Judicial Forum

PCN has been broadcasting a number of programs relating to the upcoming judicial elections. I was able to watch their broadcast of the supreme court judicial candidates forum that was held in Philadelphia this past Wednesday.

Here are my rough notes. As always I apologize for any errors or misinterpretations. Several area newspapers have published articles on the forum and I encourage you to read those as well.

Judicial Candidates Forum
Pennsylvania Bar Association
Pennsylvanians for a Modern Court

Candidates:
Debra Todd, present
Maureen Lally-Green, present
Michael Krancer, present
Seamus McCaffrey not able to attend

Michael [did not catch last name] from the PA Bar Association introduces forum. Lynn Marks from the PA for Modern Courts moderates program. Judges and courts have been in the news a lot lately so the more information that gets out to the people the better. Five sponsoring organizations, including Committee of 70, Philadelphia NAACP, League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and League of Women Voters of Philadelphia.

Judicial elections are in odd numbered years to keep judges away from the rough and tumble political fray. As a result people often call odd years elections as “off year” elections. The role of a judge in our system of govt is very very important. We all should be informed about who sits on the courts and learn as much as we can about the candidates.

PA for Modern Courts does not believe that judicial elections run as partisan elections, with judges running as part of one party, is a good system.

Three people asking questions. Sandra Shea, editorial board at Daily News, Irv Randolph of Tribune, Hank Grezlak of Legal intelligencer.

SS: What does your party membership say about you and your outlook on legal matters.

DT: Running as a D because I am a D. Dad a steelworker. That background instilled me with some very important values, inclusivity, level playing field. I don’t believe those values are peculiar to any one political party. Values we all could embrace. Values I would be proud to take to the PA Supreme Court. Election is partisan as we run as part of a party but not running to be representatives of any one constituency but as judges on the supreme court. My role as a judge is to decide each case on its own merits, guardian of the constituency.

ML-G: Run as Republican because born and bred a Republican. Parents were Republicans. In many respects that is how one becomes a member of a party. Tenets of the party, respect for the role of the judge within the system. But when one becomes a judge one takes off the hat of partisan politics and puts on the hat of a judge. We are to decide cases, not to bow to partisan politics or any kind of personal belief on anything but to be a decision maker based on the law and the facts presented to us and the issues as presented to us.

MK: Raised in a Republican background, believes in opportunity and the right to rise. All judges, whether merit selected or elected came up through a political system. Judicial philosophy is what is important. My philosophy is textualism, not activism. Don’t write words into a constitution that aren’t there.

SS: What does your party membership says about you:

DT: Democratic and coming from a union family, inclusiveness, hard work, integrity, level playing field.

ML-G: honest and integrity

MK: My party status states its belief in equal opportunity and the right to rise, honesty and integrity

IR: [question about race and ethnicity and how to ensure fairness in the court]

ML_G: Strength of judicial system based on belief that everyone is getting fair and impartial treatment. The extent that people do not get that treatment confidence declines. I chair a committee on race gender and ethnic fairness. Recently proposed procedures to supreme court, soon to be implemented. If people believe they were treated unfairly, it offers options.

MK: Do play a role. Been talking to people about this. Look at Jena 6. Up to each of us to take a stand and every individual needs to be wary of those inherent injustices in our system. I teach kids in Germantown how to write so they can get into college.

DT: Great questions particularly given the diversity within the court system. Our state supreme court is the oldest in the nation, over 280 years old. In all of that time there has never been a Democratic woman elected to the supreme court. Only one woman, Sandra Newman who has since moved on. View the judicial approach taken by judges as instrumental [missed this] Variety is the spice of life. Not all candidates are the same. Textualism you are being guided towards the role model like Justice Scalia. I am not like that. Constitution is a living breathing document. Textualism can set us back.

HG: In recent years the supreme court has taken a hit with public, pay raise, etc. What can court do?

MK: More transparency, PCN in courtroom. Judges pay attention to the constitution and follow it. Pay raise a big issue. My court didn’t get the pay raise (chief judge of state environmental hearing board). I won’t take a pay raise if elected.

DT: Legislative process by which pay raise enacted a tainted process. Public responded to process. Limited disclosure, etc. Returned pay raise and return it quarterly. Do that because it limited public’s trust. Reach out more to the public, make it accountable in terms of administrative function. PCN is in court room of superior courtroom [DT, ML-G and McCaffrey on superior court]. When public see what happens in courtroom they think better of it.

ML-G: The entire society of PA has learned a lot form what happened with the pay raise. Process tainted. What many including I have learned. Transparency is important. Accountability is important. Accountability to constitution what it requires and commands. What can we do better. Education, duty to educate public about what we do. Access by all citizens to the courts. When we as a system fail to listen we are not doing our job. Keep channels of communication open.

SS: Judicial reform, platform put forward by Bruce Ledewitz,. Should private meetings between judges and legislators? [blogger's note, see more info on Democracy Rising site.

DT: Agree with some of platform, increased openness and transparency. Did not agree with others because they make a presumption that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. There are a lot of good things about our justice system. Supreme Court justices should not be having private meetings with legislators about pay raises, etc.

ML-G: familiar with platform, used to teach at same school so know Ledewitz. The administrative categories reflect the need the court has to receive a broader base of information. The bigger theme is let’s broaden the voice and that is a good thing.

MK: Please look at the Democracy Rising website and look at questionnaire. I don’t like the secret meetings. Judiciary should be independent and not talk to other branches of govt. System is broken. Perception is reality. Need look no further than Justice Castille’s dissension in casino case. There is a perception out there that the system needs [missed this]

DT: The superior court and supreme court are part of the judicial branch. The court Judge Krancer sat on is part of executive branch not judicial. When you talk insider or outsider a factor is experience in judicial branch.

