- Hey Ben: Questions about tax amnesty
- US Rep. John Murtha, June 17, 1932 – February 8, 2010
- Getting Real Answers from Gubernatorial Candidates
- It is always a good thing when our government works well
- Courtfighter: Delaware County Judge Maureen Fitzpatrick A Bigot? You Judge How Often Bigotry Occurs In Media, PA
- We'll Get You Ready for State Budget Release Tuesday
- ONE Praises U.S. Treasury Announcement to Work with International Partners to Relieve Haiti’s Debt
- A giant toxic monster is coming your way OR no rigs before regs!
- We Need Immigration Reform Now! Why Stu Bykofsky got it wrong.
- Stop losing the war on health insurance reform
Election Day: Vote YES on Judicial Retention
Well, Momma warned that there’d be days like this. It looks like conservatives are on the verge of outmaneuvering progressives once again.
A strange left-right alliance united to call for the repeal of the unpopular legislative pay raise. As Dan has already noted, this issue has been a tremendous organizing asset to conservatives across the state. Some argued that despite the mileage conservatives have gotten out of the pay raise, progressive organizations would benefit as well.
Too bad it didn’t work out that way. On Election Day, it looks like the anti-pay raise movement could be partially responsible for preventing two progressive candidates from being retained on Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. Click “Read More” for my analysis.
After severing 10 years on the bench, two Philadelphia-area justices face a retention election. Justices Russell Nigro and Sandra Schultz Newman have been endorsed by numerous progressive organizations and highly rated by the Pennsylvania Bar Association. From an excellent article in the Philadelphia Citypaper:
So why should Philadelphians care about who sits on the state Supreme Court? A court that meets a mere seven weeks a year. A court whose most well-known justice earned his notoriety through an addiction to prescription drugs.
What's at stake now that Philadelphia has the chance to put not just one, but two natives on the state's highest bench?
Ask Ed Rendell.
"If you don't think it matters in your life, that a Philadelphia judge get on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, then you're dead wrong," he told the crowd at the Northeast gathering. "It matters in dollars and cents. A court decision about five years ago said that the state should pick up the cost of our courts; $100 million. If Russell gets on the court — and he's not allowed to say it, but I will — we could get those court costs back and with $100 million we could hire 1,700 new police officers in the Philadelphia police department. So get out and vote.
Conservative organizations have been urging Pennsylvania voters to reject Nigro and Newman on the basis that they both benefited from the legislative pay raise. Of course, neither of them had any role in approving the raise, but that doesn’t matter to the right-wing. They are out for blood. Already emboldened by Sen. Robert Jubelirer reversal on the issue, a rejection of Newman and Nigro by Pennsylvania voters will be a another feather in their cap.
The people who are leaders of the anti-pay raise movement are the same people who want to take Pennsylvania back to the Stone Age. They want to eliminate the right to privacy and a woman’s right to choose. They want to break the backs of labor unions. They want to roll back affirmative action. They refuse to fund public transit. They want to pass TABOR and destroy the entire public sector. They want a low-wage economy that benefits the economic elite.
In short, these people are not our friends.
Vote YES on judicial retention and help deny conservatives a political victory.


I am not sure that all Republ
I am not sure that all Republicans would be thrilled with "no" votes on retention, because that means Rendell gets to appoint 2 justices. Would they trade one republican and one democrat for two democrats?
Interesting point
I just got into a debate about this with a conservative-leaning friend. He claims he is voting "no" because of how Nigro and Newman interpreted the PA Constitution in the pay raise case. He doesn't like the Young Conservatives of PA and the Club for Growth (who are the people really behind the anti-pay raise movement) but says he is still voting no.
I pointed out to him that since Rendell is making the appointments, there was no political impact of throwing out Nigro and Newman. It was only symbolic—and the symbolism shows the strength of YCOP and allied organizations. Conservatives are using the pay raise to build their own power in a very strategic way—a “no” vote on retention helps them even more. They don’t really care who is on the Supreme Court, particularly because they think Newman (who is a Republican) is too liberal. They’d most likely rather have two Democrats than a liberal Republican.
simple
Shorter version: The vote will be percived as a show of strength for YCOP and the other anti-pay raise conservatives-- people who are trying to overthrow the current Republican leadership. I'd rather have people like Perzel in charge than some of the nutcases from the T.
Official Positions
YCOP* does not have an official position on retention of judges.
Can't say the same for PA Club for Growth, I do not know, but I do not see it on their website.
* I am Montgomery County Coordinator for YCOP.