Impeachment Try Of Pennsylvania Judge Was Met With Silence

Impeachment Try Of Pennsylvania Judge Was Met With Silence — The deathly silence surrounding a bill sponsored by 34 members of the Pennsylvania House to impeach a Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge is just another example of corrupt state of the media that goes out of its way to keep the public in the dark.

HR1044 was introduced, Oct. 6, 2020, and called for the removal of Justice David N. Wecht. This had nothing to do with the rulings concerning the election which was then a month away, but rather the court’s 2018 usurpation of the well-spelled-out powers of the state legislature concerning the makeup of congressional districts.

Why was Wecht put in the crosshairs rather than all five judges — all Democrats — who voted for it?

Because Wecht made numerous statements criticizing the makeup of the districts prior to the case.

“Everybody in this room should be angry about how gerrymandered we are…Understand, sitting here in the city of Pittsburgh, your vote is diluted. Your power is taken away from you,” he said at a meeting of the League of Women Voters.

That’s a fine thing for a politician to say but a big no no for a judge if he plans on making a ruling on the matter.

The state’s Code of Judicial Conduct is unambiguous: A judge “shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned when “[t]he judge, while a judge or judicial candidate, has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or controversy.”

Wecht knew it.

And dismissed it.

That type of arrogance is grounds enough to impeach him.

But Wecht, of course, was protected by the crony media as he was on the right side of things as they saw it, so the public heard little of the attempt and what little it heard was spun to make Wecht the good guy.

The ruling allowed three districts in the state to flip from R to D and was a significant reason the Democrats won the House in 2018.

Someone might respond that the congressional districts were obscenely gerrymanded before the ruling and that no one likes gerrymandering.

We will point out that the map submitted by the Republicans in response to the court order actually had fewer splits — less gerrymandering — than the one drawn by the court.

And we are certain beyond doubt that the Democrats would not have ruled the way they did if the gerrymandering favored their side.

Pennsylvania’s judiciary is among the most corrupt in the nation. The first step in solving the problem is to call the corruption out.

If you still need your eyes opened check out Lawyers, Judges and Journalists: The Corrupt and the Corruptors by the late Bob Surrick.

Impeachment Try Of Pennsylvania Judge Was Met With Silence
Impeachment Try Of Pennsylvania Judge Was Met With Silence

One thought on “Impeachment Try Of Pennsylvania Judge Was Met With Silence”

  1. Interesting that Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts are sponsoring an Essay Contest seeking for law students to craft ideas to use on social media to try and gain the public’s confidence in the judiciary.
    Why not open the Essay Contest to the public or court litigants who lost confidence in the judiciary due to their experiences proving the judiciary is at “war” with the Constitution, supersedes legislated laws, and doesn’t comply with their own adopted Rule or the Judicial Canons?
    The judiciary has no shame operating with obvious appearance of quid pro quo by accepting “in-kind” gifts. There’s no denying that the judiciary often rules based on bias, prejudice and partiality rather than Rule by Law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.