What is the Commonwealth Court?
The Commonwealth Court, created in 1970, is one of Pennsylvania's two appellate level courts. It was designed to take some of the workload from the state superior court. It includes nine judges, paid $165,342 annually. President Judge Bonnie Leadbetter, elected to a five-year term in December, is paid $170,442. She and her fellow jurists hear appeals from the final orders of state agencies and even serve as a trial court for suits against state officials. This is the court that decides Sunshine Act and open records appeals, and that reviews driver suspensions and zoning matters.
Who is Bonnie Leadbetter?
When she attended law school at the University of Pittsburgh, she was the law review's managing editor. She has been married to Gary Leadbetter, a Montgomery County attorney, for thirty-six years. They have two daughters and three grandchildren.
Fresh out of law school, she worked for five years in the demanding trial world of a Philly prosecutor. From there, she spent another five years in the even more exacting federal arena as an Assistant US Attorney. After that, she gained experience in private practice as a civil litigator. She was appointed to the Commonwealth Court in 1996, and elected the following year.
Technically a Republican, it's really hard to read a political philosophy from her opinions. I personally dealt with Judge Leadbetter during some pro se litigation against the county. She treated me with the same respect and courtesy she showed to county lawyers. Moreover, she was obviously very familiar with the pleadings and positions on both sides. But I could never read her. As she explains, "A judge should evaluate each case solely on the facts and law applicable to that case, without regard to partisan politics, personal or professional friendships or whether a decision will be popular or unpopular."
Leadbetter can't be pegged
Leadbetter has published 336 written opinions online, which easily sets her apart as a judge who works.
She is the judge who, in a minority opinion, concluded that Easton should be able to fire an water treatment plan worker who was billing both Easton and another employer for work performed at the same time and on the same day. "Averring entitlement to two salaries for working in two places at the same time is dishonesty directed to both employers , and I believe either or both can fire him for willful misconduct."
From the Easton decision, you might get the impression that she's tough on public employees. But she ruled in favor of a Bethlehem police officer who claimed a disability pension as a result of mental stress suffered on the job. She even ruled in favor of a Lehigh County corrections officer accused of having a sexual tryst with a prison inmate.
The reason for these different rulings is because she really does "evaluate each case solely on the facts and law applicable to that case."
Leadbetter's most controversial decision is her judicial abolishment of "common law marriage" in Pennsylvania. Insurance companies and pension fund administrators were having a difficult time deciding who was and wasn't a common law spouse. But Leadbetter's ruling is actually based in this common law principle, first stated by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. - "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." The reasons for common law marriage -- potential unavailability of a preacher and female dependence on men -- simply no longer exist.
Conclusion
On her web site, Leadbetter makes one request. She asks voters to judge her "on what I have done and not on what others may have done." I'll be voting to retain her.
4 comments:
I'll be voting against her retention.
Please consider: Banfield v. Cortes,
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/Banfieldv.Cortes.php
where she joined in a dissenting opinion upholding many preliminary objections given by the Secretary, (Cortes) -- which would have dramatically narrowed this case against the use of several makes and models of DRE voting machines producing "no contemporaneous external paper record that would allow voters to verify that their votes were recorded accurately".
A one-issue voter?
I'll be voting YES to retain Judge Leadbetter, and would suggest that an objective review of her record of service supports a YES vote. After carefully considering their records, I'll also be voting YES for the other statewide judicial retention candidates. I think the one-issue pay raise reactionaries have a right to be angry, but they are doing a disservice to the state by encourage a blanket no vote in these retention elections.
I certainly won't support or reject a judge based on one issue. By enbdorsing every judge is just as stupid as rejecting every judge.
Saylor and Melvin have bothg persuaded me, after a review of their records, that they should not be retained. Retaining all of them is a disservice to those who really distinguish themselves.
Post a Comment