Local Government TV

Tuesday, April 09, 2013

Why Did Nine Judges Suddenly Challenge Mandatory Retirement Age?

Pennsylvania's judiciary is a mess. We have the  Kids For Cash scandal, in which two Luzerne County judges accepted kickbacks for sending children to privately-run detention facilities. More recently, Justice Joan Orie Melvin was convicted of political corruption. She has finally stepped down. But now another Justice, Seamus McCaffrey, is in hot water, or at least he should be. He not only employs his wife as his chief legal aide, but has allowed her to accept $821,000 in "referral" fees to connect clients with law firms that just happen to appear in front of her hubbie. There is even some hint that McCaffery's wife is involved in Philadelphia's ticket-fixing scandal.

Given this recent history, you'd think our judges would want to be above scrutiny. But instead, it certainly appears they are engaged in a conspiracy to lengthen their terms beyond the mandatory retirement age of 70.

There's no such thing a a constitutional right to be a judge. The law on this is settled, on both the federal and state level. Yet for some reason, a group of judges has suddenly decided, out of the blue, to challenge the mandatory retirement. And amazingly, the state Supremes have already granted "extraordinary relief" and assumed jurisdiction, with a decision expected sometime this Summer.

What gives?

The answer to this is very clear, and is contained in Northampton County DA John Morganelli's Op-Ed below, which is currently being picked up by newspapers throughout the state.

Here's the lowdown. Chief Justice Ron Castille, who incidentally hates to be criticized, is seeking retention this year, but turns 70 next year. Why would he run for retention if he knows he can only serve one year? In fact, no less than four Supremes will top out at 70 in the next five years. They want to keep their jobs. So various judges have reportedly been approached at judicial conferences, where it has been suggested or hinted that they might want to file suit to invalidate the retirement age.

And that's exactly what is happening. Altogether, nine judges have come out of the woodwork to suddenly challenge this law. I could see one or two. But nine? That's too many to be a coincidence.

Let's look at these judges. Four of them - John W. Herron, Sandra Mazer Moss, Joseph D. O’Keefe and Benjamin Lerner - just happen to be from Philly, where Castille was DA. Two of them, John Driscoll and former Bucks DA Alan Rubenstein, are Castille buds. Judge Tilson is from nearby Montgomery County. The only two jurists with no real ties to Castille are Northampton County's Leonard Zito and Fayette County's Gerald Solomon.

Though the Supremes have a direct pecuniary interest in this matter, they also get to decide. Doctrine of necessity, they'll say. If  they don't decide, nobody can.

This is a real insult to all the people out there throughout the state who are running for judge and spending all kinds of money.

John Morganelli, who is after all a prosecutor and can smell bullshit a mile away, can smell what the Ron is cookin'. Here is what he has to say.

11 comments:

  1. Bernie,

    Always vote No on retention.

    Scott Armstrong

    ReplyDelete
  2. only thing i've ever agreed with armstrong on...

    ReplyDelete
  3. As long as justices are subject to the political process in Pa. our voices can be expressed in no votes on retention when justices overreach in a self-serving effort to seize power not vested in them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Isn't the obvious and democratic solution to vote no on retention of the Chief Justice? Sends the message clearly: self interest is the last thing we want to see from judges.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Zito, a Republican, was appointed by Rendell on the grounds that he was limited due to his age, iirc

    ReplyDelete
  6. JUstice Castille and his fellow judges knew the retirement age (70)was a Constitutional rule, and now they would overthow the constitution for their own personal resons. I beleive any jusge who is a sitting supreme (with a year or so of 70) and any judge who is listed on the plaintiffs list should not be retained. VOTE NO RETENTION on these judges, the bench is no place for aging egocentrics.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I would agree that Castille does not belong on the bench. Nor does McCaffrey, whom I supported.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Isn't this a great Country we live in. You can have Altzheimers and be president when you're in your seventies,I.E. Ron Reagan, serve in the congress into your nineties and if you live long enough even when you're a hundred, but you can't be a judge when you're seventy. Time to change the Constitution. I want to elect my Judges (no retention and no life long appointments) and when they do poorly, I will cast my vote to remove them from the bench. Life long appointments will be drawn on party lines just like the Supreme Court. No life long appointments by a independent body of so called "experts". Those experts need to be appointed by someone and they are usually "D's or R's"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello! I was curious to
    know if setting up a blog such your own: http://www.blogger.
    com/comment.g?blogID=9299655&postID=4131497341192409304
    is hard to do for
    unskilled people? I have been hoping to set up my own website for
    a while now but have been turned off
    mainly because I've always assumed it demanded tons
    of work. What do you think? Thank you

    Here is my website ... Click here

    ReplyDelete
  10. My spouse and I absolutely love your blog and find the majority of your post's to be precisely what I'm looking for.

    Does one offer guest writers to write content for you personally?

    I wouldn't mind creating a post or elaborating on a number of the subjects you write related to here. Again, awesome web log!

    My web-site ... make money fast

    ReplyDelete
  11. Term limits should be in effect for ALL judges from the county level to the US Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete

You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.