Ryan MacKenzie. Usually, the judiciary ignores this partisan noise. Not this time. Several jursists have responded, including the evil Justice Wecht.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Thomas G. Saylor:
“An independent judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy. Threats of removal directed against judges based upon their decisions in selected cases are an affront to judicial independence.”
Middle District of Pennsylvania Chief Judge John E. Jones III:
“This effort by some members of the Pennsylvania legislature is just the latest bid in what seems like a national trend -- threatening to impeach judges because of disagreement with their decisions. This challenge, like the others, is a direct threat to a bedrock of our constitutional democracy -- an independent judiciary. Judges need to decide cases based on their understanding of what the law requires, without worrying that they might be removed from office if political actors don’t like their decisions.
“The good news is that impeachment as retribution for decisions is almost never successful. Ever since the failed attempt to remove Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, we have operated under a norm that judicial decisions should not be a basis for legislatures to remove judges from the bench. I hope that the General Assembly as a whole appreciates the grave harm that would result from ignoring that norm.”
Justice David N. Wecht:
“In the United States of America, we do not impeach judges with whose opinions we disagree. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of mobs. When anyone, including legislators, attempts to intimidate our judges, they threaten our liberties and the rule of law. It is ironic that here in Pennsylvania, the cradle of our nation’s liberty, some would forget our history and the tradition of judicial independence that has safeguarded our people’s freedoms.”
A lot of verbage, but no mention of the reason for the impeachment action. Could it be for overstepping their authority on redistricting, or changing the law on mail-in ballots. Opinions are one thing writing law from the bench is another.
ReplyDeleteImpeachment is part of checks and balances. Judges should know this. Those who don't know this basic cornerstone of government, should be impeached.
ReplyDeleteWecht is a leftist ideologue and were it not for his father he wouldn't even be on the bench.
ReplyDeleteUnusual times call for unusual actions. The Court pushed back because the right-wing extremists are a danger to our democracy. Let's hope the voters know that, too.
ReplyDeleteWhy not do what the dems are going to do to the supreme court, add some R seats so you can get your way LOL.
ReplyDeleteNone of us would be here without our father.
ReplyDeleteBut Wecht obviously decided nothing alone. Why are they also trying to impeach whoever voted with him on whatever friggin' case(s) about which they're complaining?
ReplyDelete