The only "substantial" constitutional question for NYS Court of Appeals is judicial pay raises?

It was reported that the newly-populated New York State Court of Appeals is handling on appeal the issue of judicial pay raises.

That is an extraordinary event, because New York State Court of Appeals has a very limited jurisdiction, and it is usual for that court to reduce even appeals "as of right" to appeals "by the court discretion" and dismissing such "as of right appeals" because a SUBSTANTIAL constitutional right was not violated, even though the jurisdictional "as of right" state only mentions a constitutional right, without delimitation of "substantial-insubstantial".

In other words, NYS Court of Appeals has a policy indicating that to violate the U.S. Constitution is ok, only not "substantially", and what is "substantial" and "insubstantial" is for the court to decide, without any guiding criteria for such a distinction existing, nor does a state court have authority to establish criteria distinguishing which provisions of the U.S. Constitution may or may not be violated.

There is a scholarly article dating back to 2011, on this topic indicating that a constitutional appeal "as of right" to NYS Court of Appeals was rendered "illusory" by the court's (ultra vires) amendment of its own jurisdictional statute, arbitrarily making discretionary appeals that are mandatory for the court to take and review.


Actually, there is a very strong dissent in a case dismissed by the NYS Court of Appeals on "substantiality" of constitutional argument involved, written in 2010 by the now-retired Judge Robert S. Smith.

It is practically impossible to reach New York State Court of Appeals with a constitutional appeal, the court always rejects such cases, from "mere mortals" at least, raising constitutional issues.

Yet, the court accepted now, as it accepted before, an appeal on issues of constitutionality of denying judges retroactive pay raises.  

And, one of the presiding judges, Michael Garcia, has been a recent counsel for the Legislature, while the case claims the Legislature did something unconstitutional.

It appears that, once one becomes a judge, one loses any moral compass as to "appearance of impropriety", sense of civility and fairness, and mere decency as to their actions.

One accepts cases in which one has personal interest as a member of the class to which the decision will apply.

And, one rejects cases that, by law, one must hear - because one can abuse his power this way, and there is no power to control that abuse of the New York State Court of Appeals in rejecting proper constitutional appeals as of right on "insubstantial constitutional question" issue.

We remain the state where its highest court, sworn to protect the U.S. Constitution, blatantly violates that same U.S. Constitution by arbitrarily and unlawfully deciding, without any authority to decide that question, which constitutional violations are SUBSTANTIAL and which are INSUBSTANTIAL - and to reject appeals "as of right" on that principle.

So, we will hold our breath now to see what the Court of Appeals will decide about retroactive judicial pay raises, a very substantial constitutional question - for the presiding judges.