If retentions shouldn't be political, why is Tom Saylor participating in this event? Perhaps the whole 'retentions should be non-political' line is a sham. This would not be the first time Saylor has participated in a sham.

In November of 2003, Saylor wrote the Court's majority opinion in City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, in which he basically opined that one of the duties of the Court is to make sure the General Assembly adheres to Article III of the Constitution. Article III details exactly how new laws must be passed and guarantees a deliberative legislative process for every Pennsylvanian.

Just eighteen months later, Saylor did an about face by participating in the unanimous opinion on Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion v. Commonwealth (PAGE), a ruling which held that the plain language of Article III is utterly meaningless and that "gut-and-run" legislation is perfectly acceptable.

That decision foisted slots parlors upon the people of Philadelphia without allowing them any say on where those slots parlors would be located. As a result, Philadelphia stands as the only place in the world where gambling casinos will be located in residential neighborhoods.

The eventual opinion of the Court on the judicial pay raise was steeped in "logic" borrowed from the PAGE case. Saylor's claim to fame in the pay raise case is that he was the lone dissenter. Unfortunately, he only dissented on a technical point of law and refused to oppose his colleagues on the pertinent Article III issues.

Saylor's treatment of Article III since November 2003 and his dissent on the pay raise decision is the judicial equivalent of a shopkeeper who holds a one-third off sale - after he marks up all his prices by 50 percent. The people of Pennsylvania are entitled to far better than what Saylor has done.

A review of the above referenced invitation to an oh-so-political gathering for a retention candidate reveals a few more shams.

Dr. Jim Broussard, chairman of Citizens Against Higher Taxes, was the sender of the invitation. Campaign finance records reveal that Citizens Against Higher Taxes contributed to the campaigns of payjackers Senate Majority Leader David "Chip" Brightbill and Representative Pete Zug after the pay raise of July 2005. Sham.

The invitation claims that Saylor is the "most conservative member of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court." We do not believe a self-respecting "conservative" member of the Court - or a self-respecting "liberal" member, for that matter - would allow any portion of the Constitution to be utterly trampled by the General Assembly. Sham.

It claims that "Governor Ed Rendell would appoint a liberal Democrat to fill the vacancy." This Republican-establishment scare tactic completely discounts the role of the Republican-dominated Senate in the appointment process. Every temporary appointee must be confirmed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. Sham.

The invitation lists Representative RoseMarie Swanger as a member of the event's "Host Committee." A quick call to Representative Swanger - a PACleanSweep-supported candidate who defeated Pete Zug in the 2006 primary - revealed that she does not recall being asked to serve in such a capacity and will not even be attending the event. Sham.

Saylor on Article III? Sham. Saylor's dissent on the pay raise case? Sham. Retentions as non-political events? Sham. Liberal bogeymen under the bed? Sham. Citizens Against Higher Taxes? Sham.

Pennsylvania deserves better and can get something better by voting NO on November 6th.

Top Ten Reasons to Vote 'NO'

Get Your 'VOTE NO' Yard Signs

Citizens' To Do List

About PACleanSweep

PACleanSweep is a non-partisan effort dedicated to reforming state government in Pennsylvania. For more information, please visit www.PACleanSweep.com.