Good and bad judgments

Diversity of a kind not generally considered is soon to reach New York’s highest court with Gov. Cuomo’s judicial nomination of a superbly qualified lawyer who happens to be a Republican, who also happens to be a former prosecutor. Well on his way to remaking the seven-member Court of Appeals, the governor has tapped Michael Garcia, a Queens native with a long background in law enforcement, including service as Manhattan U.S. attorney.

If confirmed by the state Senate, Garcia will be Cuomo’s sixth appointment to the court.

All of the previous five were Democrats, in no small part because a special screening panel had approved only Democrats. Until his recent nomination of Westchester DA Janet DiFiore for chief judge, Cuomo filled the court with attorneys more versed in legal defense or social activism.

In selecting Garcia, the governor met the proud example of bipartisanship on the high bench set by his father, the first Gov. Cuomo.

The Republican-controlled Senate will surely confirm Garcia with enthusiasm as a trusted figure who represented the Senate when its leadership faced investigation by Cuomo’s ill-fated anti-corruption commission.

Which is not to say Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Bonacic share respect for the court as the apex of a co-equal branch of government.

The malfeasance of Flanagan and Bonacic in considering DiFiore’s nomination was a stain on the Senate. The above-the-law attitude of both men perpetuated the above-the-law culture that produced the corruption of convicted former legislative bosses Sheldon Silver and Dean Skelos.

By state law, Flanagan and Bonacic were bound to consider Cuomo’s nomination of DiFiore by Dec. 31. They blew off the deadline, as if it were Tinkerbell’s pixie dust, for three weeks.

Called to session with only five members, the court turned away 31 cases that were ready for oral argument, because individual judges had to recuse themselves. It heard an appeal about a critically question in criminal identity theft but lacked a majority to render a decision.

In short, Flanagan and Bonacic deprived New Yorkers of their right to full due process and demeaned the Court of Appeals as an institution.