Redstate

It is not the place of judges to speak out on public issues which may come before the Court, and this issue did not come before them.

Moreover, the fundraising "scandal" is nonsense -- Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin and Sprague & Sprague are both prominent Philadelphia law firms.

We are facing the rise of the voters who still live with their parents.  Sad but true.

PA parents will not push their children to move out and succeed any longer.  Where this came from, I have no knowledge, but it the same problem facing most Recruiters.

The kids aren't afraid of the war.  They're afraid the Army will pull them out of Mom's house.  And Mom is equally afraid of anything that may pull her children from her bosom and force them to grow up.

And when a person has no specter of "oh my god, Mom won't cook my dinner anymore," staring him in the face his Senior year of high school, he doesn't have any need to educate himself.  And this leads to ignorance.  10 years ago this trend began and it is finally kicking into full speed.  

This is the voter we must deal with.  This is the voter who has no energy to waste on research.  This is the voter who will job the Mob.  And the Mob will vote for Bread and Circuses every time...

Democrats blaming "stupid" voters for not electing Kerry.

You have any evidence whatsoever to back up any of the ridiculous nonsense in your post there?

at this column by John Baer in the Philadelphia Daily News before you make the case that Nigro was the innocent victim of "ignorant populism." An excerpt:

He charges for lunches of more than $100 at Capital Grille and the Four Seasons; dinners of more than $200 at Bliss and Pompeii; dinners of more than $300 at Mio Sogno and Prime Rib: dinners of more than $400 at Prime Rib and Morton's.

There's also Susanna Foo, the Palm, Ruth's Chris and others.

During one week, last April 11 to 18, he spent $1,280 at restaurants in Philly, Ambler and Pittsburgh. This, to me, seems abusive. ...

When I ask about a $300-plus Capital Grille meal tab for two people that includes a $33 Delmonico steak, a $38 10-ounce filet and three bottles of wine, one an $85 Franciscan Oakville Cabernet, he says charging for booze was "inadvertent." He adds, "I have no problem paying back whatever should be paid back."

This was an arrogant judge whose lavish living on the taxpayers' tab caught the attention of the press. Frankly, in a stuck-on-stupid contest, Justice Nigro has the voters beat by a mile.

for the above to anklebitingpundits.com. My Vote for Judges news agent turned it up a couple of weeks ago, but ABP made the connection first this morning.

"populism" is another word for democracy that you don't like the results of.

As I said, Nigro is a Philly Democrat with fundraising issues.  But that, and the things which you list, were not the reason Nigro was not retained.

Nigro was thrown out to send a message to lawmakers that voters are disgruntled.

I would be proud if voters had tossed Nigro for what he has done wrong.  I am ashamed because he was not.

The legislators and judges may indeed deserve a raise, but according to the State constitution they can no raise their own salaries. That is, they can only raise the wages of the next legislative session (i.e. the raise does not go into effect until after the next election). By giving themselves an IMMEDIATE raise they showed a willingness to violate the constitution and as such should be voted out.

salaries, but not for the term they are currently serving.  The raise they voted for themselves would not take effect until after the election.

The Constitutional issue is tricky.  Besides the raise, they voted themselves expense vouchers, which could be considered tantamount to a pay raise and could be used immediately.  No one has ruled on the constitutionality of this arrangment, and I know of no challenge based on it.

But that is not what happened yesterday.

As a fairly conservative individual (see my old diaries ranting about Social Security e.g.) I am at the same willing to participate in a little populism when called for.

Anyone who lives in Philadelphia has no doubt that there are numerous shenanigans going on as we speak.  We've got mayor's offices bugged just prior to the elections, we've got city councilmen under federal indictment checking into psychiatric wards after apparently considering suicide (at least that's what they were saying on the local news as the police totally blocked off traffic around city hall a couple weeks ago while Mr. Mariano pressed himself against the plexiglass windows of the observation deck above city hall), and we've got a city that's an absolute mess.  The Septa strike didn't help raise anyone's confidence in the benevolence of unions or the willingness of management and government to stand up to the demands of the unionized workers that are highly subsidized by local and state monies (e.g. senior citizens all ride Septa for free).

