Recently proposed legislative measures (Senate Bill 2244 and House Bill 2006) single out one class of public employees — judges — for reduction of their retirement benefits.
The measures would reduce the benefit multiplier for current judges who are reappointed or promoted after June 30, among other provisions.
Consequently, these judges who are members of the state Employees Retirement System would be adversely affected in comparison to other state employees whose like benefits are left intact.
In cutting benefits for judges who seek reappointment or to advance to higher courts, the measures also penalize experience, expertise and efficiency.
Measures, if any, intended to send a message in reaction to court rulings may create an atmosphere that depreciates judges in particular and thus the Judiciary in general.
It may be noted that the courts do not choose or initiate cases; disputes are presented to them by the actions of parties.
Critical reaction to the rulings of courts is nothing new. It is somewhat foreseeable because governance is shared among our three branches of government. But any veiled legislative sanction in response to judicial decisions can have a harmful effect in the way the legal system is viewed, and may invite untoward consequences for the perception and acceptance of future decisions.
The rule of law, as administered by the Judiciary, is not determined by a forecast of the public reception a court ruling may receive. Instead, a decision must rest on neutral principles and the ultimate assurance that the independence of judges is protected.
Independence is at the core of judging. This is not independence born of arbitrariness or stubbornness, but of one free of bias, favoritism, partiality and extraneous influence. These hallmarks are threatened when the focus is not on the merits of a decision, but on imposing collateral burdens that might be perceived as influencing decision-making.
Singling out judges for disparate treatment fosters disdain for their work and distrust in court dispositions because this approach may appear to rest on an unstated assumption that judges can be swayed in their decision-making.
The implication that may be left is that the neutrality of judges can be compromised. This would cast doubt on the underpinnings of any decision. As serious would be a public perception that such influence might have been a factor in a court’s ruling.
In this context, questions concerning a judicial decision would not be limited to a particular subject.
Historically and textually, the courts have been accorded the responsibility under our constitutions for the protection of individuals, minority groups, and the Bill of Rights. Thus, the rule of law as well as the independence of judges could be called into question in all areas of the law.
Ultimately, government as a whole would suffer. Any imbalance of the checks among the branches diminishes our system of government that is intended to safeguard us all.
