Judging judges

This year, the Legislature passed 889 bills. It has sent the governor all but four of them. The four leftovers were approved by the Assembly and Senate unanimously on roll call votes. Our interest here is the bill that makes a one-word change in statute, about when state Supreme Court justices, who preside at the top trial level, get to remain on the bench after reaching the state Constitution’s retirement age of 70.

Inside baseball? Absolutely, incredibly inside baseball, which is why Gov. Hochul must say no to the change. For many years, these most connected and favored jurists — who get placed on the ballot through nominating conventions that are both archaic and orchestrated (a nice way of saying rigged), and who typically face no opposition — have been allowed to stay on salary, now $210,900, while all other judges must retire at 70.

These two-year extensions, called being certificated, were routinely granted by the state court system’s governing body to almost all justices who applied. Under the Constitution, a justice could be certificated up to three times and serve to age 76.

The law says that a justice who applies for the extra time “may” be approved provided the applicant is “mentally and physically able.” On rare occasions, a dud of a judge would apply and get turned down at the discretion of the higher-ups on the judicial food chain. But not usually; every justice who applied to stay on into 2022 was approved.

The bill that Hochul should veto changes “may” to “shall,” wiping out any discretion. Bad idea.

What upset the tradition of near-reflexive extensions was COVID, when the court system, faced with immense budget cuts in 2020, had to reject almost all of those who applied going into 2021. Those justices sued, but before their case could get to the Court of Appeals for a final ruling, Congress sent billions, restoring the budget cuts. The justices were granted their extra time. Give them an inch, they take a yard. Hochul must