Supreme Court.JPG

Gov. Chris Christie withdrew his nomination of Robert Hanna, president of the state Board of Public Utilities, to the state Supreme Court.

(Star-Ledger file photo)

In a nod to political reality, Gov. Chris Christie withdrew his nomination of Robert Hanna to the state Supreme Court, a tactical retreat in his attempt to reshape the court in his conservative image.

Don’t read this as a knock on Hanna. He is known as a man of integrity and competence, and this should not tarnish his reputation one bit.

This is on the governor. He started this fight in 2010 by removing Justice John Wallace Jr. for purely ideological reasons. No governor had done that before. It had been a bipartisan tradition in New Jersey to reappoint justices after their initial seven-year term, barring evidence of incompetence or unethical behavior.

The reason is that justices should be free to consider only the merits of the cases before them, with no fear of political retaliation. Gov. Tom Kean famously reappointed Justice Robert Wilentz in 1986, despite profound ideological disagreements, to safeguard that basic principle.

Christie cast that aside when he removed Wallace, a centrist Democrat and the court’s only African-American. Worse, he made it clear that was only his first move in a broader attack on the court’s independence.

He even spelled out a litmus test for new justices — he wanted conservatives whom he could trust to overturn some of the court's most important opinions, the Abbott vs. Burke cases on school funding and the Mount Laurel cases on affordable housing.

Why would Democrats play along with this scheme? Why would they reward the governor for removing Wallace? Why would they help the governor ensure that in a seven-member court, Democrats would fill only two seats?

They will not and they should not. The governor believes Senate President Stephen Sweeney should roll over and let the confirmation hearings take place. That would give the governor a chance to horse-trade for confirmation votes, a risk that Sweeney understandably will not take.

The governor is fond of saying that elections have consequences. But legislative elections have consequences, too. And Democrats retained convincing control of the Senate by a 24-16 margin.

Only compromise can break this stalemate, and its outlines are obvious. The governor should nominate one Republican, and twin it with a convincingly independent Democrat. That would create a 3-3 balance on the court, with one independent, Justice Jaynee LaVecchia. LaVecchia, appointed by Christie Whitman, has donated money to Republicans in the past, but she has often joined the court's liberals. A compromise like this would reflect the voters' split decision in November.

Hanna is an independent voter, but a Christie loyalist who worked for him in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The remaining pending nominee, Superior Court Judge David Bauman, is a Republican.

Christie has been unwilling to compromise so far, and may even escalate this fight by removing Chief Justice Stuart Rabner in June, when Rabner reaches his seven-year mark. That would cripple the court and deepen this crisis. Rabner, a Democrat, is a rare figure in Trenton who is universally respected for his remarkable intellect, his even temperament and his unquestioned integrity.

If Christie removes him, then Democrats will answer, probably by stalling appointments or legislation that are priorities for Christie. He would be risking a broad meltdown in partisan relations. We could be looking at Washington-style politics here in Trenton.

A wise man, fed up with pointless partisan bickering, once said that politics can work only if both sides are willing to meet halfway. "Compromise is not a dirty word," he said.

His name is Chris Christie. Let’s hope he listens to his own preaching.

FOLLOW STAR-LEDGER OPINION: TWITTER • FACEBOOK