BCT Editorial – 5/7/07

This page was last updated on May 14, 2007.

Appointed role; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 7, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“A conservative group may help to put an end to the election of judges to Pennsylvania’s appellate courts.

“The Associated Press reports the Pennsylvania Family Institute and six Republican-backed judicial candidates from Lancaster County have filed a federal suit to allow judicial candidates to disclose their policy positions.

“The plaintiffs charged Pennsylvania’s Code of Judicial Conduct is so vague in parts that candidates will not say where they stand on the issues.

“On that point, they are right. Voters are asked to elect judges to the Commonwealth, Superior and Supreme courts as well as county courts of common pleas with very little information to go on.

“But it also is wrong to elect judges based on their opinions on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, Ten Commandments displays and other topics. Those issues were raised in a questionnaire the institute mailed to 120 candidates for state and county judgeships in the May 15 primary election. Only 19 people responded, and many of them declined to answer individual questions.

“This whole scenario is troubling. Judges are supposed to decide cases based on the law, not their opinions.”

[RWC] Unless this is an exception to the Times otherwise leftist positions, I think it’s hysterical the editorial would assert, “Judges are supposed to decide cases based on the law, not their opinions.” As a reminder, leftists generally believe laws – including the Constitution – are “living documents” whose interpretation is subject to current mores.

“The last thing Pennsylvania’s court system needs are its judicial candidates pandering to one-issue constituencies or special interest groups in order to get elected.

“It’s just one more reason to dump the present method of electing judges to the state’s top courts and appointing them instead.”

[RWC] I don’t know if the Times is naïve or is purposely trying to deceive us. Having observed the appointment process of federal judges since the beginning of the U.S., does the Times really believe “one-issue constituencies or special interest groups” have no impact on nominations and approvals?

To be clear, I don’t know if electing or appointing judges is the better approach. I do know believing appointing judges takes politics out of the process is BS.