IR: Judicial philosophy?

MK: Textualism. I apply the words of the constitution, don’t let personal predilections dictate social policy. Judges are the least democratic branch of govt. Justice Scalia, Justice Jackson, Justice White as role models.

ML-G: Reflected in 10 years of time on superior court. Well-versed in law, read law, do not add or subtract words. Take a look at the law that applies. There are times when stare decisis must be re-examined. Would not legislate from the bench. Policy statements are for the legislature.

DT: Not a textualist. Role model is Justice Brennan, architect of civil rights. Strict textualism is dangerous, can result is a set back of civil rights womens rights and workers rights. If only look at Constittution as written on the day it was written does not include privacy.

MK: Texutalism does not mean try to read Constitution and get into mind of authors. I take words of statutes and apply what reasonable meaning is. 4th amendment, devices that can see into houses, privacy of the home and today those kinds of devices violate search and seizure.

DT: Not in least bit confused about concept of textualism. Not saying one right and one is wrong, but voters have very different candidates to pick from

ML-G: Have 10 years of experience and a record. PA Bar Association gave me a highly recommended rating, said my decision making fair and impartial. Textualism the underlying question is how much is a judge allowed to expand or contract what is before the judge. Such as privacy, not exactly in the words of the text but courts have found that it exists.

HG: Castille dissension in casino question. Called the board’s move extraordinary anti-democratic vote.

DT: You’ve finally got into a question I don’t think I can answer directly. This question will continue to come before the supreme court and cannot speak to issues that may come before the court, especially specific cases.

ML-G: Agree with DT. Must believe get fair and impartial treatment and not pre-decided. Must be sensitive to role of courts in check and balance. The third balance is both a check and a balance.

MK: I will comment on that. I think Justice Castilles’ decision was directly dead on. It was anti-democratic, something that would have happened behind the Iron Curtain.

SS: Issue of reform. What exactly can you do if elected to help move court towards reforms?

ML-G: In terms of judicial site. Having been on superior court for 10 years and consulted with supreme court I have some experience in how the court decides cases and procedures used. Superior court heard 8K cases this year and I wrote over 200 opinions. Take this experience to supreme court to help move cases along.

DT: I agree with Judge L-G that superior court is workhorse of judicial system. Used to having a massive document. Accustomed to a big docket and an efficient operation. Superior court of PA recognized as one of the most efficient in US.

MK: Open and public rule making. All written opinions. On supreme court not always a sufficient opinion. Bring PCN into courtroom. Much more aggressive judicial outreach. Interact with public. Faster decisions.

Questions from the audience.

Describe your biggest mistake as a judge and what did you learn?

DT: We have all made mistakes. I have learned how to improve my legal writing. Went back to school to get LLM to enhance judicial abilities. I think get better each year.

ML-G: Would echo that you get better each year. Early on we submitted grievance procedures to supreme court but did not have all voices at the table and procedures were rejected. We were too narrow so now insists on hearing from everyone, then decision more valid.

MK: There was a case on harms benefit analysis. Went along with the majority on a summary judgment even though thought it had to be a subjective decision. A trial came along and realized that my opinion was correct that it could only be subjective.

Q: What is so inherently wrong with legislative contact with judiciary?

MK: Judicial independence. Supposed to be a separation between executive and judicial branches. Must maintain a separation on policy issues.

ML-G: The chief justice represents a third branch of govt. Not just individual calling individual. Judicial independence threads through all of this. Confidence of public in the system. Accountability can only occur when there is this public way of seeing what is happening.

DT: [she discusses merits of specific event – chief justice called legislator about judicial pay raise]

Q: How much money do you need to raise and who are major donors?

DT: That is the part of the elective system that is the most troubling. Not a proponent of merit selection but of merit election. More scrutiny and a more informed electorate. Elect judges in light of day a good thing. Problem is the financial part of it. We don’t like it any more than you do. Would rather be raising money for charity than judicial campaign. Most funds come from lawyers. Usually need a million dollars.

ML-G: It does take a lot of money to run a judicial election. For many of us the primary group is lawyers. The underlying question is how do you keep yourself fair and impartial. Had to develop a protocol for dealing with that issue. Will not sit on a case where the party in front of me donated to my campaign. Recusal is a matter to each judge. Decision making should be fair and impartial.

MK: My donor list is different. Many of my donors are my family and my friends. A ton of first time givers.

Q: How do voters learn more about you:

DT: www.debratoddforjustice.com, democracyrising. Websites of bar associations esp PA Bar Association gave me highest recommendation

ML-G: www.lallygreen.com also PA bar association

MK: www.krancerforsupreme.com, democracy rising, legal intelligencer, inky

HG: www.thelegalintelligencer.com

Closing statements

DT: Thanks to hosts and those attending. Believe in merit election and appreciate opportunity. Protecting our commonwealth’s children is a passion. Conducted research and spoken on this. The sheer volume of cases I hear on superior court is alarming. Want to raise public awareness.

ML-G: Also thank everyone. People want a justice experienced in the law and how the court works, fair and impartial, has public service. Concerns are access concerns, people are treated with dignity and respect.

MK: Thank you. All power is inherent in the people. Judging is a lot about attitude. Judges work for the people.

LM: League of Women Voters of PA and Philly, Phil NAACP also sponsors

Urge voters to carefully consider individual reasons to retain judges.

Andrea Mulrine of PA LWV: thanks to all. Nov 1st issue of Daily News will have voters guide. Palwv.org to access info on candidates.