So I notice no talk about this here yet but the accusations in the League of Women Voter's suit against former PA Supreme Court Justice Ralph Cappy are startling if true. The suit accuses Cappy of a jaw-droppingly cavalier attitude towards the separation between the state legislature and the PA Supremes. Essentially they say that Cappy negotiated in no uncertain terms, trading pay raises for the judiciary, including himself, in trade for finding Act 71, the gaming legislation, constitutional.

Quoting John Baer's handy summary from the Daily News:

The League of Women Voters, in a 17-page federal civil action, alleges that in its challenge to the state's 2004 gambling law, its right to due process was violated by a too-cozy, inappropriate relationship between the Legislature and the state judiciary.

The suit quotes an incumbent (but unnamed) state senator as saying that the Supreme Court struck a deal with the Legislature in 2005 for a big pay raise for judges in exchange for upholding the constitutionality of the gambling law - and suggests that bargaining on other issues is part of the state's judicial culture. It refers to such bargaining as secret "brass-knuckles negotiations."

It quotes the state's then-chief justice, Ralph Cappy (though without direct attribution), as telling members of one of the four legislative caucuses that he "needed the pay raise to secure the votes of Republican justices" on cases important to lawmakers.

In other words, good old-fashioned insider trading.

Cappy, now in private law practice in Pittsburgh, declined to talk directly about the allegation, but released a statement yesterday calling the charge "preposterous" and saying, "I intend to defend myself vigorously in court."

The Legislature passed gambling in July 2004. The league was party to a constitutional challenge to the law in February 2005. The Supreme Court upheld the law on June 22, 2005. And lawmakers passed a raise for all the judges and themselves on July 7, 2005.

Under heavy public pressure, lawmakers later rescinded their raises. Judges kept theirs.

The new suit also tags the current chief justice, Ron Castille.

It says that an unnamed House member ran into Castille in the Golden Sheaf restaurant at the Harrisburg Hilton during the pay-raise talks, asked about the gambling case before the court ruled on it and said that Castille had offered a "wink and a nod," interpreted by the lawmaker to mean that the gambling law would be upheld.

The actual suit is even more lurid in details, though as pointed out above contains an awful lot of accusations from unnamed sources.

What to make of this?