Election Day 2013

Today, Nov. 5, is Election Day 2013 in Pennsylvania. Mostly on the ballot are races for municipal offices such as county council, township commissioners and school board officers.

There is, however, a retention election for state Supreme Court justices Ron Castille and Max Baer, who cowardly ducked the photo voter ID issue in 2012. Vote no in it. Neither fellow will be able to complete another full-term, anyway, due to the mandatory 70-year-old retirement age.

In Castille’s case that particular milestone is reached on March 16.

Election Day 2013

Reject Pa Justices Tuesday

State Supreme Court Chief Justice Ron Castille and Justice Max Baer face retention elections Tuesday, Nov. 5, and both should be rejected.

Voters, in fact, should be willing to crawl over broken glass and dance on hot coals to hit the “no” button.

The specific reason for ire is their cowardice in failing to allow the common-sense photo voter ID law — overwhelmingly supported by the state’s citizens  — on the specious grounds that it needed more discussion before the 2012 presidential election. Note it is now November 2013 and the law remains on hold.

There is a general reason as well, namely that the state’s judiciary are almost universally far more inclined to listen to the power brokers who milk the tax cow for a lucrative living, hence throwing a few of them out might, just might, make them a tad more inclined to respect the people who their decisions most affect.

Another point, the mandatory retirement age for a Justice is 70 and neither man will be able to complete a full 10-year term as Castille hits that mark on March 16 and Baer turns 66 on Dec. 24. Why are the even seeking another term? Is it to squeeze out even more of their sweet salaries  — $205,415 in Castille’s case; $199,606 in Baer’s?

Castille is a Republican. Baer is a Democrat.

Reject Pa Justices Tuesday

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism — Bob Guzzardi has received the email below  from Northampton District Attorney John Morganelli concerning what appears to be an attempt to manipulate the law to extend the term of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief  Justice Ron Castille and four other Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices who will be turning 70 by invalidating the Constitutionally mandated retirement age of 70  (six of the remaining unconvicted justices will be gone in eight years under the mandatory retirment rule so there is a lot of self-interest in the mandatory retirement case as DA Morganelli points out.)

There are solid reasons to retain the mandatory retirement age, not the least of which is restraining the power of government by diluting the power of a few.

Supreme Court Justice Castille and Justice Max Baer will be seeking retention in November 2013.

Morganelli is a Democrat. He also happens to be right on this issue.

From District Attorney John Morganelli:
Pennsylvania’s Constitutional Crisis: Will Judicial Self-Interest Trump the Constitution?

Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect our constitutional form of government.  But what happens when judicial self-interest collides with the Constitution? Pennsylvania may be  on the precipice of a constitutional crisis.

In 1989 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania’s Constitution which prohibits a judge to remain in office after the age of 70. Since then,  numerous judges have  retired at 70. But recently, a number of jurists  filed lawsuits challenging the restriction.  Then, the Chief Justice, who coincidentally  turns 70 next year, announced that he would seek retention for another 10 year term on the high court even  though next year would be his last if the age restriction remains in place. Next, the eyebrows of many attorneys were raised when the Supreme Court  reached down, bypassing the lower court, and agreed to hear and expedite one of those cases. Is there  anyone who actually believes that despite the clear precedent, all these judges  suddenly woke up one morning and, independently of each other,  decided to sue?

When these actions were filed,  many lawyers questioned  “why” when similar challenges had always failed. A previous panel of the Supreme Court upheld the age restriction in the  Constitution which was approved by the people at the ballot box. In 1991, the US Supreme Court upheld a similar restriction in Missouri’s state constitution. The question is: What has changed? And, what is the rush ? Judges have been retiring for decades at 70.  Pennsylvania judges campaigned knowing their terms were limited by mandatory retirement. Most of them would not have had an opportunity to be a judge but for the age restriction which forced judges to retire and created vacancies.  Now, some want to change the rules and strike down the Constitution on the way.

