The number one driving force behind NJ's high property taxes and economic decline is the state's left wing liberal supreme court. These black robed oligarchs have done more to twist our state constitution than another supreme court in America from COAH to Abbott and everything in between. The NJ Supreme court is the poster child for legislating from the bench. Now you have an opportunity to be heard.

Leading left wing Justice Barry Albins is undergoing confirmation for LIFETIME TENURE. Now is the time for New Jersey to stand up and appoint conservative judges to this supreme court.

Call YOUR LEGISLATORS. It is time to stand up and block the reappointment of Justice Albins. This is defining moment for New Jersey.

For more ammunition, please read the below leftist record of Justice Albins.

Timid no votes are not the answer- drawing a line in the sand and fighting for our values is imperative.
THE JURISPRUDENCE OF JUSTICE BARRY ALBIN

A survey of recent New Jersey Supreme Court jurisprudence establishes Justice Barry Albin’s pattern of authoring and joining activist decisions. Whether considering class action rules, state
election law, or the Consumer Fraud Act, Justice Albin frequently undermines legislative authority to reach his preferred outcome. His willingness to discover new rights under the New Jersey Constitution is equally troubling; his affirmation of Abbott and Mount Laurel and his decision to give same-sex couples the same equal protection guarantees as their heterosexual counterparts betray a consistently activist approach to judging.

Statutory Interpretation
One of the first oral arguments Justice Albin heard was in N.J. Democratic Party v. Samson, a case widely recognized as one of the Court’s most activist decisions.1 In this case, a unanimous New Jersey Supreme Court allowed Frank Lautenberg to replace United States Senator Bob Torricelli on the 2002 ballot, even though the last-minute switch was clearly disallowed by the explicit language of the statutory deadlines. The Court pleased Democrats by staking out the position that it “should invoke its equitable powers in favor of a full and fair ballot choice for the voters of New Jersey.”

In another case, Justice Albin joined the New Jersey Supreme Court in its unanimous holding that the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) does not require consumers to “seek a refund from the offending merchant” before filing suit under the act.3 In doing so, the Court largely based its reasoning on a determination of the legislature’s intent “to greatly expand protections for New Jersey consumer.”4 The decision’s consequences could increase the number of frivolous lawsuits filed in the state, since merchants will not have the opportunity to address CFA claims prior to litigation.

Justice Albin’s approach to New Jersey class action rules is no different. Finding that it “has been hesitant to provide procedural shelter through a restrictive reading of the class action rule,” the New Jersey Supreme Court delivered a policy-based rationale for reversing the lower court’s refusal to certify a class of 72,000 Wal-Mart employees seeking to sue their former employer for violating its “off the clock” policy.5 The trial court found that certification was improper because the class failed to meet the applicable “predominance” or “ superiority requirements” of Rule 4:32-1(b)(3). 6 Nevertheless, a majority of the New Jersey Supreme Court, including Justice Albin, explained that class action rules should be read broadly, since class actions serve to “equalize adversaries,” “open[] the Courthouse doors for those who cannot enter alone,” and are part of an “‘historic mission of taking care of the smaller guy.’” 7

The New Jersey Unsatisfied Claim and Judgment Fund (“UCJF”) provides recovery for victims of auto accidents involving uninsured motorists. However, the language of the fund’s authorizing statute requires that the victim be a “resident of the state” before he or she can recover benefits from the UCJF. An illegal alien was injured as a passenger in the car of an uninsured driver and could not collect recovery for his injuries, since he could not be a “resident of the state’ for the purposes of the statute. A unanimous Supreme Court disagreed, finding that “the term resident…is not fixed in meaning” and that “an undocumented alien’s intent to remain in New Jersey can satisfy the intent required by the UCJF to qualify as a ‘resident.’”8 The facts that he failed to register for school or that he had no possessions in New Jersey were deemed irrelevant.

Additionally, in G.H. v. Township of Galloway and Township of Cherry Hill v. Barclay and Finguerra, the New Jersey Supreme Court threw out two townships’ ordinances barring convicted sex offenders from living near schools and childcare facilities.9 The Court avoided engaging in a substantive analysis, writing instead that the ordinances—for reasons unknown— were preempted by Megan’s Law and that the lower court’s judgment was correct “for the reasons expressed in Judge Lisa’s comprehensive opinion.” Justice Albin joined the Court’s decision, but because it was issued per curiam, the public has no way of determining who authored the opinion.

Constitutional Issues
5 Iliadis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 191 N.J. 88, 103 (2007).
6 Id. at 121 (Rivera-Soto, J., dissenting).
7 Id. at 104.
8 Caballero v. Martinez, 186 N.J. 548, 558-60 (N.J. 2006).
9 2009 N.J. LEXIS 259 (N.J. 2009).

The series of New Jersey Supreme Court cases known as the "Mount Laurel decisions" established that municipalities were constitutionally mandated to provide low- and moderateincome housing to local residents. By doing so, the Court gave municipalities unprecedented authority to leverage their zoning powers in furtherance of this requirement. The Court’s most recent “Mount Laurel” decision was issued in 2006, when it affirmed the authority of a municipality, Mt. Laurel Township, to condemn property owned by a builder, MiPro Homes, for open space preservation.10 In its per curiam decision, the Court justified the outcome because “the citizens of New Jersey have expressed a strong and sustained public interest in the acquisition and preservation of open space.”11 Only Justice Rivera-Soto dissented in the case.

The New Jersey State Constitution provides for a “thorough and efficient” system of public schools. In a series of Abbott cases, the New Jersey Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to find revisions to the school finance system unconstitutional as applied to the state’s poorest school districts.12 The Court consistently directs the state to guarantee the funding of education in poor urban school districts as ‘‘substantially equivalent’’ to the funding of education in affluent suburban districts. Despite the lack of any documented academic improvement in the state’s urban schools, Albin has repeatedly voted to reaffirm the Court’s original Abbott ruling.

In Lewis v. Harris, the New Jersey Supreme Court, by opinion of Justice Albin, determined that state laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violated equal protection principles under the New Jersey Constitution because “times and attitudes” have changed.13 However, the Court refused to extend its analysis by finding a constitutional right to marriage, instead mandating that
the state’s legislature amend existing law to guarantee such protection. Ultimately, the Court was divided on how the law should be corrected; four justices, including Justice Albin, ruled that the legislature can either amend marriage laws or create civil unions, while the other three argued that the only constitutional remedy is to amend the marriage laws.

10 Mount Laurel Township v. MiPro Homes, LLC, 188 N.J. 531 (2006).
11 Id. at 533.
12 See http://www.state.nj.us/education/abbotts/dec/ for a list of Abbott decisions.
13 Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415, 438 (N.J. 2006).

Justice Albin’s first decision as judge was to cast the deciding vote in the Lonegan vs. New Jersey case. This suit was brought to end the practice of borrowing without voter approval. Justice Albin cast the deciding vote that gave the state the 4 to 3 decision and opened the doors to runaway borrowing.