Montco Bipartisanship?

Way back when, about 2 years ago, Jim Matthews would have the good people of Montgomery County think he was interested in running a bipartisan government, an agreement he made with commissioner-elect Hoeffel in a power grab designed to leave Republican Commissioner, Bruce L. Castor, Jr. out of the proverbial “loop”, subsequently empowering he and J-Huf to pack the courthouse with his political buddies, in the worst case of patronage gone wild that anyone can recall.

Well, today, in the true spirit of bipartisanship, The county commissioners, along with the row officers, all came to Norristown High School to witness history…the first time in the history of our county that there has been 7 judges sworn in, the first time that 5 female judges have been sworn in at one time, and the first time a democrat has been elected to the bench in the 38th district, court of common pleas.

Only, Joe Hoeffel was nowhere to be found. That is, until Lois Murphy, the lone democrat elected to the bench, was sworn in.

J-Huf waltzed in right before Murphy was to be sworn in, and left right afterward. Truer bipartisanship has never been demonstrated…

Even Jimbo stayed for all 7. Joe…you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

On a side note, it was a very nice morning, as I got to see people I think an awful lot of sworn in to the bench…respect to each and every one of them.

B.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email BillShaw, Start the discussion or Share This...

Small Constitutional Victory for Buckwalter, Phoenixville & PA

The PA Supreme Court made a decision today defending the Commonwealth Constitution. While it is not earthshattering, it is a nice, modest case study of a public servant doing the right thing even when it did not serve his short-term political interests.

Back in 2006, Phoenixville’s Borough Council tried to eliminate the compensation of its members. It was political grandstanding, as the Borough faced a multi-million dollar budgetary shortfall, and the total annual compensation of all of them was less than twenty grand. Kendrick Buckwalter, a councilman, realized 1) That this was unconstitutional, and 2) Would establish a precedent for Council to change compensation levels in the middle of their terms, theoretically permitting them to RAISE their pay as well.

Buckwalter sued, with the help of local attorney Richard Breuer. This is despite the fact that it would make it look like Ken was suing to keep his $200/month before facing reelection during the year of the Harrisburg pay raise debacle. Thankfully, he did end up winning reelection.

But pursuing the case made his reelection more difficult. Ken did it because it was the right thing to do, not because it made his life any easier. The Supreme Court in Kendrick Buckwalter v. Borough of Phoenixville has concurred that he was right all along.

A small victory, sure. But any victory defending the Constitution is one to be applauded, especially when someone puts their political position on the line to do it.

Coverage in the local paper here.

Congratulate Ken at his blog here.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email KarlBucus, Start the discussion or Share This...

Temp Smith Recount – Volunteers Needed

If you have some time to spare, and would like to help with the Temp Smith recount efforts in Philadelphia, please contact Joe DeFelice @ jdefelice@pagop.org or call him at 215-756-4158

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

The Supreme Court Win

Hans A. von Spakovsky gets it exactly right.

Melvin’s win has implications for the future of state politics. Pennsylvania has a five-member Legislative Reapportionment Commission that handles state legislative redistricting. Two members are Republicans, two members are Democrats, and the fifth member is supposed to be chosen by the other four members. But if those four members can’t agree on a choice, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gets to pick the fifth member. This race was not only another defeat for the Democrats, it was also a defeat for their biggest financial supporters, the trial-lawyers bar. And it means that Republicans may end up in the driver’s seat when it comes to state redistricting after the 2010 Census.

The 2010 State House races will still be vital, as the House is pretty evenly split.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Republicans Win 6 out of 7 Statewide Elections in PA

My fellow theocons will be pleased to learn that 5 out of the 7 judges elected statewide are pro-life.

Here are the winners:

Justice of the Supreme Court – Joan Orie Melvin

Judge of the Superior Court – Judy Olson, Sallie Mundy, Paula Ott, Anne Lazarus

Judge of the Commonwealth Court – Patricia McCullough, Kevin Brobson

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Why You Should Vote for Joan Orie Melvin for PA Supreme Court

Here’s why Joan Orie Melvin should get your vote tomorrow:

1 – Joan Orie Melvin was endorsed by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Harrisburg Patriot News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, AND the Lancaster New Era. As far as I can tell, only the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal endorsed her opponent.