Then, consider the recent election, where all but 3 or 4 races (sorry no link to a copy of the ballot, but I've got a pdf on my desktop as we speak) featured the same individual running on the Democratic and the Republican ticket.  With little, if any, choice in our representation (albeit, you didn't see me running for office so I can only complain so loudly) someone had to feel the brunt of upset folks.  I voted straight Republican (my first in 8 years of elections since turning 18) and proceeded to vote against retaining every single judge on the ballot.  Most democratic nominees were elected by ridiculous margins (D.A. Lynn Abraham by 81% to 19% and the City Controller by 71% to 29%) nonetheless.  I'm glad someone wasn't able to take their seat for granted, and I can only pray that the alternative will be no worse than the man/woman they replace.

Ok, enough venting for now, back to procrastinating at work.

~Big Tom

These additions to their expense accounts didn't require the submission of reimbursible expenses in order to be claimed.  The legislators were effectively putting money into an expense account that had no strings attached for withdrawing it.  The blatant motive was to get around the regulations requiring raises to be postponed until after an election.

Let's not forget that our PA legislators are only part timers as well unlike many states where they are ostensibly working full time.

~Big Tom

I have to confess I regularly vote "no" on judicial retention.  Judges subject to retention are rarely voted out -- they know the low voter visibility of their posts insulates them from accountability -- and, like Justice Nigro, sometimes begin to regard their posts as fiefdoms or sinecures.  A healthy quantity of "no" votes serves to remind them that they're public employees.  They aren't due any automatic deference from me.

You may question the voters' motives (and you may be wrong in your assumptions about them -- Justice Newman didn't dine regally on the taxpayer's tab and was retained, after all), but they got it right in the end.

Glad I read your comment before posting the exact same point -- regarding both the voters' motives and the fact that the non-flamboyant Newman was retained.

My criticism was not of the result; rather, it was the means used to achieve it.  Yes, a many voters were ticked about the pay increase, etc.  Yes, a vote against retaining these judges was advertised and seen as a means of "sending a message" to those who actually had something to do with this pay increase.

My post did not address a conservative opposition to Nigro based on his actions, such as it might or might not have existed.

My post had nothing to do with votes against anyone for any transgressions committed by the candidate.

Mark--I'm not sure what you are basing your comments on , but to characterize the public furor over the raise as, "public disgruntlement [like] an awakened zombie which tramps and stomps on all and sundry, looking back on the carnage left in its wake long enough to promise more," is incredibly disingenuous.  The feelings of anger and betrayal are real and widespread.  Even my parents (who are not activists of any stripe) were thrilled at the prospect of bouncing Newman and Nigro.  And contrary to your assertion that "[n]o one seems to be sure" what to replace their government with, I respectfully suggest that Pennsylvanians know exactly what they want.  They want representatives that will listen to them and who will quit treating their seats in the Assembly as lifetime appointments by God Himself.  That IS the current culture in Harrisburg and everybody knows it.

Also, if I understand the thesis of your argument correctly, you do not disagree with the ousting of Judge Nigro per se, only that voters weren't truly justified in doing it.  If that's the case, I must respectfully ask why you think you are qualified to pass such judgement.  There is a strong argument that all three branches of the government in Harrisburg have been complicit to some extent in the pay raise fiasco and that all deserve to make restitution one way or another.  Moreover, do not the residents of Pennsylvania have the absolute right to throw out their elected officials whenever they want for any reason?  I believe they do, and I further believe that the patronizing rhetoric of Harrisburg politicians--executive, legislative, and judicial--has been the signal to the people of Pennsylvania that their elected officials no longer see themselves as public servants but rather as feudal lords.  If that's not a sufficient reason to vote for change at the ballot box, then one simply does not exist.

Two quick points:

1. The fact that one of the two justices on the ballot survived the voters' anger suggests to me that at least part of the opposition to Nigro was based on his actions, and it was reaction to those actions that tipped the scales against him.
   
