State Supreme Court Justices Russell Nigro and Sandra Schultz Newman

I received an interesting e-mail from Jim Panyard, a Republican candidate for Governor. He points outs many things that are wrong with the way we pick judges in Pennsylvania and how people can register their outrage over the recent pay raise. He even quotes Vito Corleone to support his argument! Anyone who uses the Godfather to make a political point is all right by me. It is such a well reasoned position, I have to share it with you:

The Panyard Report #2 From: James Panyard

Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:59 AM

Subject: The Panyard Report#2

WILL THERE BE A COST FOR THE SUPREME COURT PAY GRAB?

By Jim Panyard

Pennsylvania's judicial elections have, based on voter turnouts, meant very little to the state's voters. Traditionally a turnout of 12 to 15 percent of registered voters, or about 6 or 7 percent of those over the age of 18, has determined who will dispense truth and justice from state benches.

The system for selecting judges is deeply flawed. It politicizes those who are supposed to dispense "blind justice" and objectively interpret state law.

When judges are beholden to the money and voter turnout mustered by special interest groups such as labor unions, the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers, state lawmakers and political parties, they cease to be "citizens above suspicion."

Controversial rulings by Pennsylvania courts, up to and including the state Supreme Court, are always colored by a deep suspicion that someone or some group "pulled some strings." Those suspicions are warranted.

Lawyers seeking to become judges aren't picked by an Act of God. They have been politically active, party loyalists, significant contributors to Republican or Democrat candidates and parties and have shown a willingness to, if "not rock the boat", then to at least "play ball" and be aware of "how the system works."

One is reminded of the classic film, "The Godfather." Don Vito Corleone tells a subject he has just granted a favor, "Perhaps, some time in the future, and that time may never come, I will call upon you for a favor."

Imagine a lawyer, desirous of becoming a judge, asking a regional or statewide political Don for his favor and help in securing election to a judgeship. The words may not be the same as those of Don Vito, but do you imagine the message is any different?

This November 8 Pennsylvanians will again have the opportunity to select judges, but the scene is slightly different than the typical "off year", low turnout, apathetic voter judicial election.

Two state Supreme Court Justices, Russell Nigro, a Democrat and Sandra Newman, a Republican, must stand for "retention" to secure another 10-year term on the state's high court. They are both from the Philadelphia region of the state.

What makes this year's election different is that taxpayers are still enraged about the mammoth, unconstitutional pay grabs for the governor, state lawmakers - and state judges - that was passed on July 7th, at 2 a.m.

Adding fuel to the fire is the fact that the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, Ralph Cappy, who, fortunately for Ralph, is not standing for retention this year, was the original designer of the pay hikes ranging from 16 to 54 percent.

That makes Nigro and Newman potential targets of voter wrath on Nov. 8. The Republican Party that carried the pay raises through the state House and Senate, both of which it controls, has already said it will put up significant dollars to defend Newman. In all likelihood, the Democrats will do the same for Nigro.

On the other side of the financially imbalanced scale are angry taxpayers who may or may not get up off their duffs on Nov. 8 to sacrifice Newman and Nigro as symbols of their disgust with "business as usual in Harrisburg."

There is no well funded, statewide organized campaign to set the upheaval in motion. Just a glowing hope that people still care enough about their freedom to use what is left of it in the voting booth

(Mr. Panyard is a candidate for the Republican nomination for Governor of Pennsylvania.)

Retention of Judges

State Supreme Court Justices Russell Nigro and Sandra Schultz Newman (pictured at left) , both of Philadelphia, are up for a 10 year retention vote on November 8. They were both elected in pointless statewide elections were the candidates can't answer any questions about the issues of the day so we usually get bio ads that tell us how tough on criminals they have been and end by saying they will lock up all the drug dealers. That has been a succesful policy as we all know since all the drug dealers have been taken off the street since they were elected. So now we must decide if they deserve to continue on the bench.

A new twist has been added this year as they have become the lightening rods for everyone who is mad about the pay raise recently enacted by the legislature in Harrisburg. From the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

Citizen groups angry about state legislators' big pay raise want to vote incumbent lawmakers out of office on Nov. 8. There's only one problem -- there aren't any legislators up for re-election next month. So the pay-raise protesters are doing what they consider to be the next best thing. They're urging Pennsylvanians to take out their frustrations on two state Supreme Court justices who are up for a 10-year retention election on Nov. 8 -- Russell Nigro and Sandra Schultz Newman. Ousting them, the protesters say, would send a strong statewide message that political incumbents aren't safe, no matter who they are, and it might even lead legislators to rethink the raise.

Thanks to Republicans and Conservatives for pointing out this article. DJB makes a very good case on why we should vote no on these people. As the article points out these people are get along/go along with everything that is wrong with Harrisburg.