2 – Joan Orie Melvin rejected the judicial pay raise on principle. When forced to take the money in her own pay, she returned it to the treasury in order to give it back to the taxpayers.

3 – Orie Melvin has described herself as a “strict constructionist” who would not make law, but instead of would obey the law and the US Constitution in her decisions.

4 – Her opponent Jack Panella is running bizarre attack ads which claim that Joan Orie Melvin is a threat to women, which is obviously insane. Panella doesn’t give specifics in the ad, but its assumed that he is saying that Orie Melvin’s pro-life views make her a threat to women. Pro-life views which he claims to share. This guy is a real screwball.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email John Lewandowski, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

Panella’s Abortion Flip-Flop Makes Him Unworthy For Court

Panella’s Abortion Flip-Flop Makes Him Unworthy

BY CHRIS FREIND

State Supreme Court candidate Jack Panella obviously doesn’t learn from history.

When former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney entered the 2008 Republican presidential primary, he seemed to have everything going for him: top campaign staff, unlimited money, a solid national organization, and a (seemingly) attractive message.

Yet his campaign was over before it began.

Why? Because more than anything, he had a major credibility problem.

You see, despite Mitt’s talk of being a political outsider, he danced the Washington Two-Step as well as anyone.

Somehow, Romney’s core beliefs undertook a number of miraculous conversions from his days as governor, most notably on the abortion issue.

“I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country,” Romney stated in 1994. In 2002, he said he would “…preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose. I am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard.”

But when Romney ran in the national Republican primary, where many GOP voters are Pro-Life, Romney sang a different tune, ardently proclaiming he was against abortion.

We can’t look into another person’s soul, so we don’t know if Mitt really had a change of heart. But his switch was certainly suspect.

When a pol flips on issues just to get elected, he loses credibility on both sides. Not being trustworthy isn’t exactly the best way to appeal to voters.

But since politicians never learn, they repeat the same mistakes time and again.

Enter Democratic state Supreme Court candidate Judge Jack Panella.

Panella Flip-Flops On Abortion

There are huge stakes in the race for the court, since the 3-3 deadlock will be broken. The court’s vision will be a road map for the future of Pennsylvania.

But one thing the court doesn’t need is a spineless judge. And that’s exactly what Panella has shown himself to be.

For years, Panella has passed himself off as being Pro-Life. But now, he is running ads “warning” voters that Republican candidate Judge Joan Orie Melvin wants to take away abortion rights. And this comes after being endorsed by the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, which opposes abortion rights, in his 2003 Superior Court campaign and as recently as the May primary.

Now that the general election is upon us, with Orie Melvin never wavering in her Pro-Life position, Panella has decided to dance, so much so that he earned the endorsement of Planned Parenthood. According to published media reports, that group’s state director said Panella’s responses to its questionnaire “made us very comfortable” with his position on the issue.

Why the switch? Is it because there are more Democrats in the state, and Democrats, as a whole, tend to be more pro-abortion? Panella may think his flip-flop is a shrewd political ploy, but it could well backfire.

After his calculated switch, from whom has he engendered support? The pro-abortion community? Not likely. Die-hard pro-aborts (no pun intended) are most likely voting against Judge Orie Melvin anyway because they know she is a candidate who stands on principal.

In his crass attempt to woo the swing voters in the middle, Panella has shot himself in the foot. While some of these voters may not be in total agreement with Orie Melvin, they respect her conviction and courage — hallmarks of a good judge.

And let us not forget that many of the state’s Democrats are pro-lifers, especially from the southwest and northeast. Panella’s flip is already being viewed with contempt by many folks in these areas.

Politicians playing both sides is anathema to good government, and a major reason for the public’s cynicism. Ironically, if candidates looked to the nation’s most beloved politicians, such as Ronald Reagan, they would see that the people vote much more for candidates of conviction, and NOT for those trying to be all things to all people.

Jack Panella belongs more on Dancing With The Stars than on Pennsylvania’s high court.

