Posted on 11/08/2005 7:10:23 AM PST by Tribune7
For the two Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices up for re-election this year, the foe is public perception, not a candidate of the opposition party.
Justices Russell M. Nigro and Sandra Schultz Newman are fighting for new 10-year terms because of rising anger toward the court, stirred largely by a pay raise that state lawmakers gave themselves in the middle of the night last summer.
(snip)
"There is a serious disconnect in Pennsylvania between our elected officials" and the people, said Russ Diamond, chairman of PACleanSweep, a political action committee committed to ousting every incumbent in the Legislature.
Citizen activists and radio talk-show hosts who have led the rebellion against the pay-raise law have been clamoring in recent days for "no" votes against Nigro and Newman . . .
If either justice is denied a second term, it will be the first time in Pennsylvania history that a member of the Supreme Court has been ousted through the usually low-profile, yes-or-no voting process.
The Legislature approved the pay-raise bill at 2 a.m. July 7 without debate or public notice. The bill boosted lawmakers' pay by 16 percent to 54 percent, pushing the base legislative salary to $81,050 . . .
The pay-raise law - which also included increases of 11 percent to 15 percent for the Supreme Court justices and 1,000 other judges . . ..
As Election Day neared, both justices began airing campaign ads, with Nigro boasting in his TV spots that he has "stood up to the politicians in the Legislature."
(snip)
Nigro and Newman, both Philadelphia natives elected to the court in 1995, have not been outspoken about the pay-raise law that increased their annual salaries from $150,369 to $171,800.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
This pay-raise issue seems like a really dumb reason to oppose anybody. I'm not seeing what involvement the court had in it. Maybe there is something more substantively wrong with their rulings.
The backhanded scam that allows legislators to give themselves a raise without voting themselves a raise.
I voted NO for both of them - maybe it will send a message...
The Pennsylvania State Constitution says
Section 8.
The members of the General Assembly shall receive such salary and mileage for regular and special sessions as shall be fixed by law, and no other compensation whatever, whether for service upon committee or otherwise. No member of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase of salary, or mileage, under any law passed during such term.
The state legislature voted itself a raise mid-term last summer. Our judges said it was fine. If judges don't uphold the constitution, they should get the boot.
And the same goes to our legislators if they violate it.
It says the legislators get 81k and the judges weren't specified. Good grief 81k isn't exactly rolling in the dough.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who, unfortunately, is not up for retention, was directly involved in the scheme that brought about the illegal pay raise, meeting with legislative leaders to work on it.
Of these two, Nigro is a fair to middling justice, which for Pennsylvania is about as good as it gets. Newman never did have a clue what she was doing on the court, but used her plastic surgeon husband's fortune to finance a successful campaign.
Better to ask for an explanation than to call the voters dumb.
Thanks. You're a lot more helpful than that article.
I have Voted!!! NO to Nigro; NO to Newman.
Maybe next time when something is done underhanded in this Commonwealth, you will UPHOLD the Constitution!!!
Have a nice retirement folks....
We are not talking private sector in which the market decides value. Anyway that 81K ignores the pension & other perks.
If the pay was a third you'd still get people of the same quality (hee hee) -- actually arguably better -- to fill the slots. Maybe they'd only work a month of the year and accept term limits. It suits me.
Kind of thought that's what I was doing.
THANK YOU!!
You're welcome but what do excpet from the LSM :-)
It's not so much the amount that everyone is mad about, it's the way they used a loophole to start receiving the raises immediately instead of waiting until the next term.
Then they expected us to maybe whine a little bit, then forget it, as usual. But not this time.
I'm going to ask a stupid questions here becaue I've not followed this issue although I live in PA. The anger is because they voted a pay raise to be effective mid-session which is illegal in the state constitution? If they had voted the raise to be effective beginning the next term there would not have been this outcry? Thanks...
I also voted NO for both. The PA State House put the final nail in the coffin last night.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.