More reasons to vote against these two was detailed by John Baer in the Daily News. Mr. Nigro has a taste for expensive restaurants:

He charges for lunches of more than $100 at Capital Grille and the Four Seasons; dinners of more than $200 at Bliss and Pompeii; dinners of more than $300 at Mio Sogno and Prime Rib: dinners of more than $400 at Prime Rib and Morton's.

Newman has more modest tastes:

She charges for her AOL and Comcast hookups, for her On Star service and for $10 tips to hotel bellhops and doormen (nothing against bellhops and doormen; just wish her generosity came out of her own pocket). She charged $165 for a private driver to take her to a conference. And she charged $5.05 for a soft drink and a quart of Half & Half from the Acme "for a meeting."

All this on their expense accounts! You and me pay for this.

I have always voted no on these retention questions, now I have a good reason.

Retain the Judges?

.

Luzerne County Judges Thomas Burke and Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. are up for retention to the Court of Common Pleas this year and they are feeling the heat of the fallout of the Juvie Brothers scandal that may result in them losing the yes/no vote. They may meet a similar fate as Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro? In 2005 Nigro lost his bid for retention because the state legislature voted themselves an outrageous pay raise in the middle of the night and the voters took their wrath out on him. They have not been accused of any wrongdoing but Conahan and Ciavarella are not on the ballot and they are. People I talk to are in a throw the bums out mood.

.

PPO-2 has been in full campaign mode with a website up and has been raising money. Judge Burke hasn't raised a dime, doesn't have a website but has been pressing the flesh asking people for their vote and answering every question thrown at him.

.

Olszewski’s trip to the Florida condo has been well documented and just may sink him. I've never heard anybody say a bad thing about Judge Burke and I even had him for jury duty recently and thought he was very fair. Then again I had Ciavarella for jury duty a few years ago and was impressed by him. Shows what I know. But I just can't get by this from a local attorney:

.

Olszewski and Burke claim they did nothing wrong. "It wasn't me, It was them. I didn't know. How could I know?" Just men had a duty to discover the truth. Olszewski said the hearings took place a half a mile away in another building. How could he hear? How did an advocacy group over 100 miles away in Philadelphia hear enough to file lawsuits on behalf of more than 500 children? How did the FBI know enough about it to raid juvenile probation? Olszewski says if he knew he would have told the FBI. If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, oh what a party we'd have.

.

I always vote no on these questions no matter what is going on but that's just me and all my Republican friends tell me I'm wrong to vote no on Burke. As unfair as it may seem to be to these gentleman ( I doubt their judgement and tin ears not their integrity) we have to send a message about what has been going on in the Courthouse and the way to do that is to vote no on retention.

.

So tell me in the comments why I'm wrong and vote in the polls on the sidebar.

.

Yes or No

Will Luzerne County Judges Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. and Thomas F. Burke Jr. suffer a similar fate as Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro? In 2005 Nigro lost his bid for retention because the state legislature voted themselves an outrageous pay raise in the middle of the night and the voters took their wrath out on him. There were other issues involved but it could be argued that he was a victim of "guilt by association."


So now the question is will Olszewski and Burke suffer because of the actions of the Juvie Brothers? They have not been accused of any wrongdoing but Conahan and Ciavarella are not on the ballot and they are. I don't have any polling to back it up but people I talk to are in a throw the bums out mood. That's why I also think the Republican row office candidates will do well.


I have never voted Yes in a judicial retention election and I'm not about to start now.

PA judges

With the defeat of state Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro fresh in their minds the legislature is considering changing the way statewide judges are selected. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

The next chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, Alan M. Feldman, says a priority for his one-year term will be to change the way judges are selected in Pennsylvania.
Feldman, who will formally outline his agenda today at the bar's annual meeting, said the ouster by voters of state Supreme Court Justice Russell M. Nigro on last month's statewide election ballot should serve as a "wake-up call" to spur adoption of so-called merit selection for judges. Feldman is scheduled to take office in January.

One merit-selection alternative proposed by State Sens. Vincent Fumo and Anthony Williams, both Philadelphia Democrats, calls for judicial appointments by the governor, on the recommendation of a 19-member panel, with confirmation by two-thirds of the state Senate.

"It's absolutely essential that we do this" to take the choosing of judges out of the election system and its dependence on campaign money, ward politics and ballot positions, Feldman said.

As I pointed out before most people don't know who they are voting for since it comes down to whoever can raise enough money to buy TV time to get their name recognized. They are not allowed to state a position on any issue so we get a recitation of their resume. The sources of the of the money they needed to finance a statewide campaign casts doubts about their integrity. When you take money from people and groups like labor unions, business associations, political parties and even the lawyers that will appear in front of you there will always be a suspicion that the fix is in.

Supreme Court retention, Judges Russell Nigro and Sandra Schultz Newman

Lot's of reasons to vote no on these two.

