Does PATCH have an editorial viewpoint? I thought PATCH reported local news? That's certainly why I check it everyday, not for your political views. Unless you plan to publish the opposite viewpoint in your political reporting, stay out of polictics!

Before I got to the bottom and then saw the comment by Mr. Kaag, it was my intention to post precisely the same observation. It would be a great disappointment to me if The Patch suddenly started to wade into advocacy waters. If I want unbalanced news reporting I can always read the Courier News.

Delete
Prentiss Gray
9:15 am on Monday, March 26, 2012
Column's are written to argue a particular point of view, or illuminate a particular topic. That's their purpose, they are fact based commentary. Although, I suspect the cries of "unbalanced!" would be fewer if Colleen's piece aligned more closely with the objector's views. Want more balance? Submit your own piece and stop trying to muzzle everyone else.

So it's just Gov Christie that can't shape the state Supreme Court, but other governors could, right? And you are saying the the President has also sought a balanced Supreme Court rather than Justices who are aligned with his thinking? Please...if the reason were really that there was something going on with the Kwon's family business, I could almost buy it. But the opposing party has done everything possible, citing procedural "courtesy", to obstruct positions that need to be filled. Did they ever allow that bench position to be filled over the past couple of years? Their their own appointee ever start working on the bench or is he still not voting in decisions?

They are right to reject a candidate if there are solid reasons to do so. But they are obstructing justice if they are going to reject all of the Governor's appointments for two more years.

Every Monday, Colleen O'Dea can be relied upon to vomit forth another leftist editorial under the guise of local news. It is the same Colleen O'Dea, I remind you, that is screeching like a butt-hurt banshee when the Republican minority dares to block anything Democrats put on the table.

Gov. Christie is trying to get the pathetically broken court system back to some degree of order---the pendulem needs to swing the other way to get balance back in NJ---He has worked so hard to get the state in order---congrats to him!!!

The Democrats are not obligated to keep the court in balance. All lawmakers are obligated to confirm competant judges who will not legislate from the bench.

This editorial is a sham piece demonstrating that Ms. O'Dea lacks any kind of understanding of a) how the judicial appointment process is supposed to work and b) the shameless political hatchet job done to Mr. Kwon last week by the Democrats. The Governor has the sole perogative to appoint anyone he wants to the Supreme Court, and should not be bound by "traditions" that have no rooting in the State Constitution at all, and which "traditions" have guaranteed a left-leaning Supreme Court utterly devoid of any "balance" for decades. I guess Ms. O'Dea and the Democrates like "balance" when it guarantees court decisions they favor, like the reckless Mt. Laurel and Abbott rulings which have saddled residents of this state with the highest property taxes in the nation in the name of "fairness". The Governor, duly elected by the people of the state, has every right to nominate judges who reflect his political viewpoint. That's not "packing" the court - it's injecting the will of the people into the judiciary, even if it's not always the will of leftists like Ms. O'Dea.

So Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press unless you are a Democrat according to Max. I really find it sad that in a country that was founded with the intent of celebrating and embracing differences that so many Republicans resort to nastiness when referring to Democrats. If it doesn't conform to a Republican's point of view it is "vomit" and "a guise". When referring to the person expressing the opinion that is decidedly not the general opinion of the conservatives they are "screeching" and a "banshee". While I realize that Max does not speak for all Republican's it has been my experience that most of the Republican's I have interacted with speak of Democrats with derogatory comments and a complete lack of respect. I am a registered Democrat but if a Republican and I were having a discussion I might actually see their point if they could get past the snide remarks. Doesn't appear that I will ever get the opportunity to test out that theory though.

Congratulations to Gov. Christie for at least trying to repair NJ's broken Judicial System and get it back on the path to balanced objectivity...And to hell with the slanted, Democratically-leaning rants of Ms O'Dea.
If Ms O'Dea is offended by Biased Politics, she should be OUTRAGED by the happenings in DC and by the biased actions by Democratic appointed Judges who summarily dismiss ANY case which asks questions of Obama or the Obama Administration...And she should be absolutely LIVID with Obama's biased appointments to the SCOTUS...
Ms O'Dea is NOT an unbiased "reporter"...She is simply a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.

