PennPatriot Reports Voter Grumbles About Judges Seeking Retention

While standing in line to vote in his small Central PA precint, PennPatriot reports voters are still angry "that Judges chose to accept the pay raise after the state Supreme Court decision made it illegal for state lawmakers."

"The bottom line is that the people of Pennsylvania have lost faith in state government. They are frustrated by the lack of reform, the lack of property tax relief and the overall arrogance of elected leaders."

Should We Just Say No to All Judges Seeking Retention?

PACleanSweep: "PACleanSweep is urging every Pennsylvanian to go to the polls on November 6 and cast a resounding 'NO' vote on every one of these judges who accepted the pay raise."

Bill White: "Our appellate judges have made it clear that when the interests of the legislative bosses or the judges' own wallets are involved, the Pennsylvania Constitution comes in a poor second. That -- and the general level of mediocrity in our state courts -- is why I intend to vote 'no' in any retention election for a state judge. If you know enough about one of these individuals to separate the wheat from the chaff, fine, but when in doubt, kick 'em out."

Morning Call: "Our view is that while a protest against the Supreme Court, which has not been an effective check on the abuses of the General Assembly is understandable, a top-to-bottom 'no' vote is irresponsible. Displeasure with the Supreme Court shouldn't indiscriminately be translated into displeasure with the other appellate courts. Voters have a duty, hard as it is, to evaluate whether the other jurists should continue serving. Most do. Some don't."

I agree with voting "no" as a general default position. Our judges, on all levels, have forgotten that their right to sit in judgment of others comes from the people. It's not some sort of divine right bestowed upon them as superior people. But here's my problem. I've news-googled every appellate judge up for retention, and have yet to see a single article from the mainstream media that profiles any of them. Without any help, how can anyone "know enough about one of these individuals to separate the wheat from the chaff?" Instead of just telling us to vote against everyone, wouldn't it make more sense to actually inform the reader?

When the MSM refuses to supply us with the information on which we can make a meaningful decision, it's telling us to vote NO. That just opens the door for Governor Rendell to appoint another judge for every one we reject.

On the left sidebar, I have links to blogs about appellate judges up for retention. I tried to research as much as I could about each, spoke to lawyers who appear in front of them, and read ten opinions by each jurist. Yet, proud as I am of this work, these judicial summaries lack the objectivity, credibility or reach you'd find in a news account.

Justice Thomas Saylor - No!: Although Saylor strikes me as a decent man, I believe we can do better on the state's highest court. From his disingenuous dissent in the judicial payraise to his Big Brother view of government, we will suffer the loss of more individual liberties if he remains on the bench. His long residence in Harrisburg, coupled with his willing participation in judicial excesses, reveal him as an insider. Final confirmation of his allegiance to special interests comes from his campaign treasury. I'm voting NO.

Judge Joan Orie Melin - No!: Melvin might be a gifted politician, but she's not a gifted judge. Her attempt at legal intimidation could be expected from a major corporation, but a slapsuit from a sitting judge is bizarre. And her second suit over the payraise is pure grandstanding. Her money gathering, especially from lawyers, is obscene. And her contrarian opinions reveal an utter lack of compassion.

Judge John Musmanno - Yes!: Musmanno is a judge. He served a full term as a trial judge before even thinking about an appellate court. When he did seek a seat on the superior court, he attended to his judicial duties first, unlike some of his colleagues. He has consistently tackled the Superior Court's more thorny legal questions, but his opinions demonstrate that he still understands what life without a black robe is like. I will vote to retain Musmanno.

Judge Correale Stevens - Yes!: While Judge Musmanno may be the superior court's long ball hitter, Stevens is their utility player. Day in and day out, he has been a workhorse. Not the usual judicial elitist, he is responsive to the people, has conducted town halls, speaks out on issues and even answers email. His decisions are conservative, but well-reasoned. I will vote to retain Stevens.

Judge Bonnie Leadbetter - Yes!: 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.

