Posted on 11/09/2005 1:58:41 AM PST by Kaslin
PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Pennsylvanians have denied a state Supreme Court justice a second term, a sign of the public's anger at lawmakers for pushing through a pay raise last summer. A second justice won another term only narrowly.
Justice Russell M. Nigro, who got 49 percent of vote Tuesday, was the first statewide judge to be turned out of office in a yes-or-no retention election in the 36 years such elections have been held.
A Democrat, Nigro received strong support in and around his native Philadelphia but was overwhelmed by lopsided margins in south-central and southwestern regions of the state, where opposition to the pay raise was concentrated.
Justice Sandra Schultz Newman won a second term with 54 percent of the vote, a close margin for a retention election. In the last judicial election in 2001, the three jurists on the ballot all were retained by margins of 3-1.
Both candidates shifted their campaigns into high gear last week as lawmakers cast preliminary but decisive votes to repeal the pay-raise law - passed during the dead of night July 7 with no public notice or hearings. Legislators had increased their salaries 16 percent to 34 percent to at least $81,050 - more than any state except California.
Activists who protested the raises suggested the court bore some responsibility for the climate of secrecy in state government.
Nigro's term ends in January, when Gov. Ed Rendell will appoint a temporary successor. Voters will elect a replacement justice to a 10-year term in November 2007.
Citizen activists who advocated "no" votes on retaining the two justices cheered Nigro's defeat.
"It's a clear signal that Pennsylvanians have awoke from their long slumber," said Russ Diamond, chairman of PACleanSweep, a political action committee that aims to challenge incumbent legislators.
Nigro did not return a telephone message early Wednesday.
"You can't use tact with a Congressman! A Congressman is a hog! You must take a stick and hit him on the snout!"
Did Henry Adams ever meet HogSheets Byrd or HogPaddle (Swimmer) Kennedy?....
To elaborate just a bit. Cappy is the Chief Justice. As "mak5" pointed out in post #19, Cappy was behind the scenes advocating for the pay raise bill, because it would increase the salaries of judges, too. They made the whole thing non-severable, so if the PA Supreme Court found one part of the pay-raise bill unconstitutional, the whole law had to go. Thus, kill the legislators' pay raise, kill your own pay raise (from the perspective of a Supreme Court jurist).
The PA Supreme Court has long allowed the legislature to get away with unconstitutional actions like the pay-raise bill. There is a provision in the PA constitution that says that legislators cannot receive a pay raise during the term which they are currently serving. But the pay-raise bill did just that, through a sleight-of-hand called "unvouchered expenses".
The PA Supreme Court has previously found constitutional "unvouchered expenses" as a way to subvert the constitutional prohibition on midterm pay raises. Nigro was one of the judges who agreed with that ridiculous notion. And he paid the price.
Cappy doesn't come up for a retention vote until 2009, so we took care of his coconspirator Nigro.
And it feels darn good!
Oh, and Cappy even called the pay-raise bill "an act of courage". The arrogance of him, other justices, and just about the entire leadership of the PA legislature brought everything to boiling point.
Texas has always tried to keep salaries low, although we are losing that fight. The best argument I can think against raising the slaries of legislattors etc. was given by a fellow students at UT-Auston about 40 years ago. I argued that salaries ought to be raised to attract good people. How responded, well how much do you think is enough. I gave a number. He demurred. What do they think would be high enough? We finally agreed that whatever number I proposed would never be high enough, that they will take the lobbyist money no matter what. For most politicians, office is a position of profit.
And our liberal "York Daily Rectum" buried it under "DOVER
BOOTS BOARD."
The politicians here in York County (2-1 margin NO) are
scared s***less.
Nigro? Is that allowed any more? Shouldn't he be 'Justice Russell M. Africanamerican'?
That's good to hear :-)
Per the PA Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy (on the legislature's middle of the night pay theivery) 'it was an act of courage.' Yeah right. Anybody heard from him, or any of the other PASupremes today? The validation of the payraise was the 'worth of the jurists' in the market place, ie., how much money they (the judges) could be making in private practice. Well, I guess Mr. Nigro will be finding out his market value real soon. Wonder if he will court law practice clients with the lavish dinners and $80.00 bottles of wine he so liberally put on this Commonwealth tab.
As to why Newman was retained...I put the blame on Tommy Ridge (for non PA FReepers, he is our former governor in addition to his homeland security gig). Ridge recorded radio ads and an annoying 'phone call to the faithful' on behalf of Her Honor, Sandy Newman. The ad was just so warm and fuzzy, and it repeated the she was the first woman elected to the PA Supreme Court. My thoughts, is it had been two men running (not hoisting the feminist banner of the groundbreaking woman) BOTH would have been voted out.
But the real winner today are the 21% who went to the polls yesterday. We made a change. Finally.
Impeachment is not designed to be used for political disagreements. Judges should be impeached only for the reasons pointed out in the Constitution not policy conflicts. There was a good reason that the Founders put judges out of the control of the masses.
I agree, the machine in Philly stayed home yesterday. It was the 'T' and the west that did the heavy lifting.
I'm in shock!
Bravo, PA!
I did my part as well.
Message sent.
TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE!
Congrats fellow PAs.
I'm with you Ike.
If we have to vote out Reps to get the job done (doing the job that Republicans won't do) then so be it.
Lets have at it.
Lets send Fast Eddie back to OC NJ beaches for a well deserved retirement.
(looking in mirror) You dummy! *thwok*
Moreover, like it or not, all impeachments are political. Pretending they're not only leads to self-delusions.
A strong no came from here.
It's time to do something, people don't realize they difference they could make if they just VOTE!
Another self delusion is that the judiciary is this magically apolitical, sacrosanct branch of government. What a bunch of crap. There is no apolitical action in government.
You need to work on your imagination since the reality is that the Founders believed impeachment would be rare particularly with judges. They were given lifetime appointments during good behavior. Making unpopular decisions was not considered "bad" behavior subject to impeachment. Making the judiciary independent was tremendously important to them and the writings on the subject make that point clear. The last thing they wanted was a judiciary dependent upon the good will of the electorate.
Initially the trial by the Senate of impeachments meant that the people had little or nothing to say in this matter since Senators were appointed not elected. Popular opinion or beliefs were excluded from having any influence in an Impeachment trial.
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.