From the Publisher What to Do About Washington?

There is a Tea Party video entitled “We The People Stimulus Package” (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=jeYscnFpEyA ) which has been making its way around for a time now, and has received millions of views. It has much to recommend itself to all of us, whether or not we agree on individual issues. According to polls, most of us agree that things in Washington are not going well for our nation, and must change.
I am not recommending that you view this because I agree with everything, because I do not. I do hope, however, that we all will take our present stalemate as a call to do something, even if that something is in a totally different direction from what the clip is saying. (And by the way, for those who are inclined to mail a tea bag, don’t, because the government is discarding them for security reasons. Instead, just send the tag on the end of the string).
Art Hall
PS: As our editor, Al Campbell, reported in last week’s Herald, newspapers were invited to the New Jersey Supreme Court for an address by the Chief Justice as well as other court officials. I had the pleasure to be able to take my grandson, Collin, to that meeting. Following is his report of his thoughts and observations from that meeting.
From Collin Hall
A Teenager Visits the NJ Supreme Court
Bloody murder, elaborate heists, criminal sentences; these are the headlines one glimpses from our nation’s often-underexposed judicial system. Rarely does one think of what transpires in the world of the courts, what work really goes into resolving a case – and what an intimidating, complex world it is.
Walking into the New Jersey Supreme Court building, one would be forgiven for thinking this high court was instead a tightly secured CIA facility. Metal detectors, full possession checks, and security workers seemingly unappreciative of the morning traffic all imposed time consuming, yet supposedly vital clearances. After these understandable hitches in the road, we were invited to the fourth floor so both the courts and we could mutually “better know the enemy” – each other. We soon found ourselves in Conference Room C, and after being greeted by various justices whose handshakes and “We’re so glad you came” were indistinguishable between unwittingly sarcastic and genuinely friendly, we were shown our seats and the state sponsored “Law School for Journalists” was underway.
The first hour was spent with Chief Justice Stuart Rabner laying the groundwork for New Jersey’s judicial branch. There was much bragging from the various judges as to the superiority of the New Jersey court system. Did you know the Japanese are supposedly modeling their revamped court system after New Jersey’s, similar to what Alaska and Hawaii did when they joined the union? Following Judge Glenn A. Grant’s detailing of New Jersey’s 1947 judicial and constitutional revamp that transformed the former judicial mess into the respected system it is today, the emphasis gradually shifted to the overarching ambition of the entire system: fairness in every facet of a trial.
“It’s a Mammoth system” cannot even begin to describe the incredible complexity that engulfs each and every case, criminal or otherwise, that ensures fairness in answering all “… important, novel, unsettled questions” that the community presents. Juries must be randomly selected, (and no, changing your address does not “tick” the system to bump you to the top), judges’ “opinions” must be written that may span dozens of pages, availability of the information must be decided (for example, the names of minors must not be distributed under certain circumstances) and so forth.
To assume that this is all that goes on within the courts would be a criminal understatement: yet despite raging political battles, Judge Glenn A. Grant assures that “we are a neutral arbiter” … “we go out of our way to ensure the neutrality (in a case) is enforced.” This neutrality is struck mainly through a single asset: a jury of the people. We often forget what a blessing such a jury is, with many foreign judicial systems relying on the consensus of governmental figures that care little if justice is done. A jury such as ours allows us to be fairly judged for the information laid down in the trial: jurors cannot even research a given case independently before the verdict is given.
Though one may groan when the small paper summons arrives in the mailbox, beckoning us inconveniently to the court, Judge Georgia M. Curio assured us that serving on a jury is a valuable contribution to our nation, not an obstructive obligation. Even if a case receives a verdict through the gargantuan judicial process, the result often is not final. The accused has the privilege of appeal to a higher court where parts of the process may be repeated if need be.
This crucial right of appeal is one of many reasons why our nation’s judicial system has remained a high benchmark for others to follow. Yet compared to the grand scope of the entire system, this overview of our judicial system just skims the surface. When we envision our governing authorities, we picture those in the hot seats of Congress or the White House, and often entirely forget the third power that must be of equal weight in order to keep the other two in check.
From my visit to the New Jersey Supreme Court, I have learned to better appreciate the amount of sheer work that goes into a system meant to benefit us. “We are a public service organization” Judge Grant told us, and the way I see it, the customer should be obliged to know what he is paying for.