2. Notwithstanding the particular gripe against Nigro that precipitated his upcoming job search, the "no" votes on retention seem to represent a perfectly legitimate generalized and unfocused anger against what the voters perceived to be an elected establishment reeking of corruption.  If the voters wanted to "send a message", it seemed to them to be a message worth sending.

Mobs express their anger by burning cars and breaking windows.  Angry citizens are different -- they vote.  What's wrong with that?

"[A] perfectly legitimate generalized and unfocused anger."

That, my friend, is oxymoronic.

"A republic, if you can keep it."

No offense, but who voted you the legitimacy sheriff?

One of the things that comes with your voting card is the right to vote as you choose for reasons you choose.  There's absolutely nothing illegitimate about using the only power you have to express your dissatisfaction.

I'm glad I don't have to submit my voting decisions to you to for vetting ... do I?

The issue surrounding the unconstitutional pay raise the legislators voted for themselves.  The other issue is the enabling Supreme Court which has ruled that such raises are not unconstitutional, even though the PA constitution prohibits mid-term pay raises.  Mark, you should have done a little more homework on the issue before dismissing the "vote not to retain" efforts.  My only hope is that momentum will carry forward into the state elections next year and vote out the rest of the bums who brought us this awful raise in the first place.

any elected official for any reason.

Again, my contention was that the voters were angry about a pay increase.  That anger was translated into something bearing no relation to the actual object of their anger.

A rational voter would examine the issue, find who is at fault, and work to remove the person/s responsible.  The mob vents its anger on whatever happens to be in the way.

The mob has every right to do this.  I can point out that this is dangerous.

The issue was the legislative pay increase.  Period.  This is the first I have hard that there was another gripe with the justices on the ballot.

It was about "sending a message."

they opt led by whatever passion has been ignited.  I'm arguing against the passion of the mob.

Only calls from Tom Ridge and campaign money may have helped save her. What had she done to deserve being punished for a pay raise she had nothing to do with?

Mark,

You should have done a little research on your position prior to taking it. Here's some press you should have looked at before posting a "knee-jerk" reaction:

"But leaders of grass-roots groups such as Pa. Clean Sweep, based in Lebanon County, and Democracy Rising Pa., based in Cumberland County, contend it is fair.

They claim the Supreme Court has a tradition of upholding what critics consider to be questionable, if not unconstitutional, actions by the Legislature" from:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05283/585816.stm

"It's the job of the courts to keep the other branches of the government in check," said Potts, who has been visiting newspaper editorial boards and appearing on radio talk shows to make his case. "It's not the job of the courts to say: 'Whatever they want is OK by me.'" from:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12893901.htm

"The broader issue, however, is the connection between the pay raise, only one specific instance, as part of a disturbing pattern in which the Supreme Court has been too cozy with the Legislature. The Supremes, they argue, increasingly are deferential on constitutional and separation of power issues. The critics view the justices as part of the state government establishment that has conducted itself arrogantly, secretly, and too often in its own self-interest." from:

http://www.mcall.com/news/opinion/anotherview/all-madonna11-2nov02,0,371515
2.story?coll=all-newsopinionanotherview-hed

"However, there is a way for you to send a message Tuesday. Two members of the state Supreme Court -- the sub-mediocre institution that has put its stamp of approval on the unconstitutional behavior of our Legislature -- are up for retention" from:

http://www.mcall.com/all-5safe-anov02,0,2259881.column?coll=all-randomcolum
nists-misc

There are others but you get the idea.

Leo

The pay raise also included a bump for the courts along the lines of 10% to 15% and the PA Supreme Court was included.  The Chief Justice has called the protest of the possibly unconstitutional "vouchers" a "knee-jerk reaction".  The people didn't take too kindly to that.  They see the court as having a conflict of interest since they benefit just as the legislature did in a mutual back-scratching fest.  

Some the arguments that those who voted for this pay raise twist logic in knots.  They say they really needed a pay raise since they had only been getting measley COLAs for years.  Then when they are told it is unconstitutional to take the pay they claim, "Oh, no, it's not pay - it's an unvouchered expense!"