While it is not the role of this columnist to endorse a candidate, it is certainly appropriate to urge voters to reject the two-faced, backstabbing tactics of a bottom feeder like Jack Panella.

On Tuesday, vote for integrity. Vote against Jack Panella.

Chris Freind, author of “Freindly Fire,” is an independent columnist and investigative reporter whose readers hail from six continents, thirty countries, and all fifty states. He can be reached at Christopherfreind@hotmail.com (E before I in Freind)

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email Chris Freind, Join the discussion or Share This...

Philadelphia Center-Right Coalition Nov. 12 (Norquist/Freind)

Friends,

I am pleased to inform you that Philadelphia has been selected to host a monthly Center-Right Coalition meeting, following the hugely-successful model of Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). We will be one of the few non-state capital cities to have such a gathering.

The kick-off meeting, which I will be hosting, will be Thursday, November 12 at the Union League in Philadelphia, with Mr. Norquist in attendance. Light refreshments will be served at 7:00 AM, with the program going from 7:30 to 9:00. The Union League is located at 140 S. Broad Street, just two blocks south of City Hall.

In Grover’s words, the objective is “to get everybody who is center-right to tell each other what they are doing, to share technology and tactics, and to tell stories” regarding issues facing Pennsylvania and the nation.

One key function, according to ATR, is to facilitate collaborative activities of coalition members, many of whom may have not previously known one another, and foster the potential for mutual cooperation.

The rules are simple: Anyone who so desires may speak for three minutes on current initiatives, answer questions, and pass the microphone to the next speaker.

The only prohibition is whining. It is a positive meeting, one that will unify southeastern Pennsylvania.

Attendees will typically include influential political, business, policy and grassroots leaders.

If anyone who would like several minutes on the agenda, please let me know.

You are encouraged to bring any literature for distribution.

I hope to see you next Thursday.

For future reference, the monthly meetings will be held on the FIRST THURSDAY of each month at the Union League, with the same time format as above.

Feel free to invite colleagues and associates. All meetings are off the record.

Steadfast,

Christopher Freind
“Freindly Fire”
Audaces fortuna iuvat
610-659-0098
christopherfreind@hotmail.com (E before I in Freind)
CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email Chris Freind, Start the discussion or Share This...

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Endorses Joan Orie Melvin

It’s official – both of Pittsburgh’s newspapers have endorsed Joan Orie-Melvin for Pennsylvania Supreme Court. From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

Unlike some, we don’t think the deciding factor in elevating Joan Orie Melvin to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should be her gender. How revolting that is, especially in this supposedly post-gender society that social elites claim they embrace.

What we do care about is legal acumen, temperament and moxie. And on all three counts, Judge Orie Melvin of Marshall, a Republican and a state Superior Court judge since 1997, is the best choice for the state’s highest court.

Orie Melvin’s opponent, fellow Superior Court Judge Jack Panella, a Democrat of Easton, talks a pretty good game. But then he decided to go “negative” in his sanctioned campaign ads. How odd, considering the Panella campaign’s huge money advantage and his standing in the polls.

But Orie Melvin went “negative,” too, you retort. In defense, folks, in defense.

The state Supreme Court has been in the Democrats’ control since 2007. An Orie Melvin win would return it to Republican control just in time for any necessary adjudication of the coming redistricting. And that would be a welcome check and balance to a Pennsylvania Democratic Party convinced its star is rising.

Elect Joan Orie Melvin to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

LifePAC Endorses Joan Orie Melvin for the November 3 General Election

LIFEPAC of Southwestern Pennsylvania has endorsed JOAN ORIE-MELVIN for PA State Supreme Court. LIFEPAC is a non-partisan organization which endorses ALL pro-life candidates regardless of party affilation.

In a 2009 questionnaire from the Pennsylvania Family Institute, Joan Orie Melvin answered that President Ronald Reagan best represents her political philosophy, and that Justice Antonin Scalia best represents her judicial philosophy. When asked to rate her judicial philosophy on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being someone who believes that the US Constitution is a “living document” and 10 being an “originalist”, she answered “10″. In a separate comments section on the questionnaire, Melvin described herself as a “strict constructionist”.

