Bar News - February 17, 2006
Morning Mail: Further Comment on Superior Court Needs
I found both Attorney Nixon’s letter published in the January 6 Bar News and the Hon. Judge Lynn’s response in the January 20th issue to be well-argued and spirited. While I have been retired for a year and a half, and thus do not have sufficient information to comment on correctness of either position regarding the needs of the Superior Court and whether they are being met, I do find I must put pen to paper to correct a critical political error contained in one assertion put forth in Judge Lynn’s response. Judge Lynn states that the reason that the New Hampshire Legislature “put a fence” around the District Court’s budget in the last bi-annum was “... (the Legislature’s) concern that, in the absence of (“the fence’), the Supreme Court would be inclined to prefer (not eschew) the Superior Court’s spending needs at the expense of the District Court... “(emphasis added).
Should anyone choose to inquire of the then-Legislative leadership, they would find that the real reason for the legislative “fence” around the District Court’s budget was the Legislature’s fear that the Supreme Court, as the final fiscal authority in the New Hampshire unified court system, would short-change the District Court’s budget in order to embellish the Supreme Court’s budget: ...And wasn’t the growth of the Supreme Court’s budget (when compared to the shrinking of the Superior Court’s budget) one of the two main points of Attorney Nixon’s letter? I was disappointed that neither Judge Lynn’s nor President Uchida’s response addressed this point.
On the positive political side, I have heard that Chief Justice Broderick has done yeoman’s work in improving the rapport between the Court and the Legislature, has worked very hard and successfully to propose an overall budget which the Legislature finds reasonable and affordable by the state—not an easy task—and has earned the grudging respect of most legislators.
Robert H. Fryer
Williamsburg, VA
|