I saw the vagueries about running roughshod over the Pennsylvania constitution, etc., but no specifics.  It is a cover for the anger.  A faulty justification for the no vote.

If those people would have fought the judges' retention based those things absent the pay increase, fine; however, everything was couched in the pay increase and the anger.

Leo, we have a problem, and it is much more dangerous than a bunch of lawmakers thinking they can raise their pay without a concern as to what those who they represent think.  What of a Constitutional Amendment regarding the pay increases, demanding a set period of time for public input?  There are other ways of handling this then lumbering about, thrashing at whatever moves.

But the mob doesn't think.  That is what frightens me.

Something from PACleanSweep's FAQ page:

"11. What about filing lawsuits and taking legislators to court?

There are lawsuits being pursued to address this situation, but with PA Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph Cappy's well-publicized comments calling the pay raise an act of "courage," we have no reason to believe such suits will be successful anytime soon.

Additionally, many of these issues have been heard before, and the courts have ruled in favor of the legislature.

It should also be noted that Justice Cappy was the person who suggested this salary plan to begin with."

It was also reported that State Senate President Pro Tem Bob Jubelirer of Altoona confirmed Judge Cappy's role.  If the Chief justice is the one advising the Legislature on methods he approves of to circumvent the constitutional restrictions on increasign their pay, what more can you expect from citizens?  The Court, Legislature & Executive acted together to give each other more money.  People are angry about it. Here's what the PA Constitution has to say about pay:

"Article II

Compensation

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."

Taking a 16% to 34% pay increase under the veil of an "unvouchered expense" is insulting.  It is a pay increase and it is prohibited expressly in the constitution until the next term. The increase came on top regular annual cost-of-living adjustments, free car, and per diem when they need to travel to the state capitol (about 80-90 or so days a year?) and came out around the same time as state cuts to Medicaid (bad timing). Also, the method used to pass this bill was criticized for other technical violations of the constitution ( "... no bill shall be so altered or amended, on its passage through either House, as to change its original purpose." "Every bill shall be considered on three different days in each House")

This has been a big issue across much of  Pennsylvania since the Summer, but maybe not so much in Philly, where people have come to expect corruption from their leaders.  I think we deserve more.

"There are other ways of handling this then lumbering about, thrashing at whatever moves."

Yes, but populism lives. Look at the attacks on the industry--even from a lot of conservative Republicans. It is scary. The quote from a news report was: "Oil company executives were called in front of Congress to justify their high profits".

Does Congress call in homeowners who resell their homes after two years and charge 50% or more above the price they paid to buy the home? Alternatively, how about Mattel who buys their Barbie dolls for less than 50 cents and resells them for almost $10? Or how about the people who are working in New Orleans doing low skill work and getting paid $22 per hour by private employers for work that used to pay under $10? Are these workers gouging the employers?

No, these are all examples of how the market works. If there are few people who want to work in New Orleans and many people who want to hire, then the wages are going to be high. If gasoline production is reduced, we have to decide who is going to be able to consume the remaining gasoline. The price in the market rises until enough people stop consuming as much gasoline. This higher price means (shock of shock) the oil companies make more money.

If Congress wants to investigate something, investigate why more people did not invest in oil exploration or gasoline production if it was so profitable. After all, look at the great profits they could have made. Or is it that Congress afraid to investigate the true reason oil prices are high: OPEC and the limits put on domestic production by government.

Finally, oil companies are not the only ones bringing in more money. The Federal government is going to get almost 40% of the oil companies profits (at least the profits they do not reinvest to find more oil). If the Federal government feels so bad about the extra tax money they collect, they could always give us a tax refund.

Of course, we should keep an eye on every market for collusion among firms, but this presumption that the oil companies are guilty because of their high profits is populist pandering.

Nigro is "Philly Democrat" with (multiple distinct) fundraising issues, unethical expenses, atrocious decisions, and who is sitting on a Court that had acted improperly, in the eyes of many.