I got a comment on my earlier post about Joan Orie Melvin getting endorsements from major liberal newspapers throughout the state which suggested that she is just another RINO. But based on her answers in this questionnaire, that seems highly unlikely. She is a conservative, which means that she must be an excellent candidate if liberal newspapers would endorse her over a more liberal choice.

Go to LifePAC.net to see the rest of their endorsements for Tuesday’s election.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Trial Lawyers Heart Panella

No surprises here, but Karl Rove notices the race…

Finally, the Republican-endorsed candidate for Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court, Judge Joan Orie Melvin, is mounting a strong effort against Democrat Jack Panella, despite a $1 million ad blitz targeting her that’s bankrolled by Philadelphia trial lawyers. A GOP victory would indicate trouble for Democrats in a state Mr. Obama carried by 10 points.

A year ago, Democrats crowed that Mr. Obama had reshaped the political landscape to their advantage. Voters have lived under Democratic rule for nine months, and many of them, especially independents, don’t like what they’re seeing.

Tuesday’s election will provide the most tangible evidence so far of how strong a backlash is building—and just how frightened centrist Democrats should be of 2010. For Republicans, it looks as if hope and change are on the way.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Panella Changes Mind on Abortion

It’s really a damned shame that Jack Panella has been running a nasty, nasty ad against Judge Jane Orie Melvin in his bid to get a seat on the state’s highest court.

One of the lines is something to the effect that Jack Panella will protect woman’s abortion rights, and by inference Orie Melvin would be against those rights.

Well.

In 2003, the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation PAC recommended Mr Panella, presumably because they considered him pro-life.

They seemed to think the same thing this spring, when they recommended him again.

Panella’s defense would be that he doesn’t control who recommends him, but I can’t imagine a pro-life organization missing his answer on their questionaire.

But does it even matter? Hypocrisy and flip-flopping only matters when it’s Republican’s doing it.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

PA’s Major Liberal Papers Endorse Joan Orie Melvin

Have we just crossed over into The Twilight Zone? Or is Joan Orie Melvin that great of a candidate?

Both the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette have endorsed Republican Joan Orie Melvin for PA Supreme Court. Here’s hoping that it’s enough to push her over 50% on Election Day.

Update – Judge Orie Melvin was also endorsed by the Patriot-News of Harrisburg. I think we’re about to find how much these newspaper endorsements are worth.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email John Lewandowski, Join the discussion or Share This...

PA Business Leaders Sell Out Orie In Supreme Court Race

PA Business Leaders Sell Out Orie In Supreme Court Race

BY CHRIS FREIND

If there’s one word to describe the Pennsylvania business community, it’s consistent, as in consistently pathetic.

The state’s business leaders — and that description is a stretch— once again dropped the political ball and, in all likelihood, will be the biggest losers after next month’s state Supreme Court election —
one of the most important in decades. With the court deadlocked 3-3, the winner will shape the court’s direction for years to come. Republican Joan Orie Melvin and Democrat Jack Panella, both judges on the Superior Court, are duking it out.

Panella has outraised Orie Melvin by a wide margin, thanks to huge financial support from labor unions and trial lawyers. While Orie Melvin is certainly still a viable candidate, it’s no secret that whoever touts the largest warchest has a distinct advantage.

Why the large gap between the two? Enter the business community, or, more accurately, lack thereof.

Pennsylvania’s business leaders, for the most part, have sat on their hands, preferring the view from the sidelines, as is virtually always the case.

While Orie Melvin struggles to keep pace, Panella enjoys the nonstop support of the archenemies of business. Why?

Because when it comes to politics, the business community is lazy, incompetent, and clueless. That is a broad stroke, to be sure, for there are executives who innately understand what’s at stake (check out those in Luzerne County in northeastern PA) but courageous and politically savvy business folk are definitely the exception.

Pennsylvania business leaders make many excuses for their failures, but most common among their inane babble is that they “just want to run their companies, and don’t have time for politics.”

Two points:

1)That’s a cop-out. Make time. Organized labor and the trial lawyers do.
2)Business is governed by politics. Period. Every aspect of business is conducted in accordance with the political environment: regulations, health care, liability, taxes, etc. The list never ends.

What part of this can’t these guys understand?

