There must be something in that Schuylkill River water they drink in Philly. As of this morning, two local judges, Common Pleas Judge Albert W. Sheppard, and Philadelphia Orphans Court Judge John W. Herron have indicated their displeasure at the repeal of their raises last month by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. A third member of the legal profession in Philadelphia, Attorney Alan W. Feldman, newly installed Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, has promised to change the law relating to the voters’ right to retain judges on the bench.
These three gents give new meaning to the epithet Philadelphia lawyer. Attorney Feldman, founder of his own prestigious Philadelphia law firm, has vowed to remove the selection/retention of judges from the ignorant and malicious hands of the voters. In an article tucked away nicely in the Business section of the Philadelphia Inquirer today, reporter Reid Kanaley writes about Feldman:
On the merit-selection issue, Feldman said the Nigro case showed that judges needed to be insulated from "political repercussions."
Nigro, a former Philadelphia Common Pleas judge, suffered an unprecedented loss in the yes/no vote for retention to the Supreme Court. He had been targeted by groups angry over the pay raises approved last summer by state legislators for themselves, judges, and some senior executive branch officials.
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.
Feldman, 54, of Bala Cynwyd, is a Philadelphia native, and a graduate of Central High School, Temple University and Temple's law school. His firm specializes in personal-injury, product-liability, medical-malpractice, and other civil litigation.
The arrogance, the sheer “let them eat cake” attitude here is absolutely palpable. For someone coming into office as the head of one of the most prestigious bar associations in the country, this litigation lawyer simply has no clue about the fundamental rights of a citizen in a democracy. Allow me to spell it out for him: Justice Nigro was turned out of office to send a number of messages from the voters of Pennsylvania:
- The voters were angry at the size of the pay raise and how it was passed.
- The voters became increasingly angry at the recalcitrance of the legislature to repeal the pay raise.
- The voters were angry at apparent unethical interference by Chief Justice Ralph Cappy in giving legal advice to legislative leadership during passage of the pay raise.
- The voters were angry at the magnificent and expensive perks taken by the justices of the state Supreme Court, particularly Justice Nigro.
- Were it not for last minute public appeals by former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, we’d be talking about Justice Sandra Newman now, as well.
Would someone please remind Chancellor Feldman that notwithstanding the wishes of a great many Pennsylvanians of all stripes, Philadelphia is still a part of Pennsylvania! Remind him also that government in Pennsylvania as a plutocracy is about to come to an end. Perhaps, in his expert legal opinion, he would recommend litigation by concerned citizens as the avenue to take to gain relief from the supposed injustices of the pay raise? Perhaps his firm could supply the attorneys! You don’t suppose he was thinking the pay raises were justified, do you? And he’s the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association?
Judge Sheppard is filing his lawsuit in the State Supreme Court (wait…wasn’t it the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court who gave legal advice to the legislative leadership when they were passing the pay raise about 2 AM one night early last July?) Ahem…this really is silly. Hizzoner wants the body of justices that was directly involved in advising the General Assembly in the passage of the pay raise, to rule on, and overturn the voter-forced appeal of that pay raise?
Really?
That’s what it says in an article, also in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, by Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau Reporter Amy Worden. She writes:
At the time of the repeal vote last month, many lawmakers said lawsuits were inevitable given the question over the legislature's ability to control judges' salaries. Some lawmakers predicted that after the extraordinary Election Day defeat of Supreme Court Justice Russell M. Nigro, judges would be loath to challenge the repeal.
The lawsuit says the bill subjects the judiciary to the "whims of the legislature," thereby compromising the constitution. The "act was not undertaken in the best interests of Pennsylvania, but rather solely for the internal concerns and paranoia of the legislature."
Additionally, another suit, filed by Philadelphia Orphans’ Court Judge John W. Herron will be filed today. Perhaps these two esteemed members of the bench should take a step back, and draw a deep breath, and understand that it wasn’t the legislature that repealed that raise, it was the voters. The legislature stalled on it until after the election and the removal of Justice Nigro, and near removal of Justice Newman, so they could measure the strength of voter anger. [Blogger note: State Representative Steven Maitland (R-Adams) claims, "The legislature did not delay the repeal of the pay raise until after the election in order to measure the depth of the voters' feelings on the issue. The truth is we just couldn't get it done any faster!" Perceptions are important in politics. Had the legislature wanted to, they could have remained in session long enough to repeal the raise. After all, they stayed long enough to pass the raise!] Those two justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were specifically targeted by angry voters across the state, in spite of the lack of such feeling among jaded voters in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
And as for Chancellor Feldman, his civics lesson needs to be expanded. Those justices of the Supreme Court ARE appointed, and then must run for retention every ten years. It doesn’t really require much of a campaign war chest. They do not have opponents. They run on their record. Hard to imagine anything wrong with that, eh? Or, does Chancellor Feldman feel that a Supreme Court Justice’s record is something for which they should not be held accountable?
The voters of Pennsylvania have spoken. They will continue to speak next May, and again next November. Perhaps these three members of the legal profession ought to fade away and allow other, less arrogant, less hubris-filled, more politically aware people to take their places. Perhaps Chancellor Feldman should go back to suing doctors for malpractice, and someone else should be Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association.
THE CENTRIST
"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs. " Albert Einstein
No comments:
Post a Comment