Judge Bernard McGinley - Yes!: So long as you keep Judge McGinley away from anything to do with sports, he's a very clear and fair-minded judge. Lawyers who practice before him seem to like him. The Pa. bar makes this observation, "He treats lawyers fairly and courteously and is held in the highest regard for his legal knowledge and analytical abilities." I'll be voting to retain him, but I don't think he can count on too many votes in Eldred Borough.

Judge Doris Smith-Ribner - Yes!: Despite her individual desire for privacy, Smith-Ribner has been a judicial voice for state reform. She promotes open records, detests de facto racial segregation, refuses to go along with municipalities that abuse condemnation powers, upholds campaign finance limits and believes you have a right to know that your vote counts. It's ironic that those who promote much-needed state government reform, would advocate her ouster.

Lehigh County Bar Supports Steinberg's Retention

(ALLENTOWN, PA) On October 29th 2007, the Judicial Selection Committee of the Bar Association of Lehigh County tabulated the results of a plebiscite conducted among the members of the Bar Association with respect to the upcoming retention election of Judge Robert L. Steinberg for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County.

Of the 611 members of the Bar Association polled, 310 members cast ballots in the secret vote. The question presented to members for a "Yes" or "No" vote was: Do you favor the retention of the following as Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County? The vote for retention of the noted Judge was as follows: YES - 304. NO - 6.

Judge Baratta's Retention Campaign: Follow that Money

Campaign finance reports were due from all candidates, including judges seeking retention, on Friday. Judicial candidates must file with the Department of State.

Steve Baratta is seeking retention as a Northampton County judge. Although his office informs me he's filed with the Department of State, his paperwork does not yet appear among the 28 reports filed by candidates seeking a spot on the court of common pleas. In fact, there is no record from Baratta for any of the previous reporting periods this year.

Baratta's campaign records have, however, been filed with the local elections office. They show that, during the reporting period between May and October, he raised $26,750.00. Nearly all of this money comes from lawyers who regularly practice before him. This includes $1,000 from DA John Morganelli.

Baratta's expense report also reveals that Tom Severson, King of the Anonymous Robo Calls, is running this judicial campaign. So far, Baratta has coughed up nearly $24,000 so that Severson can do his thing.

Last Spring, Severson launched a vicious, and anonymous, smear campaign against Brian Monahan, a district judge hopeful. I find it distasteful that a sitting judge would engage the services 0f a campaign consultant who specializes in this type of dirty politics. Even Dan Corpora, who's running against Monahan, had enough common sense to turn Severson down when he offered his services at a discounted rate. It's sad to see a magisterial hopeful show more common sense than our next president judge.

Commonwealth Court Judge Doris Smith-Ribner: Most Appealing of the Appellates

I've saved the best for last. Of the seven appellate jurists seeking retention, Commonwealth Court Judge Doris A. Smith-Ribner, is the most appealing. I'll vote to retain her November 6.

Who is Doris A. Smith-Ribner?

A Democrat from Pittsburgh, Smith-Ribner was first appointed to the bench, as an Allegheny County judge, in 1984. Three years later, she was elected to the Commonwealth Court. If her retention bid succeeds, she'll have to step down in 2015 when she reaches mandatory retirement age.

In contrast to an accessible judge like Cory Stevens, Smith-Ribner likes her privacy. In fact, she actually refused to answer portions of a PBA-designed questionnaire asking her about her marriage. Beyond admitting her nuptials, "any other personal information is not relevant to my qualifications and service."

Perhaps she has good reason. Smith-Ribner's husband, Paul Ribner, is the former Philly judge who handled the controversial pretrial proceedings against Mumia Abu-Jamal. He also represented Judge Doris in a whiplash claim, where a jury awarded her just $10,000 after she spurned a $35,000 defense offer. Maybe she should sue him for malpractice.

Of course, the PBA endorses her, as they do with every retention candidate.

A Judicial Voice for Reform

More than any other judge, Smith-Ribner is a voice for reform. She is precisely the kind of judge we need on an appellate court.