Let’s make this simple.

If one candidate is strongly backed by labor and lawyers, then a business leader should support the other person, financially and otherwise. And no, it’s not beneath you to host a coffee klatch, put up a yard sign, form a political action committee, or, God forbid, stuff an envelope. Those “pedestrian” things win elections.

But despite business’ complete disregard for the political process, they are always the first to complain when something doesn’t go their way.

Which, this being Pennsylvania – home of the worst business climate in the nation – is an everyday occurrence.

Newsflash: if you bang your head against a wall nine times, you will get the same result on the tenth try.

But this incomprehensible behavior should come as no surprise.

The Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, chaired by David Cohen, one of Ed Rendell’s biggest fundraisers and closest advisers, actually thought the recent 100 per cent increase in the Philadelphia sales tax was a good thing. So much for the Chamber’s stated goal of sensible tax policy.

Where was the business community when the Fair Share Act came up for a vote not long ago (a bill that would have limited a defendant’s liability to only his share of responsibility)? Nonexistent, because they naively believed Gov. Rendell’s campaign pledge that he would sign it. Instead, he vetoed it.

Unlike business leaders, the trial lawyers didn’t need a proctologist to find their head. And guess what? They won.

We own the second highest corporate net income tax in the country. Onerous and often unnecessary regulations placed on our companies by unaccountable bureaucrats with no real-world experience stifle job growth, innovation and productivity. And instead of being phased out, our capital stock and franchise tax has found new life.

But where is the outcry regarding the state’s ever increasing taxes, which, by the way, result in companies and jobs fleeing Pennsylvania in droves? Nowhere to be heard.

And there is barely a whimper at the prospect of taxing to death those companies drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale, a blossoming industry which, if not destroyed by our politicians, will create thousands upon thousands of good-paying, long-term jobs.

The manufacturing economy is little more than a distant memory, and our hostile legal climate has increased the cost of doing business in Pennsylvania to the point that we are virtually dead last in America for job creation.

The message should be absolutely clear — elected officials will act only when these issues become ones they cannot escape, whether at debates between candidates as they run for re-election, at meetings with community leaders in their districts, visiting a coffee shop, or giving a speech to a service club.

But that won’t happen unless the attitude of business changes. And since attitude reflects leadership, don’t hold your breath.

So if Mr. Panella happens to win, watch for the business community to emerge yelling and screaming after the court upholds its first ludicrous jackpot jury award or company-killing regulation.

And when they do, I have a message for those hypocrites: Look in the mirror, and don’t let the door hit you in the derrière as you fade into oblivion.

Chris Freind, author of “Freindly Fire,” is an independent columnist and investigative reporter whose readers hail from six continents, thirty countries, and all fifty states. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email Chris Freind, Join the other 8 commenters or Share This...

National Right to Life Opposes Sotomayor

Athan Koutsiouroumbas of the PA Judicial Network passes along this letter to the members of the US Senate from National Right to Life:

National Right to Life letter of opposition to Sotomayor

Unfortunately, it doesn’t really matter now since Lindsey Graham caved. I suggest you contact the good Senator and respectfully tell him what you think of him.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

Specter & Sotomayor

I was not aware that Judge Sotomayor was a death penalty opponent. In retrospect, it’s not unsurprising.

The Pennsylvania Judicial Network is calling upon Senator Specter to question Sotomayor’s words and record.

As a former District Attorney, Senator Specter is a long-time proponent of the death penalty,” said Pennsylvania Judicial Network spokesperson Athan Koutsiouroumbas, “Judge Sotomayor opposes the death penalty.”

“Judge Sotomayor has labeled the death penalty ‘racist’ and ‘counterproductive’,” said Koutsiouroumbas, “Senator Specter must compel Judge Sotomayor to further explain her opinion which is out of step with most Americans.”

Full release after the break…

(more…)

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email AlexC, Start the discussion or Share This...

Let’s Just Let Judges and the Governor Appoint Government Officials

Written by Roberta Biros

The 2009 Primary Elections in Mercer County, Pennsylvania were not particularly exciting. In Countywide races, ALL candidates ran unopposed on their own tickets, and most ran unopposed on BOTH tickets. The results of Primary voting in countywide races determined three candidates that will run completely unopposed in November (County Controller, Jury Commissioner-D, and Jury Commissioner-R). Only one race will carry over to the November General Election . . . that being the race for County Treasurer.