-First of all it never has been done, no sitting Pennsylvania judge has ever lost a retention vote. A few years ago a Lackawanna County judge, I think his name was Eagan, lost a retention vote after he had been idicted for theft. Let's make some minor history.

-Second, the pay raise furor. Sure they voted to repeal it but some technicality still might give it to the judges. We can't vote against the legislature so let's vote no on these 2 and send them a message.

-Third is there expense account spending. Nigro likes $400 dollar dinners and Newman charges back nickel and dime stuff as outlined in this Daily News article.

-Fourth is why do we elect judges? The Court of Common Pleas is the one that people who turn to legal system encounter so that should be an elective position. But the judges on the the Superior and Supreme court's? They are elected in pointless statewide elections were the candidates can't answer any questions about the issues of the day so we usually get bio ads that tell us how tough on criminals they have been and end by saying they will lock up all the drug dealers.

Anyone with an interest in this subject, and I you are out there, is welcome to comment

Pennsylvania Judicial elections

As usual the elections for the PA Superior and Commonwealth courts are flying under the radar along with the retention question for 6 members of the 3 state appellate courts. It's one of those things that I've seen a tidbit about here and there that didn't register until I took a look at the Luzerne County sample ballot tonight, thanks Lenny. PMC has a rundown of all the candidates.

One seat is up for the Superior Court and the candidates are Republican Vic Stabile and Democrat David Wecht. Commonwealth Court nominees are Ann Covey (R) and Kathryn Boockvar (D) competing for the open spot.


I don't pay much attention to the statewide Judge races because the candidates run on their bio's and promise to be tough on crime with an emphasis on locking up all the drug dealers. But then every politician promises to lock up all the druggies and we all know that policy has worked out well over the past 40 years. More drugs, more crime and a record number of people in prison. Drug addiction should not be treated as a law enforcement issue but a public health problem but that will require a change in federal law. Their campaigns are financed by the lawyers that will appear before them but they assure us that that will not influence their rulings. What a bunch of hooey.



Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts make a good case for scrapping the present system and going with merit selection of Judges. Their blog JudgesOnMerit.org documents the problems with electing appellate Judges and suggests improvements to the process.

In the 2009 contest for PA Supreme Court Justice we elected Joan Orie Melvin who is now in a lot of hot water along with her sister.

I'm willing to go further and go with merit selection for county judges. Do you think Michael Conahan could have survived a background check?

Vote no on retention.

I have never voted to retain a Judge as I think that elections for the offices are pointless in the first place. Very few people have lost the question but in recent years Russell Nigro and
Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. have been tossed by the voters.


This coming November we will be asked to decide if 6 people should continue in their positions.
There is not a big controversy this time such as the midnight pay raise or the kids for cash scandal so they will probably be retained.


•Justice J. Michael Eakin, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania –
•Judge John T. Bender, Superior Court of Pennsylvania -
•Judge Mary Jane Bowes, Superior Court of Pennsylvania
•Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania –
•Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania –
•Judge Robert E. Simpson Jr., Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania –

They have all been recomended by the PA Bar Association.

I'm still voting NO.

Election day in PA, the Judges

My predictions and endorsements for what it's worth.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court and Superior Court

The Pennsylvania Bar Association Judicial Evaluation Commission's ratings of appellate candidates are highlighted on PAVoteSmart as well as links to other critical information about the candidates and the important functions of Pennsylvania's courts.

My picks for the Supreme Court are Seamus McCaffrey and Debra Todd. I think McCaffrey wins on name recognition and his claim to fame for running the "Eagles Court” at the vet that dealt with rowdy Birds fans. And Todd has made some rulings that upset the law and order/war on drugs crowd but upheld the constitution. Maureen Lally-Green has been helped by ads paid for by some group in Virginia which she claims no knowledge. Why some group in Virginia cares who is on the PA Supreme Court is a mystery. Mike Krancer lacks the experience of the other candidates. Blackrobe at Keystone Politics has a great rundown of the race.

Six candidates are vying for the three open seats on Superior Court.

The Democratic nominees are Pittsburgh lawyer Christine Donohue, Allegheny County Judge Ron Folino and Philadelphia County Judge John Younge.

The Republicans are Allegheny County Judge Cheryl Lynn Allen, Dauphin County Judge Bruce F. Bratton and Pittsburgh lawyer Jackie Shogan.

I'm not up to speed on this one and have no idea who will win other than to say the Democrats are in better shape than the Republicans in any statewide race. Some less than thought out reasons to vote for or against the various candidates. Donahue has sent me about 10 or 15 glossy oversize postcards that don't say anything. A friend of mine is working to elect Ron Folino so I'll help him out. I read a book called Shogan or was it Shogun, many years ago and enjoyed it. And I got a robo call from Lou Barletta pushing Bratton, so that puts him on my shit list.