What is it about the word Column that you people don't understand. Columns are opinion pieces. I am sure that if her COLUMN expressed an opinion your agreed with you would be posting praise. The problem is that you just don't have the ability to understand the differance between opinion and fact but given the proven ignorance of Faux viewers it is understandable.

Hey folks -- we appreciate the debate going on here.

A very large portion of what we post on the site is straight news reporting. But we do have some special features, including opinion pieces and letters to the editor.

Colleen's column has been a staple of our Monday mornings for a little while now. It's definitely an opinion piece, and our intention is that it's clearly presented as one. It's not meant to suggest that it's the official view of Patch or any given Patch site — it's just Colleen's viewpoint. She does a great job researching these and supporting her arguments, but there's certainly room to disagree with her—and we hope people who have feelings on any side of an issue she discusses feel free to chime in with constructive, respectful, thought-out points.

Following my own comment ...

What's more -- We'd LOVE to see full pieces from readers who disagree on these particular topics, or on any others of local relevance. If you've got something to say, we want to hear it. Up at the top of the page is this Patch's editor (this post is shared across multiple sites, but you'll see the editor for yours there). Contact him or her, and we'll get your letter from the editor or guest column on the site. If you'd like to write routinely, we'd love to sign you up for our blogging platform. We want as many views represented as possible — because that's what sparks good, meaningful conversation.

I must be missing something here. My complaint, and that of the very first poster, was that we did not think the Patch was the proper venue for political, controversial or biased commentary. (I confess I did not realize, as someone pointed out, that the columnist writes every Monday). If the intent is to raise readership because controversy draws in the bomb throwers ("Faux" news?....I can guess where that writer is coming from) then it has succeeded. I just think it's a misplaced effort. If it is deliberate, then I believe opposite views should be allowed, but not hidden in a Blog as one poster suggested; it shold be given equal time in an equally visible place.

Jaynee LaVecchia is at best an Independent (in her bleeding heart she's really a Dem). And since when did the NJ legislature get to overrule a person's choice of their own political affiliation?

Just because someone is appointed by a Republican, it doesn't make that person a Republican. And if you need any proof about Justice LaVecchia's real political persuasion, just check her most recent ruling reaffirming the Supreme Court's ability to direct unlimited amounts of NJsian's Income Taxes to the 31 districts formerly known as Abbott.

So what a deal, the Dems get a reliable liberal justice AND they get to count her as a "Republican." Please stop echoing the Dem meme.

The hearing was a disgrace and set a new low for political hatchet jobs. the seven Dems who voted no should all be ashamed of themselves, as should the columnist for trying to justify their actions. The only thing that would be worse than this column will be when she writes one up about a lack of bipartisanship or the coarsening of our political discourse.

The bigger point here that nobody is focusing on is that this is one more missed oportunity at property tax reform. Abbott wins again.

@Al Beronio--Snide remarks? Where? Are they snide because they don't conform to your opinion? I suppose my last sentence could be taken as a bit snide but it really came from a place of disappointment, not the land of snarky. I would welcome discussing different sides of an issue with a Republican who presented their thoughts respectfully and listened to my thoughts on the matter respectfully, with an open mind, keeping in mind that we BOTH may have valid points. In MY EXPERIENCE that has never happened. It has always been "I am right simply by virtue of being a Republican and not only are you wrong because you are a Democrat you are less than intelligent because of it." By the way, you are correct--I do not speak for all Democrats. No where in my post did it say I thought I did. I spoke of my experiences, my interactions. Also, I am very relaxed, very calm. There was nothing hysterical or frenzied about my post. But that was a very nice attempt at trying to spin it in that direction. (Attribute all the snide you want to that last comment as snide was my intention in that instance).

A scan of comments throughout this site clearly reveals what side most of the vitriol comes from. Being loud and nasty does not make you right, it just makes you loud and nasty.

You all do know who owns Patch, right? AOL, who also owns the Huffington Post. I'm just saying ...

Huffington Post? Now there's a "fair and balanced" source....right after MediaMatters. Thanks fornpointing that out, MotownRepub.

Yeah, and Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, were liberals too, (Blessed are the poor, feeding the multitudes, ect.) so lets consider the source of the Bible.