This year in Mercer County we also had the delight of selecting candidates for three Magisterial Districts in our fine County. In races for District Judge, candidates had the ability to run on both Primary tickets. In most cases, they did. When the final votes were counted, the winners from the Democratic ticket and the Republican ticket in each district were the SAME candidate in all three races. In essence (and at this point), the candidates will all be running against themselves in the November General Election (District 35-2-01 Judge: Dennis Songer (D) vs. Dennis Songer (R); District 35-3-02 Judge: Neil McEwin (D) vs. Neil McEwin (R); and District 35-3-03 Judge: Brian Arthur (D) vs. Brian Arthur (R)].

[you can read a complete summary of the 2009 Primary for Mercer County HERE]

It is true that the results of the election were unexciting, and it leaves the prospect of turnout for General Election to be drastically low. However, the election process “is what it is”. It is an established procedure that is clearly outlined and enforced to ensure “a fair election process”. There are specific rules in place for “running for office” [read the document provided by the State of Pennsylvania HERE], and there is an Election Calendar that is followed to the letter by the Elections Bureau [read the full calendar as published by the State of Pennsylvania HERE]. These standards were put in place to guarantee a fair and open election process.

It seems that those in power in Mercer County feel that the election process simply isn’t important any more. According to an article in The Herald this morning [READ HERE], Mercer County President Judge Francis Fornelli wants to just skip the legal election process in Mercer County and jump ahead by simply appointing the District Judges (since they have apparently “already won” their elections). The Herald states “Fornelli has been in touch with our county’s state representatives and the county chairmen of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Fornelli is hopeful they can help push Rendell to make the appointments and lighten the heavy load on our area.”

Well then . . . why don’t we just call the election now in ALL of the races? The District Judges have already APPARENTLY won their races . . . the Controller and Jury Commissioners are running unopposed . . . and the incumbent Treasurer figures that she has this one in the bag too. Why not just let Governor Rendell call ALL of the races now and skip the “unnecessary” semantics and “worthless” gyrations and effort of a General Election completely!

Why not? Allow me to explain . . . because it isn’t for the Governor to appoint “elected officials”. That is the job of the VOTERS. According to the established procedures for elections, the “game isn’t over until the fat lady sings” . . . and I’m NOT SINGIN’! If you look closely at the election rules and calendar, there is a process in place where candidates are determined for the Republican and Democratic tickets through the Primary Election, but the FINAL decision is made in November during the General Election. Between the time of the Primary and the General Elections, changes can be made, candidates can change (through withdrawals and party appointments), and INDEPENDENT candidates have the opportunity to enter the fray. It is not until August 3rd (of this election year) that Independent candidates file their nomination papers. It is not until August 10th that candidates that don’t wish to run in November are required to withdraw their names from the General Election Ballot. It is not until September 14th (of this election year) that political parties can name replacement nominees. It is not until September 17th (of this election year) that objections can be filed against nomination certificates. Most importantly . . . it is not until November 3rd that the VOTERS get to cast their final ballots to determine who the winners of each of the races will be.

At the point that a judge (in this case, Judge Francis Fornelli) feels that it is proper and legal to circumvent the elections process and simply allow the Governor to appoint “elected officials” without the final vote and approval of the citizenry, “We the People” are no longer in charge. The last I checked, “We the People” are the ones who make that decision . . . not a judge . . . and certainly not a Governor!

