad as Christie's. NJ is facing massive deficits while other states are having surpluses, six credit downgrades under his leadership and a terrible business/job climate Romney left Mass is far better shape than Christie is with NJ now.

I said similar, not equal.

[Never]

It's so cute when hardcore red-state Republicans criticize bi-partisanship efforts by blue-state Republican Governors.

Democrats understand that Democrats in GOP zones have to compromise sometimes; Republicans throw GOPers in Democrat zones out of the party for compromising.

If that were the case, I suppose we should wonder why the Republicans haven't kicked out governors like Brian Sandoval, John Kasich, Rick Snyder, and Jan Brewer for accepting ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion.

I don't think that we should completely reject the bipartisan efforts of Republican governors in liberal locales, but I don't see a problem with criticizing Christie in this case for his re-appointing a Democratic judge.

[Never]

It's so cute when hardcore red-state Republicans criticize bi-partisanship efforts by blue-state Republican Governors.

Democrats understand that Democrats in GOP zones have to compromise sometimes; Republicans throw GOPers in Democrat zones out of the party for compromising.

If that were the case, I suppose we should wonder why the Republicans haven't kicked out governors like Brian Sandoval, John Kasich, Rick Snyder, and Jan Brewer for accepting ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion.

I don't think that we should completely reject the bipartisan efforts of Republican governors in liberal locales, but I don't see a problem with criticizing Christie in this case for his re-appointing a Democratic judge.

You know things are bad when Republicans start using Jan [Inks]ing Brewer as their evidence that the Republican party doesn't purge people for showing a willingness to compromise   There's also the fact that Kasich, Brewer, and Snyder are all arch-conservative Republican hacks.  Even Kasich did face a mini-revolt over the medicare expansion, despite the fact that Ohio has always had a pretty anti-Tea Party Republican Party (relatively speaking, of course).  For the sake of debate, I'll give you Sandoval, despite the fact that he refused to speak out against Bundy.  However, by that point you're just naming the exception that proves the rule.

The point is that none of those Republican governors have been ousted from the party for  compromising. They are all either retiring or running for re-election.

Sandoval had as much reason to stay quiet on Ted Bundy as Democrats have for not discussing Bill Ayers. There is no use in wasting time discussing trivial people when there are more important things to do.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's so cute when hardcore red-state Republicans criticize bi-partisanship efforts by blue-state Republican Governors.

Democrats understand that Democrats in GOP zones have to compromise sometimes; Republicans throw GOPers in Democrat zones out of the party for compromising.

If that were the case, I suppose we should wonder why the Republicans haven't kicked out governors like Brian Sandoval, John Kasich, Rick Snyder, and Jan Brewer for accepting ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion.

I don't think that we should completely reject the bipartisan efforts of Republican governors in liberal locales, but I don't see a problem with criticizing Christie in this case for his re-appointing a Democratic judge.

You know things are bad when Republicans start using Jan [Inks]ing Brewer as their evidence that the Republican party doesn't purge people for showing a willingness to compromise   There's also the fact that Kasich, Brewer, and Snyder are all arch-conservative Republican hacks.  Even Kasich did face a mini-revolt over the medicare expansion, despite the fact that Ohio has always had a pretty anti-Tea Party Republican Party (relatively speaking, of course).  For the sake of debate, I'll give you Sandoval, despite the fact that he refused to speak out against Bundy.  However, by that point you're just naming the exception that proves the rule.

The point is that none of those Republican governors have been ousted from the party for  compromising. They are all either retiring or running for re-election.

Sandoval had as much reason to stay quiet on Ted Bundy as Democrats have for not discussing Bill Ayers. There is no use in wasting time discussing trivial people when there are more important things to do.

I suppose Ted Bundy has about as much to do with Sandoval as Bill Ayers does with the Democrats.  But what does any of this have to do with Sandoval's refusal to condemn Cliven Bundy?

[Never]

It's so cute when hardcore red-state Republicans criticize bi-partisanship efforts by blue-state Republican Governors.

Democrats understand that Democrats in GOP zones have to compromise sometimes; Republicans throw GOPers in Democrat zones out of the party for compromising.

If that were the case, I suppose we should wonder why the Republicans haven't kicked out governors like Brian Sandoval, John Kasich, Rick Snyder, and Jan Brewer for accepting ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion.

I don't think that we should completely reject the bipartisan efforts of Republican governors in liberal locales, but I don't see a problem with criticizing Christie in this case for his re-appointing a Democratic judge.

You know things are bad when Republicans start using Jan [Inks]ing Brewer as their evidence that the Republican party doesn't purge people for showing a willingness to compromise  There's also the fact that Kasich, Brewer, and Snyder are all arch-conservative Republican hacks.  Even Kasich did face a mini-revolt over the medicare expansion, despite the fact that Ohio has always had a pretty anti-Tea Party Republican Party (relatively speaking, of course).  For the sake of debate, I'll give you Sandoval, despite the fact that he refused to speak out against Bundy.  However, by that point you're just naming the exception that proves the rule.

The point is that none of those Republican governors have been ousted from the party for  compromising. They are all either retiring or running for re-election.

Sandoval had as much reason to stay quiet on Ted Bundy as Democrats have for not discussing Bill Ayers. There is no use in wasting time discussing trivial people when there are more important things to do.

I suppose Ted Bundy has about as much to do with Sandoval as Bill Ayers does with the Democrats.  But what does any of this have to do with Sandoval's refusal to condemn Cliven Bundy?

Sorry, Ted, Cliven, both extremists... I guess that mix-up shows how little I care about either.

All I'm saying is that we really have to wonder how Sandoval condemning Cliven Bundy would really change anything. He has already been discredited. What was Sandoval supposed to say that would further discredit him?