There was a sense of foreboding when the Supreme Court term began late last year. The Court was in the middle of a partisan political firefight over judicial appointments. It looked like there would be two vacancies for an extended period of time. A “pitchfork rebellion” was staged by one of the justices, Roberto Rivera-Soto, who questioned the propriety of Presiding Appellate Division Judge Edwin Stern’s temporary assignment and vowed to abstain from decisions where that judge’s vote would be pivotal.
Things worked out. The chief justice kept a calm hand on the rudder and steered the Court through choppy seas. Stern performed to the highest judicial standards. The uproar over Rivera Soto’s incendiary remarks dissipated. Political leaders negotiated a compromise on appointments and a new justice was seated to replace the retiring Rivera-Soto. Very few decisions appear to have been affected by empty chairs.
The 13th Juror
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