I find the suggestion of such an act to be a slap in the face of the VOTERS in this County. If you are similarly concerned, voice your opinion. Don’t allow leaders in Harrisburg to appoint our “elected officials”. Comments and complaints can be forwarded to any and all of the following:

Hon. Robert D. Robbins
337 Capitol Building
Senate Box 203050
Harrisburg, PA 17120-3050
(717) 787-1322Email: rrobbins@pasen.gov

Hon. Michele Brooks
153B East Wing
PO Box 202017
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2017
(717) 783-5008
Fax: (717) 705-1948Email: mbrooks@pahousegop.com

Hon. Mark Longietti
103 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202007
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2007
(717) 772-4035
Fax: (717) 780-4785Email: MLongietti@pahouse.net

Hon. Richard R. Stevenson
155B East Wing
PO Box 202008
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2008
(717) 783-6438
Fax: (717) 705-1949
Email: rstevens@pahousegop.com

The Honorable Judge Francis J. Fornelli
President Judge
Mercer County Courthouse
North Diamond Street
Mercer, PA 16137
(724)-662-3800 ext. 2521
Fax (724)-662-7524

Governor Edward G. Rendell’s Office
225 Main Capitol Building
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
Phone: (717) 787-2500
Fax: (717) 772-8284

Mercer County Voter Registration and Election Bureau
Jeffrey W. Greenburg, Director
5 Mercer County Courthouse
Mercer, PA 16137
Telephone (724) 662-3800 or (724) 962-5711
FAX (724) 662-1530
jgreenburg@mcc.co.mercer.pa.us

.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Re: Objection to Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Matt, as you said, Obama wanted a judge with “empathy” so he picked one with “empathy”, and the Democrat-media complex is telling us how great it is to have a judge with “empathy” as the nominee.

Perhaps they should bother to read the oath of a Supreme Court Justice, which demands that the judge leave their “empathy” at the door:

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Empathy is for legislators, not judges. Judges are supposed to be automatons who apply the laws given to them by the people who we used to call “lawmakers” in Congress. That’s what Justice Clarence Thomas does, and the left HATES him for it. The left doesn’t want judges to be judges; they want judges to be political activists who can help them get their way when they can’t get it done at the ballot box or in Congress.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...

My opposition to Obama’s Supreme Court pick

Forget political philosophy – a judge should not be judged on their personal stands on policy issues.  I just as much oppose a conservative jurist who wishes to impose what s/he thinks is the way people should live their lives as I do a liberal jurist.

My opposition comes on the notion of empathy as a qualifying characteristic for a judge – any judge.  First off, empathy goes against what it means to be a judge.  The role and responsibilities of a judge are to determine if a law is constitutional or not regardless of who the litigants are – blind justice.  Judges take an oath regarding this.  We live in a country in which the law is king, not individual men or women.  We have the rule of law.  This means that the law is what the law is – it is set so that it should be applied equally to all citizens – regardless of their personal situations.  This creates equality before the law.  When there is inequality before the law, we have either tyranny or anarchy.

I’ll keep this short – I’ll share with you three definitions (all from dictionary.com) that summarize everything you need to know about why I oppose selecting a judge because they can be empathetic as their main judicial characteristic.

Empathy – Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives.

Sounds pretty subjective doesn’t it?  That’s because even though two people have the same infomation, they will not come to the same conclusion.  Their entire life leading up to that moment will be unique and carry with it a unique perspective, so the best they can do is have their own perspective on the matter.

So as not to confuse anyone, here’s another definition:

Subjective – existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.

The law isn’t subjective is it?  If the law says that murder is illegal and we define what that means, then that means that all things that fit within those parameters fall under the consequences of the law.

If the Constitution says that Congress shall not do something, that doesn’t mean that as time changes we change how we feel about it and so it automatically changes because of how we change how we feel about it does it?  There is a process for changing the Constitution.

If law is just like an opinion that can be changed based on the subjective and/or arbitrary changing beliefs of a fallible judge, then would that be closer to this:

tyranny – arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

Then again, maybe I’m way off.  Maybe our whole system of government is based on the subjective whims of fallible men and women.  Maybe there needs to be some subjectivism.  The question then becomes what arbitrary limit do we set?  And who decides?  And who gave them the authority to decide?

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email Matt Best, Start the discussion or Share This...

Miguel Estrada Wasn’t “Historic” Enough of a Latino

Drudge reminds us that the Democrats spent two years blocking Judge Miguel Estrada because “He is Hispanic”:

November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin

“The groups singled out three–Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)–as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.”

I suppose some Latinos are more historic than others.

 

Comments, compliments or complaints?

Email John Lewandowski, Start the discussion or Share This...