By William W. Lawrence Sr
Ur kag omz’f dqmp, uf’e sauzs fa nq tmdp fa dqmxulq pdqmye.
Naawqd F. Imetuzsfaz
Answer to yesterday’s puzzle: Free men have arms; slaves do not.
William Blackstone
News, Entertainment, Enlightenment
By William W. Lawrence Sr
Ur kag omz’f dqmp, uf’e sauzs fa nq tmdp fa dqmxulq pdqmye.
Naawqd F. Imetuzsfaz
Answer to yesterday’s puzzle: Free men have arms; slaves do not.
William Blackstone
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.
There is one slot machine in Las Vegas for every eight inhabitants!
–William W. Lawrence Sr.
By William W. Lawrence Sr
Pboo wox rkfo kbwc; cvkfoc ny xyd.
Gsvvskw Lvkmucdyxo
Answer to yesterday’s puzzle: Humility comes before honor
–Proverbs
One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside all people.
He said, “My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’ inside us all.
“One is Evil. It is anger, envy jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
“The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.”
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf wins?”
The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”
Hat tip Bob Graves of Berwyn.
Two years ago today, April 7, 2011, Wellington Oliveira used a .38 revolver and a .32 revolver to murder 12 children and wound 12 others at Tasso da Silveira Municipal School in Rio de Janerio.
Brazil has strict gun control making it very difficult for law-abiding people to own or carry a firearm.
Gun control does not stop evil people. It does stop good people from stopping the evil of evil people.
By William W. Lawrence Sr
Pcuqtqbg kwuma jmnwzm pwvwz
Xzwdmzja
Answer to yesterday’s puzzle: What is the use being a big man if you are wrong?
John Dos Passos
Jeremy Irons Gay Marriage Open Debate — Actor Jeremy Irons mused some concerns about gay marriage that actually got to the heart of the issue, namely money.
“I mean tax-wise it’s an interesting one, because you see, could a father not marry his son?” Irons said.
Steve Colbert, who is a major source of news for Democrats and low-information types immediately missed the point and began merciless mocking.
Mocking is about the only response supporters of gay marriage have. That and twisting the motivations of opponents.
Few, and nobody serious, wants to prohibit ceremonies. They are private. matters of speech and protected by the First Amendment.
The issue is the money part. For instance, if a father marries his son, as Irons noted, the son escapes paying inheritance taxes. He might even be eligible for other tax breaks, health coverage and certain survivor benefits not originally expected to go to adult children.
Now, some may — like Colbert — say that a father marrying his son is silly and unfair and violates the spirit of this compassionate policy. So explain the rational as to why two unrelated men should be allowed these breaks?
With a widow whose work consisted of bearing and raising children rather than pulling in an income it should be obvious as to why she should get them but clueless and callous one-percenters — like Colbert — have the ability to insulate themselves, at least for the short term, from the consequences of the policies they push. They fail to comprehend the very good reasons why social norms and traditions developed. And except for sneers and mocking, they will be unable to provide a good answer as to why two gay men should be allowed the civil benefits bestowed upon a man and woman who have joined together for the serious and difficult job of creating the future.
Some ribbon worms will eat themselves if they can’t find any food!
–William W. Lawrence
A Founders Forum Dinner and Reception with Tim Tebow will be held 5:30 p.m., April 15 at Calvary Church, Souderton Bucks County.
It is sponsored by the Plumstead Christian School.
For information and tickets, visit https://pcs.thundertix.com/events
or call 215-766-8073.
Hat tip Independence Hall Tea Party Association.