Given that, Mr. Kilmer, I'm troubled by the blatant assumptions you have made about the motives of over 700,000 citizens.

Have you spoken to all the "no" voters?

To say "he was vote out" for "X" is beyond speculative. It's a mere assertion and, lacking any solid evidence whatsoever, is insufficient to justify your overall message. Seeing as how you've announced that you'd be "proud" if Nigro was tossed for your rationale, is it fair to assume that everyone else who voted "no" did so for reasons other than yours?

I'll preface the next several paragraphs by announcing that they include assumptions. But because they're not absolutes, they're safe assumptions.

1. Hundreds of thousands of voters voted "yes" ignorantly. They did so because they're sample ballot told them to, because they always vote "yes," or because they recognized Nigro's name (mostly for Philadelphians).

What if these voters hadn't voted ignorantly? Voting uninformed or simply by command of party leadership is certainly indicative of ignorance. Should you not be condemning such votes?

2. Many voters voted "no" after taking the time to become informed and educated. They determined that "politics as usual" in Harrisburg was unsatisfactory, and that Justice Nigro had not performed adequately in protecting the Constitution, as they saw it. They legitimately disagreed with Nigro's ruling on cases involving the legislature. You may disagree with their interpretation. But given the current state of American politics, calling such a voter "ignorant" says much worse about 95% of the citizenry who won't vote/always pulls a party lever/votes the way their church wants/etc. I'm not saying you feel 95% of the electorate is "ignorant," but if you do I suggest emigration.
   
2. Many voters voted "no" ignorantly. There's always a built-in "no" vote. Even in "uncontested" retention elections, there are people who simply vote "no."
   
3. Is symbolism "ignorance?" Even though I feel most "no" voters this year put much more thought into this than "let's send a message," what justification do you have for classifying such symbolism as "ignorant?" Voting is a form of political communication, like it or not.

Bottom line: Voters didn't need to "send a message to lawmakers" that they were disgruntled. Lawmakers already knew that. Voters were asked whether they wished to retain Justice Nigro. They answered that they didn't. Are you accusing them of lying? Being disingenuous? Being uninformed. If so, I'd ask you to provide an example of a PA retention election where the electorate was more informed. You won't find one.

Vagueries??? They were plenty specific. Either you didn't read them, or you're in denial.

Look, you can feel free to disagree on the substance of the argument. That's your right. But to simply dismiss an argument as non-existent or undeveloped is academic and argumentative arrogance.

If you really want to share ideas on this issue, start acknowledging the other side. You don't have to agree, but you have no credibility if you don't acknowledge.

We're saying the giant elephant in the living room is a problem. Right now, you're pretending it's not even there. Let's get on the same plane of reality.

Mark,

Who was responsible for 9/11?

Simplistic answer: a group of terrorists.

More realistic answer: a group of terrorist, who were not prevented from executing their attack by American intelligence/security community.

Is it "unwise" or "angry" to investigate secondary and enabling factors? We know who passed the pay raise. They will be held responsible. But the case has been made that our judiciary has failed. Our judiciary has allowed the legislature to routinely get away with murder.

Just as we should fix our weaknesses that enabled 9/11 to happen, we should fix our weaknesses that allow corruption to happen.

Justice Nigro may not be the "most responsible" but that does not excuse him. Responsibility has many forms. The voters felt he failed to live up to his. Attacking their decision as "unwise" or "dangerous" is mere bitterness and claiming pay raise anger is "bearing no relation" to the justices is ignorant. Voters saw a connection. If you disagree, respond to their case. Don't merely ignore it.

Mark,

Your reliance on Federalism 10 is misplaced.

The selected passage deals with direct democracy ("pure democracy" as Madison called it) and the tendency for factions to trample the rights of minorities (a.k.a. "tyranny of the majority").

It is faulty because we are not a direct democracy.

It is faulty because the current movement certainly doesn't advocate direct democracy.

It is faulty because the current movement does not target any minority's lives or rights.

I understand the point you're attempting to make. But this text is irrelevant to it. The fact that voters get behind a cause is more than a far cry from "mob rule." A "popular passion" for transparent and constitutional government is, if anything the polar opposite of a mob rule that would threaten individual rights.