I'm still torn about electing statewide judges. On the one hand I think that the people should have a say in deciding who occupies positions in all branches of government. On the other if a political junkie like me can't get a handle on who to vote for maybe merit selection would be a better way to go. I think the biggest thing that turns me off to electing these offices is that the candidates won't tell you their positions on the issues. So we're subjected to bio adds that tell you how tough on crime and drugs they've been. All financed by the lawyers that will appear before them.

Retention

There are seven state court Judges up for retention. PACleansweep has been urging everyone to vote NO. Bernie has taken on the masochistic task of looking at the records of each jurist and gives a thumbs up to all but Saylor and Melvin. The candidates are:

Supreme Court Thomas G Saylor

Superior Court John L Musmanno

Correale F Stevens
Bonnie B Leadbetter

Joan Orie Melvin

Commonwealth Court Bernard L McGinley
Doris A Smith-Ribner

I have never voted to retain any Judge being the contrarian bastard that I am. In my memory only 2 have ever lost a retention vote. A Lackawanna County Judge that was under indictment and later convicted of theft and Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro in the pay raise fallout. Most of us don't know who these people are or what they do and the selection of appellate court judges should be taken out of the political arena.

Bloggers in the news

On the recent PA Supreme Court pay raise decision:

In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

From Pittsburgh blogger Froth Slosh B'Gosh: "I guess knocking off [Supreme Court Justice Russell] Nigro didn't send a strong enough message. We need to retire as many legislators as possible who passed the pay raise, and then retire each Supreme Court justice in turn as they come up for retention, with the possible exception of Thomas Saylor, who opined that the pay raise was unconstitutional. But then again, he's facing retention next year."

Mr. Randy Potter in the Patriot News:

"The Supreme Court ruling will re-energize the state government reform movement, because it is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with state government," said Randy Potter, who writes the conservative Penn Patriot Weblog. "I think Pennsylvanians now realize that greed has taken control of every branch of our state government and that reforms are desperately needed."


Who needs Terry Madonna and Tom Baldino to point out the obvious when we have great analysts on the web.

We win, pay raise repealed

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -A repeal of unpopular government pay raises became law Wednesday as the Senate passed, then Gov. Ed Rendell signed a measure that lawmakers hope will wipe away four months of intense public criticism and protect their jobs.
Tired of fielding complaints about their salaries, some lawmakers saw the repeal as crucial to repairing their reputations and putting the issue behind them as the 2006 legislative elections loom. Just a week ago, Pennsylvania voters demonstrated their anger at state government by ousting a Supreme Court justice.
The House approved the legislation on Monday. The final hurdle - the Senate's 50-0 vote and Rendell's signature -came 132 days after the Legislature, in the dead of night and without public notice or debate, raised the salaries of more than 1,300 public officials, including themselves and state judges, and sparked a storm of criticism.

These stupid bastards finally got the message after months of outrage by everyone I know that is interested in politics and many that are not. Since July, when they passed the bill in the middle of the night, it has been the talk of the town. I ran into conversations about it at the gas station, the local pub and especially the barber shop. Most of us get a 2 or 3 percent increase if we're lucky and these guys up their own pay by $10,000 or more. The defeat of Supreme Court Justice Nigro put the fear of god(the electorate) into them. It's not over, anyone so out of touch that they think that they could get away with this should find other work. Sure the defense will be "I voted to repeal." Why did you vote for it in the first place? I will not vote for any incumbent legislator next year.

Everyone across the spectrum was opposed to this. This is not a win for conservatives or liberals, Democrat or Republican or any other sub-species of the political landscape.

It's a win for the people of Pennsylvania!

No to Russell Nigro!

The people of Pennsylvania have made some minor history. For the first time a sitting judge lost a retention vote. Before I get into reasons for the loss I want to point out that the poli sci major in me is overjoyed. Why have an election when the incumbent never loses? Most of us don't know who these people are or what they do and the selection of appellate court judges should be taken out of the political arena. He lost by just over 10,000 votes and the other justice on the ballot Sandra Schultz Newman got a scare. The anti- judge sentiment even spilled into other retention votes. Luzerne County Judge of Common Pleas Mark Ciavarella received a 41% no vote, when the no's are usually around 20% or less.

Since the legislature was not on the ballot in this election the wrath fell on the judges. It was brilliant send them a message politics backed by political groups all across the spectrum. The 2 a.m. paygrab caught the attention of everyone who has an interest in politics and government. In an off year election a well motivated informed electorate can make a difference and we did. This fight is not over, just the opening round of a long challenge. Our lawmakers in the last few days have come up with some repeal measures that are full of this that and the other type of exceptions. That's bullshit. These clowns are now trying to backpedal and be seen as repealing the raise but leaving a bunch of loopholes so it can be still collected. We will see what happens next year when we vote for our members of the legislature.