The controversy started on May 3, 2010, when the Republican governor took the unprecedented step of refusing to reappoint Wallace over concern that the court was too liberal.
Democrats, who control the Legislature, accused Christie of politicizing the judiciary, given that Wallace was considered a moderate and was two years away from the mandatory retirement age of 70.
Democrat Sweeney drew criticism from Republicans when he refused to allow Senate hearings for Patterson, vowing that the position of Wallace, a fellow Gloucester County resident, would not be permanently filled until his 70th birthday in March 2012.
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner appointed appellate Judge Edwin Stern to take Wallace's place temporarily, triggering a new uproar after Rivera-Soto said in December that he would abstain from voting over objections that the appointment was unconstitutional. Rivera-Soto has since said he will step down when his first term ends in September.
Sweeney said Monday that he and the governor had acted on principle: The senator wanted to maintain the court's independence, while Christie wanted to remake the court that he has criticized repeatedly for legislating from the bench.
Both men have personalities that don't make compromise easy, Sweeney said, but "we need to move forward. This is too important of an issue."
He also agreed the Senate would hold timely hearings when Christie makes nominations to permanently replace Wallace, as well as Justice Virginia Long, who also faces mandatory retirement in 2012.
Robert Williams, a law professor at Rutgers University-Camden, said the terms of the deal would restore the court to full strength, given that there would be two temporary justices if the stalemate were to continue past Rivera-Soto's departure.
