State Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D-Linden), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, liked his relationship with Gov. Chris Christie and enjoyed their discussions, sometimes from opposite sides of the issues.  

But the governor's decision not to re-appoint Justice John Wallace landed with a decided edge - forcing Scutari and the Senate Majority to assume a confrontational pose with the Republican governor, creating what looks right now like an unresolvable impasse as Dems refuse to give a hearing to Christie's choice for justice.

"That's a possibility," Scutari told PolitickerNJ.com, when asked if he would oppose all of Christie's nominees to the bench short of Wallace.

"By all accounts, he's an excellent justice who has had an excellent career as a judge," Scutari said. "I don't shut the door on anything but we're at logger heads right now.

"Throughout these platitudes the governor spoke in justifying his removal of Justice Wallace, he couldn't find a specific case for why," Scutari added. "This is the first time this has happened - that a judge would be removed this way. This is judge who is considered a moderate justice. He wasn't necessarily involved in the school funding cases. He sided with a majority to get rid of the Abbott designation. This is no liberal activist judge."

The governor's office this afternoon defended Christie's decision to replace the Supreme Court's lone African America jusitce with Mendham attorney Anne Patterson amid growing clamor from Democrats. 

“The Governor has fulfilled his constitutional duties by making a judicial nomination; the Senate’s constitutional duty is to provide ‘advise and consent’ through a hearing for the nominee, followed by an up-or-down vote in the full Senate," said Christie Press Secretary Mike Drewniak. "That’s all we ask. So, we would be surprised if the Senate President is willing to simply abandon the New Jersey Constitution and refuse to consider a qualified judicial nominee. That would truly be a historic and unfortunate precedent.  

“Also, the Constitution clearly states that all justices of the Supreme Court are appointed to an initial seven-year term – not automatic lifetime tenure.  The framers of our state Constitution did that for a reason, and we have to believe that the Senate President understands and respects that.”

But those Democrats who had looked routed and cowed at times by the confrontational Republican governor, appeared this week to find a rallying point to add to their general opposition to Christie's stance on the millionaire's tax. 

"Christie seems willing to take this political risk for a very short benefit," said Prof. Brigid Harrison of Montclair State University. "Wallace isn't a flaming liberal. He's the only African-American on the court and he's not being replaced by a person of color. It's a firestorm for Christie when he doesn't want one. He placates right wing Republicans, but at what cost? Now Dems have two big issues to run on: his unwillingess to restore the millionaire's tax, and his failure to re-appoint a qualified African-American justice."   

State Democratic Chairman John Wisniewski swiftly condemned Christie's decision to hit the ejector button on Wallace.

"Not possessing the judicial temperament or not faithfully interpreting the Constitution - these should be the cornerstones to remove a justice," Wisniewski said. "This idea of removing a justice becasue I can removes instead the notion of an independent judiciary."

"Judges need to feel they can make their decisions as best as they can without fear of political retribution," the judiciary chairman said. "Unless there was a competence issue or performance issue - and I am the last person to say every judge is entitled to a lifetime tenure - but when it is purely political such as this, we have a problem."

"It also destroys diversity on the court," Wisniewski added, "and the idea that justice truly is blind."

Coming down to Monday crunch time, Christie and Scutari had a telephone conversation on Sunday night before the governor announced he would replace Wallace.

"I'm sorry this is happening because I've had a good relationship with Goverrnor Christie, and when we spoke he told me at one point, 'Well, maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.' He knew we would block his appointment if he did this. We had told him."

According to the rules of the court, the chief justice can bring up an associate judge to meet a quorom or whenever he deems fit, meaning the court can carry on indefinitely wihout a Wallace replacement. 

"When necessary to constitute a quorum, to replace a justice who is absent or unable to act, or to expedite the business of the court, the presiding justice may assign one or more retired justices of the Supreme Court who are not engaged in the practice of law and who consent thereto or the judge or judges of the Appellate Division, senior in length of service therein, to serve temporarily in the Supreme Court," according to the law. "If the judge of the Appellate Division senior in service is unable to serve or shall waive assignment, the presiding justice may assign the judge next senior in service; and if two or more judges have equal seniority, the presiding justice may assign either or any of them."

In a Tuesday afternoon statement backing up Scutari, state Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-West Deptford) said he would not authorize confirmation hearings for Patterson.

“The Senate cannot in good conscience play a role in the Governor’s reckless politicization of the courts,” Sweeney said. “I will not allow the dismantling of New Jersey’s independent judiciary. This nomination will not be taken up by Senate Judiciary Committee.”

Sweeney said Christie would have the opportunity to fill the same court seat during his first term, as Wallace would reach the mandatory retirment age of 70 in 22 months, and "nothing would prevent the same nominee from being put forward at that time." 

Sweeney also noted Chief Justice Stuart Rabner’s letter to the judiciary yesterday.

“The Constitution also recognizes the importance of a strong, independent judiciary in our democratic society," Rabner wrote. "At the Constitutional Convention of 1947, the delegates … understood the enduring value of having judges decide cases not with an eye toward reappointment but by fairly and honestly applying the law to the facts, free from any political pressures or influence.”

"The reality is this empowers the chief justice in an unprecedented way," Harrison said.