Government accountability. - When the PHEEA withheld information on its spending for retreats, Smith-Ribner ordered them to disclose their spending. "The Right-to-Know Law favors public access regarding any expenditure of public funds." The ripples from that important decision, which demanded government accountability, are still being felt.

Racial equality. In an extensive review of Philadelphia's troubled public schools, Smith-Ribner found 134 segregated schools, with 90 percent or more African American or Latino students, serving the majority of Philadelphia's students. She demanded improvements in the substandard quality of education at what she labeled "racially isolated minority schools."

Campaign finance limits. Smith-Ribner Court is also the judge who upheld Philly's campaign-finance limits. In her opinion, she applauds this local law as an attempt "to change the political culture."

Condemns Abuse of Eminent Domain. Many municipalities, with a little help from the U.S. Supreme Court, have participated in "revitalization" and other goofy projects that actually end up condemning private property for private use. I can imagine someone insensitively justifying the damage inflicted as a "growing pain." In fact, Pennsylvania only gets a B- from Castle Coalition for its track record. Not Judge Smith-Ribner. In one of her opinions, she rejects such a public taking. "In short, nothing in the Constitution authorizes a taking of private property for a private use."

Supports Voting Rights Activists. Judge Smith-Ribner is the jurist who penned the opinion allowing voter rights activists, including our very own Dr. Alan Brau, to challenge the use of electronic vote-counting machines that leave no paper trail. Her opinion means voters have a state constitutional right to reliable and secure voting systems, and can challenge the use of electronic voting machines “that provide no way for Electors to know whether their votes will be recognized.” You have a right to know your vote counts.

Conclusion

Despite her individual desire for privacy, Smith-Ribner has been a judicial voice for state reform. She promotes open records, detests de facto racial segregation, refuses to go along with municipalities that abuse condemnation powers, upholds campaign finance limits and believes you have a right to know that your vote counts. It's ironic that those who promote much-needed state government reform, would advocate her ouster.

Why Justice Saylor Should Not be Retained on Pa.'s Supreme Court

PACleanSweep, a reform movement that rose from the ashes of a midnight legislative and judicial payraise, is already urging "every Pennsylvanian to go to the polls on November 6 and cast a resounding NO vote in every one of these retention races." Although this is a knee jerk reaction, a judgeship has all too often been regarded as some form of divine right. Our judges are akin to the priesthood of the middle ages, a class apart, isolated and arrogant.

Don't take my word for it. Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli says much the same thing. "If anyone tries to tell you that judges are apolitical, tell them to call me. In my 26 years as a practicing lawyer, I have learned that judges are probably the most political animals in the political and legal jungle. Not all of them, of course. But many come to their positions with the same prejudices and bias that we all have from our life experience. The donning of the black robe allows them to hide behind the law while forming their own ideas of how things should be."

On November 6, we will decide whether to retain Republican Tom Saylor on Pennsylvania's Supreme Court for another ten years. He's already in trouble. According to a Daily News poll, only 18% of the voters have decided to support him. Many voters, disenchanted by our state officials, remain undecided. The purpose of this post is to provide you with facts upon which you can decide whether Saylor deserves your vote. I can't give him mine.

What is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court?

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is our state court of "last resort," consisting of seven justices who are initially elected to ten-year terms. Their annual salary is $175,236. The justice with the most seniority is chief justice, who's paid $180,336. Justices also have an unlimited expense account for judicial bottles of beaujolais. After their initial ten year term expires, judges are retained by a simple "yes" or "no" statewide vote. And so it goes until mandatory retirement at age 70. So far, only one justice has ever lost a retention election.

Voters historically pay little attention to appellate court judges, but the supreme court ultimately decides the most important questions, from how we're taxed to school funding to who dies in the death chamber. Death penalty appeals are mandatory. In most other cases, the state's high court can simply refuse to consider a case. And most appeals are rejected.

In 2006, the state's high court handed down only 258 opinions, or 43 per justice. That's under one opinion every week! And these guys have law clerks who do most of the writing.

