Posted on 12/06/2005 3:42:14 AM PST by Born Conservative
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A Philadelphia trial judge filed a lawsuit Monday that seeks to reinstate the unpopular government pay raises, claiming the Legislature violated the state constitution when it repealed the increases two weeks ago.
The suit was filed Monday afternoon in state Supreme Court on behalf of Common Pleas Court Judge Albert W. Sheppard Jr., said Richard Spiegelman, the chief of staff to Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., who was named in the suit.
Spiegelman did not want to comment on the suit, saying he had only seen it two hours before and had not discussed it with Casey.
"We're reviewing it and I think we'll be in a position to comment tomorrow," Spiegelman said.
A telephone message left at Sheppard's Philadelphia home Monday evening was not immediately returned.
The suit asks Casey to continue paying the higher salaries, Spiegelman said, and cites a portion of the constitution that prohibits the Legislature from lowering the salaries of judges during their terms of office "unless by law applying generally to all salaried officers of the commonwealth."
The passage was created to stop state legislators from punishing judges by docking their pay if they were unhappy over a ruling.
The possibility of a lawsuit being filed by a judge has been rumored since lawmakers, worried about their re-election prospects next year, began publicly considering a repeal of the pay raises in early November.
The four months of heavy public criticism that followed the July pay hike focused on the size of the legislative raises, the secrecy with which lawmakers approved it, and the legal maneuver that allowed them to skirt a constitutional ban against midterm raises and collect the money right away.
But without any lawmakers up for election this year, voters demonstrated their anger at government by rejecting Supreme Court Justice Russell M. Nigro, who was running for a second 10-year term.
Similarly, each of the state's approximately 420 Common Pleas Court judges are elected to 10-year terms. However, Sheppard, 68, will soon reach the mandatory retirement age of 70, meaning he will not face voters again before he retires from his elected spot on the bench. Sheppard was originally elected in 1983.
The repeal, which affected all three branches of government, became law on Nov. 16, but it was hung up for two weeks on the question of whether it would be constitutional to repeal the judges' pay raise.
In floor debates, House and Senate leaders stressed that the repeal was not intended to punish judges, and that they believed it complied with the constitutional definition of "all salaried officers."
"This is not intended to be punitive," the Senate's Republican leader, David J. Brightbill, said on Nov. 16 as he introduced the legislation on the Senate floor. "This is intended to rectify a mistake."
Under the now-repealed law, more than 1,000 judges, from district magistrates to Supreme Court justices, received pay raises of 11 percent to 15 percent.
The 253-member Legislature received raises of 16 percent to 54 percent, although some chose not to collect the raises right away. Since the repeal, several dozen lawmakers who took the midterm pay raises have paid it back, or said they intend to pay it back.
Ping
VOTE EM ALL OUT!!!
How conveeeenient that this 'ole fart files he suit. I'll make a guess, here... The pay raises WILL be re-instituted. How likely is it that a judge or judges will rule AGAINST the pay raise? The foxes are guarding the henhouse.
Morning blood pressure bump
State judges dismissed the law suit filed in the Commonwealth, saying it is a moot point since the repeal. HOWEVER, there is still a lawsuit filed in federal Court that questions the constitutionality of the whole process. It could be found that our legislature has done some sneaky stuff in regards to the pay raise issue, therefore there was no legal pay raise passed, therefore the judge has no case in this instance.
When the Europeans finally find themselves staggering under the shariah, we must remind them to see the irony.
Seven weeks ago it would have been a slam dunk bet that the Supremes would rule for the judge, now, it's a little more problematic. Still won't bet against it being upheld.
bump
ping
Well isn't that convenient
Who's pushing backing this Judge on this suit
I wonder if the decision will be made while Nigro is still on the bench.
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.