Many believe that the high court wants a speedy decision  so that a potential ruling can benefit the Chief Justice and the  other 4 Justices who are turning 70 in the next few years.  All of this has fueled speculation by the legal community that the litigation may have been encouraged by a member of the Supreme  Court  itself.  Will any of the Justices recuse themselves? Or, will  the court  assert that the “Rule of Necessity” permits them to hear this case even though all of the Justices have a personal and financial interest in setting aside the prohibition? The “rule of necessity”  is  an exception to the disqualification of a judge who has  a conflict of interest. But it only applies when no other tribunal is available to hear the dispute. Here, there exists a companion  federal action which has now been stayed to allow the Supreme Court to act first and make moot the federal case.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has ordered  the lawyers to specifically  address Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Declaration of Rights  which provides in Section 26  that neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision may discriminate against any person in the exercise of any “civil right.” However, the Supreme Court previously  held that the age restriction   did not violate the Declaration of Rights Discrimination provision. It recognized that that provision was intended to restrain “government”, and that the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Rights do not restrain the power of the people themselves as expressed in the Constitution. Gondelman v. Commonwealth 554 A2d 896 (1989). This provision was intended to prevent “government” from transgressing individuals’ basic “civil rights”. The US Supreme Court in 1991 settled the question that being a judge is not a fundamental right. Gregory v. Ashcroft  501 US 454. Nevertheless,  the Supreme Court now may be  poised to overrule years of precedent by proclaiming that the age restriction is inconsistent with the discrimination clause thus allowing them to get what they want, trample on the Constitution,  and  at the same time maintain that they are actually upholding the constitution.

It appears imprudent  for the Supreme Court to hear this case. This court has been tarnished by the recent conviction of one of the Justices. The Pennsylvania  judiciary in general has been harmed by the  “Kids for Cash” scandal, the Philadelphia Traffic Court report as well as other matters.  The integrity of our courts and of the  judges who sit on them is fundamental to our  system. Taking this case and setting aside the Constitution will be harmful. The  Justices sit at the pinnacle of power, and it is understandable how some may not want to relinquish it.  Like it or not, our Constitution, passed  by the people sets age limits on the ability to exercise that power.  For those who believe that the age restriction is subject to fair debate, the proper method is to amend Pennsylvania’ s Constitution through  the process established: approval by two consecutive  sessions of the legislature, and approval of the people at the ballot box. Setting aside Pennsylvania’s Constitution via judicial fiat by Justices with a personal and financial interest in the outcome is dangerous and wrong.  Only time will tell whether self-interest trumps the Constitution.

John M. Morganelli is the District Attorney of Northampton County and Past President of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. He was the  Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania Attorney General in 2008.


John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism


Referral Fees Supreme Court Corruption

Referral Fees Supreme Court Corruption — Activist Bob Guzzardi notes that the $821,000 referral fee paid to lawyer Lise Rapaport which stemmed from a multimillion-dollar medical malpractice settlement is more money than 99.99 percent of the people in Pennsylvania earn in a year.

Ms. Rapaport has received 17 other such fees for connecting law firms with clients.

Golly, what could make her so valuable?

That she is the wife and personal assistant to state Supreme Court Justice Seamus P. McCaffery is just a coincidence one is sure.

McCaffery is a Democrat, btw, just looking out for the little guy as usual.


Referral Fees Supreme Court Corruption

Referral Fees Supreme Court Corruption


Insurgents Fall In GOP State Races; Dem Battle Close

The Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judges who actively sought Tea Party support fell handily  to the endorsed candidates in the Republican Primary state judicial races.

With 97 percent of the returns tallied, Paula Patrick was trailing Harrisburg attorney Vic Stabile  361,772 votes  to 190,231 in the Superior Court race, while Paul Panepinto had 167,455 votes to Anne Covey’s 386,751 in the Commonwealth Court race.

The 15-member Superior Court is the intermediate appellate court for civil and criminal cases from county Common Pleas Courts. The nine-member Commonwealth Court is the
intermediate appellate court for issues involving taxation, banking,
insurance, utility regulation, eminent domain, election, labor
practices, elections, Department of Transportation matters, and liquor

On the Democrat side, party-endorsed Kathryn Boockvar, a private attorney known for her work with activist groups, was leading Barbara Behrend Ernsberger 300,389 votes to 297,635 to be the Commonwealth Court candidate.