Administratively, the supreme court is responsible for maintaining a single, integrated judicial system. It has supervisory authority over all other state courts. It currently is computerizing court records throughout the state.

Who is Tom Saylor?

Saylor, born in 1946, is a native of Somerset County. That's the rural western Pennsylvania county where hijacked United Airlines Flight 93 crashed on 9/11. No aristocrat, the young Saylor bagged groceries at the local A&P. His dad was a bookkeeper and his mom a school board secretary. After graduating from law school, Saylor worked in the DA's office and private practice until 1982.

Since 1982, Saylor has been entrenched in Harrisburg, the land of midnight payraises. He worked for the state attorney general, and then left for private practice at a capitol law firm. In 1993, he was elected to the state superior court. Just four years later, he became a supreme. At the time of his initial election, he was "not recommended" by the Pennsylvania Bar Association evaluation committee. This time around, the high priests at the PBA give him their blessing, for whatever it's worth.

Saylor has been married to the same woman for 36 years. He has two adult children, a Baltimore school teacher and an air force pilot. His financial disclosure reports reveal his only sources of income are his salary as a supreme court justice and his Fidelity investment. Like most of us, he has a mortgage.

Saylor's Mini-Scandals

Although Saylor's roots are rural, he has been a resident and "worker" bee in the land of midnight payraises since 1982. His years in Harrisburg appear to have infected him. Some of his extrajudicial antics might make you think he's actually a state rep.

Evidence of this first surfaced back in 2005, when it was revealed that Saylor was one of six justices who spent $164,000 in taxpayer money for expenses that extended from $1,766 to frame a picture to $85 for a bottle of wine. Over a six month period, Saylor billed taxpayers for 34 carwashes for his publicly supplied car. Legal Intelligencer columnist Howard Bashman never bought Cappy's feeble "high society" justification. He felt this propensity to run up the public tab, by itself, was a good reason to vote NO.

Saylor let voters down a second time in 2005, during a bizarre incident at Harrisburg International Airport. When initially searched, he was told he couldn't carry a small, Swiss-army style, knife onto the plane, but could store it with checked luggage. So what did he do? He hid the knife inside a shoe. For that little trick, he was ultimately fined $750 and named by TalkLeft as "Stupid Criminal of the Week."

Saylor's Payraise Dissent

Saylor's supporters are quick to note he is the sole justice who dissented from the judicial and legislative payraise that the boys in Harrisburg awarded to themselves. But he is the only justice facing retention this year. His vote is no surprise. During oral arguments on the case, he kept his mouth shut. His dissent is political expedience.

In five short pages, Saylor pretty much agrees completely with the 100-page Castille majority. He only dissents because, in his view, judges' pay hikes could not legally be severed from the raises lawmakers awarded to themselves.

Dave Ralis, at the time, made this comment: "[F]or that false show of dissent, Saylor's head deserves to be the first to fall from the chopping block. He was simply trying to make himself look a little better than the rest. But when you read what Saylor actually said, he managed to make himself look worse."

Saylor's Opinions Limit Privacy and Expression Rights, and Expand State Police Power

In a review of 174 opinions published online, I see no Great Dissenter, standing up against a reckless state legislature. What I see instead is a judge who has shown a tendency to limit individual rights, while expanding the state's police power. Duquesne Law Review, referred to in Saylor's own campaign site, shares this view.

Saylor penned the majority opinion that gives a constitutional kiss to the Big Brother practice of stopping motorists at highway checkpoints. In doing so, he ignored the "cold hard facts" showing these roadblocks are a colossal waste of time. In his dissent, then Justice Nigro noted "the substantial intrusion that those checkpoints impose on the lives of law-abiding motorists, who must often wait in the backlog of traffic caused by the checkpoints even before enduring the actual stop by police once they reach the checkpoint."