This movement demands that government OBEY the constitution, not shred it. Your assertion that voters passionately expressing themselves is beyond nebulous -- it essentially makes the case AGAINST ANY FORM OF REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY and demands a totally insulated ruling glass that is protected in their ivory tower.

How does THAT ensure the protection of rights?

Bone up on your theory...please.

If it's "nonsense" why couldn't he meet the full reporting requirements?

If it's "nonsense" why did DoS interpretations of lawful campaign contributions exclude a number of his contributions?

If it's "nonsense" why didn't he just come out and say so? He never denied that he failed to comply. There's almost no question that he, at minimum, submitted sloppy reports.

I agree with your point that the cited passage is talking about direct vs. representative democracy, and in no way opposes a dissatisfied electorate revolting (at the ballot box) against the dominant political faction as a whole. There's nothing for me to add on your point, but I'll raise a somewhat related one.

The back scratching relationship between the judges and legislature subverting the Pennsylvania constitution is the kind of disfunction that Federalist 10 cited as one of the possible disadantages of a representative democracy vs. direct, where corrupt political cliques betray the interests of their constitutents. Though not endorsing or opposing the political tactic of taking it out on all the cronies (Madison was arguing such disfunction was less likely in a large representative democracy than a small one), clearly Federalist 10 recognizes that an entrenched self-serving political class like Pennsylvania's is one of the dangers of republics, and the republican design relies on the electorate to prevent or remove such disfunction.

I'll admit my factual presumptions on Pennsylvania are based on a limited reading. It looks to me that the legislature passed clearly unconstitutional "expense accounts" to take effect in the same term, and the courts were derelict in their duty not to strike them down. If that's the case, trying to unseat any available member of the back scratching clique that allows such corruption is a legitimate tactic for voters. Maybe my factual assessment is mistaken, but that doesn't undermine my argument; making such factual assessments is the province of the Pennsylvania voters.

and that message was sent to the PA Supreme Court loud and clear.  Make no mistake, voters throughout this Commonwealth were well aware that the PA Supreme Court has, in the past, condoned unconstitutional behavior.  In addition, the disgusting suckling at the public teat by folks like Nigro (charging me for his booze at dinner???) cropped up as an issue as well.  So while the legislators' unconstitutional act might have triggered the voter rebellion, the Supreme Court's enabling of the legislature and abuse of the public's $ became issues in their own right.  Here's hoping we can sustain this momentum into next year's elections.

I went through methodically over a period of several days examining the records of both justices. (I might note that it is nearly impossible for an average voter to navigate the Supreme Court opinion postings without examining all opinions written.)

In a perfect world the voters of PA would have done the same thing, but let's be honest most people haven't the foggiest idea where to begin looking for the information you are saying would be neccessary for them to make an "informed" vote. The Court in PA doesn't want average folks looking to closely at their work (nor does the legislature). Given the premise of your argument unless they engaged in the same tedious research I had completed they should have stayed home or voted yes(?) otherwise they are just part of the mob.  You've set up a fantastically sophisticated argument (I mean in the Platonic sence of sophistry).

If I remember my history correctly, the Founders had tax collectors tarred and feathered. I'm sure that the mobs carrying out those actions had some sense of the "truth" and justice behind their actions. I'll grant thet the people of PA may not have had the specifics regarding all of the specific cases (whenever anyone asked I was more than happy to go into the relationship between Consumer Party v. Commonwealth, 1986 and the current holdings of the Court).

However, they are aware that their homes are taken away from them due to taxes, they have to work at least one lousy job thanks to the economic missmanagement of our state and the people in charge are either a) descended from the "robber barons", or b) financed by them. Their interests are not being represented by the new royalty who have taken residence in OUR capital. And not even you can argue that this government is the "least intrusive".

Finally: "What of a Constitutional Amendment regarding the pay increases, demanding a set period of time for public input?" Our constituion is fine. It's the people who are misinterpreting it who are the problem.

Leo