NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice Rabner Denies Request To Stay Bear Hunt
Judge Notes Anomaly Of Emergency Rulemaking
Stunning: NJ Supreme Court Fails To Protect Constitutional Due Process Rights
With absolutely no explanation or legal reasoning, and in just one sentence, NJ Supreme Court Chief Justice Rabner just denied the request to stay the bear hunt pending legal appeal of DEP’s emergency rulemaking procedure.
The Supreme Court requested that the appeal be expedited.
I’m not sure whether additional briefs were filed to the Supreme Court or if the justices relied exclusively on the briefs filed to the Appellate Division and the Appellate Court decision.
It seems to me that one of the tests required to satisfy the burden for an injunction is absurd and impossible to meet: how can a lawyer demonstrate, with “clear and convincing evidence” that there is “well settled law”, when there is no precedent?
Why didn’t the Appellate Division or the Supreme Court conduct “strict scrutiny” and provide no deference to DEP decision-making? How can an injunction proceeding wipe out that judicial standard of review and scrutiny, especially when the Appellate Court acknowledged that there “may be irreparable harm”?
Regardless, although Chief Justice Rabner seems to express concerns for the emergency rulemaking procedure and directed that the appeal be expedited by the Appellate Division, it looks like the hunt will be over and many bears murdered before the case can be argued and decided.
So, sadly, Rabner engaged in a hollow and cynical gesture.
One man should not have this kind of power and because he does, he should use it extremely carefully and be guided by a moral and ethical imperative: “first do no harm”.
Justice Rabner failed that test.
And he completely failed to protect Constitutionally guaranteed due process rights. That is an outrageous legal failure.
[End Note: Why is the Fish and Game Council (FGC) treated like they are the decision-maker here?
The Supreme Court has clearly ruled that the FGC is the child – DEP is the parent.
DEP engaged in “final agency action”, not the FGC.
What am I missing?