Saylor has accelerated Pennsylvania's slow slide into a police state, with a concurring opinion in another case involving the warrantless recording of telephone conversations. A druggie had allowed police to tape his conversations with his supplier, and the court ruled this supplier had no reasonable expectation of privacy. To three members of the court, this was a bad call. "Today the majority holds that the Pennsylvania Constitution affords no protection against the government listening to, recording and reporting the details of our private telephone conversations. By holding that we have no expectation of privacy in the confidential messages and conversations transmitted from our telephones, it has placed the freedom of every citizen into the hands of the law enforcement authorities. . . . Following the majority's analysis to its logical conclusion, there is no constitutional precept preventing the government from tapping any individuals phone line for any reason."

A final illustration of Saylor's "Big Brother Knows Best" attitude, is demonstrated by his restrictive attitude towards our most fundamental right - free speech. In Pennsylvania, more than other states, free speech has long had a special meaning. Founder William Penn had been prosecuted in England for the "crime" of preaching to an unlawful assembly. Pennsylvania courts have broadly interpreted free expression, even when it involves nude dancing. Saylor, standing alone, would give legislative bodies more latitude in regulating speech.

Saylor Has a Mixed Record on Pennsylvanians' Right to Know

On his campaign site, Saylor claims that, time and again, he has favored the right of the public and the free press to access government documents and records. In truth, he has a mixed record. He proudly points to a decision in which he ordered the public disclosure of an audiotape made played at a preliminary hearing. But he fails to tell you he refused to sanction disclosure of a telephone call made to a 911 center, reporting a local shooting. He also denied a request from two state legislators to examine an accounting report that formed the basis of a $145 million settlement in litigation against the state.

Saylor and Citizen Access

I am astonished that Saylor actually takes credit for his logically tortured dissents in Nader and Romanelli, Green party candidates who were removed from the ballot in 2006. Nader was so clear that the majority found no need for an opinion. The Commonwealth Court had already ruled that "the signature gathering process was the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this Court."

Saylor's dissent was clearly a jab at the Commonwealth Court. Was Saylor really motivated by an altruistic desire to enhance third party ballot access? Or was he trying to help fellow Republican Rick Santorum, who was twenty points behind Bob Casey in the polls?

On other matters, Saylor has been downright draconian about citizen access to the courts. When a group of citizens took Delaware County to court, forcing it to adopt is first ever storm water management plan, he penned the opinion reversing a court order authorizing attorney fees. In an eminent domain case, he argued unsuccessfully against paying off a landowner's mortgage interest in condemned property.

Saylor and Medical Malpractice

Saylor proudly announces the endorsement of the Pennsylvania Orthopaedic Society, who loves his stance on medical liability "reform," i. e., making it more difficult for someone to recover damages against a negligent physician. I thought it was up to the legislature to make decisions like that. Silly me.

Following the Money

As of mid June, Saylor's warchest was standing tall at $65,099.83. It will get a lot bigger as the election approaches. Most of his money comes from lawyers who practice before the court, doctors who want to put a stop to medical malpractice and the pro-growth Pa Future Fund. It's a cornucopia of special interests.

Conclusion

Although Saylor strikes me as a decent man, I believe we can do better on the state's highest court. From his disingenuous dissent in the judicial payraise to his Big Brother view of government, we will suffer the loss of more individual liberties if he remains on the bench. His long residence in Harrisburg, coupled with his willing participation in judicial excesses, reveal him as an insider. Final confirmation of his allegiance to special interests comes from his campaign treasury. I'm voting NO.

PACleanSweep: Get Rid of ALL Incumbent Judges

Joe Owens isn't going to like this. He has praised Northampton County jurist Steve Baratta as "a veteran judge, an accomplished former prosecutor and longtime contributing member of the community. He deserves retention."

I'm not sure that any judge ever deserves retention. And I'm very unhappy with Baratta, primarily because he is part of a judicial branch that has become far too arrogant in Northampton County.

PACleanSweep, a reform movement that rose from the ashes of an illegal legislative payraise, is urging "every Pennsylvanian to go to the polls on November 6 and cast a resounding NO vote in every one of these retention races."

Locally, that includes Northampton County's Steve Baratta and Lehigh County's Bob Steinberg.