- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
- You know, let's not even worry about the City Commissioners office messing up voter registration processing
- Bold ideas to fix the budget
- Mayor Nutter's Town Hall Meeting Schedule
- City Releases Library Information to City Council
- Size of Philadelphia government?
Reject the Judges, Restore the Constitution
On November 6, all Pennsylvania voters will have a critical decision to make regarding the state's judiciary system. Statewide, there are seven appellate court judges on the ballot for retention. 53 Common Pleas judges scattered across the state and seven local judges in Philadelphia are up for retention as well. These judges have no opponents and are asking voters for an extension of their tenure. It's a simple 'yes' or 'no' question.
PACleanSweep is recommending a resounding 'NO' vote in every one of these races. Our reasoning follows the logic provided by Superior Court President Judge Kate Ford Elliot in an interview on Pittsburgh's KDKA-TV on September 11.
"What I would hope, though, is that the citizens will judge the records of the judges who are standing for retention this year and determine whether they have faithfully fulfilled their oath of office," Judge Ford Elliot said.
Their oath of office is as follows: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.
The Pennsylvania Bar Association and other judicial allies will attempt to use all manner of scare tactics to tempt voters into retaining these judges. Before citizens allow them to do that, however, they should read the oath of office again and ask themselves: Which comes first - fidelity to the Constitution or the duties of the office? At the very least, the two are equal and neither can stand without the other.
Courtesy of dastardly deeds by the Supreme Court, the General Assembly and the Governor over the last two years, a mockery has been made of your Constitution. Every judge in the Commonwealth collected a hefty pay raise as a result. By doing so, they inferred we should not live under the rule of law, but under the rule of men.
PACleanSweep takes great offense to this notion - and so should all Pennsylvanians. Our Commonwealth and our nation were founded on the principle of the rule of law. Our forebears cast aside the rule of men to develop a system where the people themselves - not judges, lawmakers or administrators - are sovereign.
To put the judicial pay raise in terms more Pennsylvanians will understand, consider this scenario: Suppose someone you know robbed a bank. Suppose you know they robbed the bank. Would you accept any of the loot? We believe most Pennsylvanians would call the authorities and say, "I know who robbed the bank and I'll testify against them."
During the entire pay raise fiasco of 2005, no judge came forward in support, obedience or defense of the Constitution. The only judges who did speak out, spoke only to their desire to keep the loot after the legislature repealed the pay raise. The Supreme Court performed an astounding feat of legal gymnastics in 2006 to keep the loot in the hands of all judges. Duquesne University Law School professor Bruce Ledewitz more aptly called it a "judicial swindle."
Two judges up for retention this year did speak out against the Supreme Court ruling, but failed to return the loot to the people of this Commonwealth. We no longer hear their words because their actions speak so loudly. PACleanSweep challenges them to put some meaning behind their words. If they are not willing to do that, then we challenge them - and all other retention candidates - to stand up and proudly delineate the constitutionality of their pay raise from start to finish.
Evicting 67 judges from office will not be the end of the world - it will be the beginning of change. 25 of these judges, including five of the seven statewide candidates, cannot even serve the entire term they seek due to Pennsylvania's mandatory retirement age. There will be no shortage of qualified candidates to fill the vacancies. Perhaps those candidates will support, obey and defend your Constitution.
Judges may decide the law, but We the People decide who the judges are. Do not be afraid. Reject the judges. Restore the Constitution. Vote 'NO' on November 6.
We invite you to learn more at the PACleanSweep website.











Russ-ian to Judgement.
The Philadelphia Common Pleas Judges up for retention this November 6th, represent some of the best on the CP bench.
Judges Mark Bernstein, Gary DiVito, John Herron, President Judge Darnell Jones, Barbara Joseph, Shelly New, Rosalyn Robinson, Pete Rogers, Teresa Sarmina and Ed Summers, are well qualified. experienced and honest judges. They have earned retention.
To argue that all PA Judges should be thrown out of office on the say so of some self important resident of Central Pennsylvania is absurd. Each judge should be judged on their own records. The records of the aforementioned jurists are excellent.
City Councilman Jim Kenney
311 For Philly
Some judges need to go, but not all
Actually, I think Judge Rosalyn Robinson is a horrible judge. I've been in front of her several times in criminal court, as well as family court some years ago. I wouldn't lose a day of sleep if she didn't get retained.
However, I must agree with you, Councilman, on your general point. It is silly to vote "NO" on every judge up for retention without knowing their records. I also think that every other judge that you listed are excellent judges. My favorites are Jones, Sarmina, and Summers.
"their record"
includes fidelity to the Constitution. You and I both deserve a government which abides by the rules We the People have laid out for it. Will you settle for less?
I'm not willing to give up my sovereign status - and I'm not willing to sacrifice yours either. I'm advocating a 'no' vote for your sake, for my sake, and for the sake of my nieces and nephews.
Not on my say so
I'll ignore the personal jabs, Mr. Kenny, and just inform you that our campaign reflects the overwhelming opinion of the over 1500 folks who responded to this poll. You are invited to participate in all polls we conduct in the future - we do 'em all the time.
And I'll add that you might want to consider reading Reason #10 of our Top Ten Reasons to Vote 'No'. Perhaps you could make heads or tails out of how they figure that extra salary they got was constitutional.
Better yet, let one of them explain it. I'd love to hear that...
Russ, you're argument is flawed
The judges that Councilman Kenny named had absolutely nothing to do with the pay raise. They are just rank and file common pleas jugdes.
You have every right to be upset about the pay raise. But to vote "NO" on retaining every judge in PA (whether or not they were involved with the pay raise) is just ridiculous.
Did they take the money?
Or did they quietly stand by while the Supreme Court ripped the Constitution to shreds to pad their bank accounts? It's not like they didn't know this was going on. What about their oath to "support, obey and defend" the Constitution?
If someone you know robbed a bank and offered you part of the loot, would you accept it? I wouldn't. In fact, I'd call the cops and say, "I know who robbed the bank and I'm willing to testify against them."
I believe most Pennsylvanians are decent, honest people who would do the right thing. Why does wearing a black robe create an exception to this basic code of conduct?
Russ, I believe most of the
Russ, I believe most of the judges you talked about are decent, honest people who do the right thing already.
While I think the payraise was a stupid idea, done in a stupid way, I can promise you that as someone who knows a bit about the site and its readers, and even more about its mission, the idea that we are going to go after public servants like Darnell Jones is an absolute joke.
Sorry, Dan
"I believe most of the judges you talked about are decent, honest people who do the right thing already."
They've participated in making a mockery of my Constitution. Yours, too. Is that OK with you? Even if you're not behind this effort, I'll still get your back when they shred the parts of the document you favor.
Let's let the readers decide for themselves.
Russ, I'm glad you are
Russ, I'm glad you are posting because YPP doesn't have enough self-righteous people writing. Keep up that hyperbole!
---
Check out my blog!
C'mon Ben
I know you and I disagree on many policy issues, but do we really disagree on whether the Constitution should be followed? I'd think this is something everyone cares about - regardless of ideology.
If you disagree on the constitutional logic behind our 'Vote NO' campaign, tell us why. If you don't care about the Constitution at all, then just say so.
No need to bash anyone - but I will advise you that I've been bashed by the best and it hasn't stopped me yet. :)