On some local notes, incumbent Springfield (Delco) 6th Ward Commissioner Bob Layden appears to have held off a challenge from former commissioner Jim Devenney, who resigned after a minor scandal involving family memberships to the township swim club. The unofficial tally is 437 to 396.

And Tea Party activists Lisa Esler and John Dougherty 3rd will be on both party ballots in this November’s Penn Delco School Board race. Elections are being held for five seats. Cross filing is allowed in Pennsylvania school board races which means that in this fall’s race ticket totals will be combined to determine the winners.

Mrs. Esler had the most votes of six candidates on the Democrat side with 424, and had the third highest tally out of seven candidates on the GOP side with 1,239.

Dougherty had the most votes on the GOP side with 1,534 and the second highest total on the Democrat side with 377.

The candidates who won on both tickets — additionally Kevin Tinsley and Kimberly Robinson — while having a significant advantage do not have a guaranteed victory. Lewis Boughner appears to have failed to win on the Democrat ticket while James S. Porter 2nd appears to have failed to win on the Republican one, so there will be six people seeking five seats. It is in the realm of possibility that a person appearing on just one ballot will be among the top five votegetters.

In Newtown, embattled supervisor Linda Houldin was crushed 1,732 votes to 480 votes  in her GOP primary by former Marple Newtown School Director Edward C. Partridge. Partridge had sought Tea Party support.

Primary Election Day 2011 In Pa.

Pennsylvania voters will cast ballots tomorrow, May 17, to determine the candidates in November for municipal, school board and judicial elections.

The state defines municipalities as counties, cities, boroughs and townships.

Turnout in these election is usually low with the turnout in the primary usually being even lower. The only state-wide races involve the Supreme Court, Commonwealth Court and Superior Court.

Seeking the Republican nomination to Superior Court  — a 15-member body that is the intermediate appellate court for civil and criminal cases from county Common Pleas Courts — are Vic Stabile and Paula Patrick.

Stabile, who has been with the law firm Dilworth Paxon LLP since 1987 and has been a managing partner since 1992, is the endorsed candidate. He has never served on the bench.

Ms. Patrick, an African-American, is a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge who is fearlessly taking on the establishment by seeking out the support of Tea Party groups.
She unabashedly told the Delaware County Patriots on March 24 that she is   pro life, pro Second Amendment, pro traditional marriage and a Born Again Christian.

Democrat David Wecht is uncontested in the Democrat Superior Court race.

Seeking the Republican nomination to Commonwealth Court — a nine-member body that is the intermediate appellate court for issues involving taxation, banking, insurance, utility regulation, eminent domain, election, labor practices, elections, Department of Transportation matters, and liquor licenses — are Paul P. Panepinto and Anne Covey.

Ms. Covey is the endorsed candidate and, like Stabile, is a private attorney who never served on the bench.

Panepinto, like Ms. Patrick, is a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court judge who is seeking Tea Party support and touting his pro-life, pro-Second Amendment views.

Ms. Covey is also touting her pro life beliefs and has endorsements from the major pro-life groups.

Facing off on the Democrat ticket are Kathryn Boockvar and Barbara Ernsberger. Both are private attorneys. Ms. Boockvar is the endorsed candidate and has a history of working with legal activist groups.

Up for retention elections this November are:

Supreme Court Justice J. Michael Eakin, who won election to the court in 2001 as a Republican and is known for writing decisions in rhyming verse. To his credit, his biggest critics of this practice have been former Supreme Court colleagues Stephen A. Zappala and the late Ralph Cappy, neither of whom was known as shining examples of jurisprudence.

Superior Court Judge John T. Bender, who won as a Republican in 2001

Superior Court Judge Mary Jane Bowes, who won as a Republican in 2001.

Commonwealth Court Judge Renee Cohn Jubelirer, who won as a Republican in 2001. She is the wife of former State Sen. Majority Leader Robert Jubelirer, who was turned out of office in his party’s primary in 2006 due to the pay raise scandal.

Commonwealth Court Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt, who won as a Republican in 2001

Robert “Robin” Simpson, who won as a Republican in 2001.

On a local note, Lisa Esler  of the Delaware County Patriots is seeking a seat on the Penn-Delco School Board.