Albany's war on judicial independence 

The State Senate on Monday will hold a hearing on Rowan Wilson's nomination to become New York's chief judge, with a vote to confirm him expected later in the day. Shortly afterward, Gov, Kathy Hochul will nominate Caitlin Halligan to fill Wilson's spot as an associate justice on the New York Court of Appeals, clearing the way for an unheard-of confirmation hearing the very next day, with another quick vote to follow.

The rush and the one-two punch will have completed an unseemly deal for two nominees that is unprecedented in the state's history. Worse, this final act follows months of Albany's Democrats making moves that have besmirched the reputation of the state's top court through their scheming and shredding all norms in the judicial selection process. There are a lot of firsts here, but none that anyone who respects legal tradition and a neutral process will want to commemorate.

The Senate violated the state constitution when it failed to give Hochul's first nominee, the highly regarded appellate judge Hector LaSalle, a vote until it was forced to do by a court ruling. LaSalle was sandbagged by the left and subjected to a humiliating confirmation process by those who wanted a judge more inclined to support their ideology. That's what they got the second time in Wilson, who as an associate justice consistently dissents and consistently seeks to go far beyond the specific issues of a case to upend established law in the state. 

After the LaSalle fiasco, Hochul surrendered the chief judge pick to the Senate and then plotted with the legislature to pass a law changing — in four days — a selection process that for more than a half-century kept the high court out of the political gutters. Not trusting that the Senate would keep its promise to confirm the impeccably credentialed Halligan, Hochul demanded the change so she could nominate both candidates as a package and have them confirmed quickly before opposition could form. Then the Senate leaders said they wanted to amend the state constitution to abolish the independent judicial nominating commission. The best that can be said about that is at least it is an honest move revealing the power grab to control the courts. 

And because Wilson has no administrative experience to run the state's vast and complex court system, Wilson had to make an unprecedented agreement to choose Hochul's preference as head of the Office of Court Administration — again, politics came first, resulting in a diminishment of the chief judge's responsibility for running all of the state's courts.

GOP WEIGHING LAWSUIT

Tawdry transactional dealing has significantly damaged the reputation of New York's judiciary. Republicans are considering a lawsuit challenging the change in the selection process. Regardless, the top court's underwater reputation will only sink further if, as suspected, these cynical moves result in the newly molded court gutting a 2022 redistricting ruling and permitting the redrawing of New York's congressional districts to give Democrats an advantage.

The scorpions in the bottle that is Albany have demonstrated their paranoia and vindictiveness with this behavior. One way to stop the venomous suspicions swirling around the Democrats would be a candid questioning of Wilson about what transpired these past few months. That could start the long process of restoring dignity to the court. 

QUESTIONS FOR WILSON

Since this confirmation process has been rushed and overshadowed in recent weeks by the contentious budget negotiations, here are a few questions that Long Island's nine senators on the judiciary committee should ask Wilson:

Q) Did anyone on your behalf communicate to members of the judicial nominating commission or to Senate Judiciary chairman Brad Hoylman-Sigal to ensure that you make the cut for potential candidates after you failed to make the list the first time around?

Q) During the selection and confirmation process of Judge Hector LaSalle did you, or anyone associated with you, meet or communicate with any members of the State Senate or staff to review LaSalle's opinions as an appellate judge?

Q) A March 29 New York Law Journal article quotes Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal saying it was  "retaliatory"  for the court to reject his application to file a friend of the court brief in a  routine civil case. “I’ve been told by a court insider that this decision, although innocuous on the surface, was directed at me personally,” the chamber's judiciary committee chairman said. Do you know the identity of that court insider? As chief judge, would you order an investigation to find out the identity of the "court insider" who breached the absolute confidence of judicial deliberations?

Q) There has never been a recorded, written dissent from a motion to file such a brief, yet you were one of two judges who did so. Can you explain why you took such an extraordinary step in a case involving Sen. Hoylman-Sigal?

Q) Your frequent dissents show a strong instinct to ignore precedent. You dissented in the 2022 redistricting cases, known as Harkenrider. Do you now recognize that ruling as precedent despite disagreeing with it? If not, tell us why you would reconsider overturning that ruling. 

When no one is looking, and questioning, the extreme partisanship enveloping our nation devours our constitutional system of three independent branches of government. New York Democrats offer only the latest example. When winning is all that matters, we all lose.