Federal judges do it – why can’t state governors?
Here is a very simple way for Governor Christie of New Jersey to have the whole BridgeGate business go away: make it legal, as federal judges did way back when.
A federal judge swindles a litigant of the winning argument, and when sued, says in his defense “for the greater public good, I have a right to act maliciously and corruptly (Pierson v. Ray);” and a fellow-judge promptly dismisses the case.
Why would a difference in the branch of the government, executive versus judicial, make a difference? Judges decided that their right to act “corruptly and maliciously” contributes to the public good; from which we can derive such general principles as “evil is good,” and “vice is virtue,” which must than apply to the executive branch too.
Since the politically-motivated lane closures caused huge delays and were therefore “bad,” they were in fact, when seen through the logic first invented by the federal judiciary, “good.”
And they being “good,” what’s wrong with them?
And if nothing is wrong with them, why all the fuss?
Hence, Governor Christie would be well advised to save himself the trouble of proving his innocence, and extend federal judiciary’s right to stamp with a word “good” the thing which is manifestly “bad” to the executive, declaring its right to act – in the public interest, of course! – “maliciously and corruptly.”
What an obvious and easy solution! What an incredible contribution to public well-being would this be! How strange that Governor Christie hasn’t discovered it yet!