"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

This quote has been attributed to many historical figures, including Mark Twain and Prime Minister of England Benjamin Disraeli. Regardless of who first uttered the line, it rings true time and time again in Pennsylvania's electoral battles.

The latest example may have been provided by Pennsylvania Bar Association president Andrew Susko on September 26th during an appearance on a PCN call-in show with RockTheCapital's Eric Epstein and PACleanSweep's Russ Diamond.

Lies?

In discussing various questionnaires for judicial retention candidates, Mr. Susko implied that a questionnaire submitted by reform groups led by Democracy Rising PA is little more than fluff by citing a question regarding a candidate's favorite U.S. president. Unfortunately, the Democracy Rising PA questionnaire contains no such question. It only contains questions regarding the role of the courts, reform and constitutional issues.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association's questionnaire, however, does contain fluff. It asks whether a judge is married. It asks if a judge has been divorced. It asks judges to list their "honors, prizes, awards or other forms of recognition." It does not ask a single question about the Constitution or reform.

We believe Mr. Susko owes an apology to Eric Epstein, Democracy Rising PA and the other participating reform groups for misrepresenting their questionnaire. We also believe Mr. Susko needs to identify which particular questionnaire he's seen that includes a question regarding a judge's favorite U.S. president.

Damned Lies?

In defending the judicial swindle, Mr. Susko continuously cited Article V Section 16(a) of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial salaries from being reduced unless the pay of all salaried officers of the Commonwealth are also reduced. However, this provision can only kick in after a judicial pay raise has been approved in a constitutional manner. A statute such as the pay raise bill (HB1521) that is repugnant to the Constitution is void ab initio; not merely voidable after the fact, but void from inception.

In defending the "gut-and-run" legislative process that created the judicial pay raise, Mr. Susko claimed the midnight amendments to HB1521 were germane to the bill's original language. To back up his claim, he stated the following: "From day one this was a bill about executive and judicial and legislative compensation."

When further pressed on the bill's apparent violations of the Constitution's original purpose rule (Article III Section 1) and three-day rule (Article III Section 4), he stated: "It was aired out for three days, sir, over two months. For two months it was aired out."

Neither claim could be further from the truth. An inspection of the original text of HB1521, introduced on May 3, 2005, reveals that it only sought to prevent any official of the executive branch from earning a higher salary than the governor. The only amendment to the bill during its normal journey through the General Assembly was a clause added by the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 6 preventing the bill from being applied retroactively.

No other language was added to the bill until July 7, when a conference committee of House and Senate leaders met. That committee completely gutted the bill and inserted 22 pages of language creating pay raises for all three branches of state government. This was the first time any mention of the judicial or legislative branches were made by HB1521. The two chambers immediately voted on the bill and the Governor signed it less than 24 hours later.

There are only two choices here: Either Mr. Susko deliberately misled the viewers of PCN or he is completely ignorant of the facts. We believe he owes the people of Pennsylvania an explanation for his claims - which are distinctly different than the facts. We believe the member lawyers of his organization who are dedicated to truth and justice are owed an explanation as well.

It is unfathomable that the president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association cannot be trusted to provide an accurate assessment of the pay raise issue. His organization is the predominant supporter of retention for judges in the state. If Mr. Susko can't get these very simple facts straight, how can the judicial questionnaires and retention recommendations of his Pennsylvania Bar Association possibly be trusted?

Statistics?

Mr. Susko repeated a Chicken Little-style statistic - originally made by soon-to-be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ron Castille - by bemoaning the fact that Pennsylvania would lose over 700 years of judicial experience if all 67 retention candidates are voted out of office on November 6.

No one, however, has put that figure into perspective yet. If 67 judges represent 700 years of experience, how many total years of experience do Pennsylvania's over 1200 judges represent? 8,000? 10,000? 12,000? What percentage of that total do these 67 individuals represent? 5 percent? 8 percent? 10 percent?

Perhaps it doesn't even matter what the percentage is.

Every eight years, Pennsylvania replaces the entire executive branch, but the sky has not yet fallen. In 2006, we replaced 24 percent of the legislative branch - including some of its most experienced members - but the Commonwealth has not yet crumbled. Likewise, the world will not end if a mere 67 judges are removed from the bench by voters.

"Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"

There may be three kinds of lies, but there is only one law that serves as the fundamental building block of government - our Constitution. It is not partisan. It is not political. It reigns supreme. The sovereign people are its owner and the final arbiters of its meaning.

When government officials in all three branches fail to support, obey or defend the document that expresses the ultimate will of the people, the people have but one tool to correct those failures: The ballot box.

If elected officials will not take a stand for the Constitution, We the People must.

Vote NO on November 6!