The legal community and others have said a lot of things about PACleanSweep's 'Vote NO' effort. Unfortunately, none of them have addressed the most pressing question on the minds of most reform- minded Pennsylvanians: How do you align the judicial swindle with the Constitution of this Commonwealth?

We've taken a few statements made by judicial defenders and dissected them for the benefit of voters.

Superior Court President Judge Kate Ford Elliot (on KDKA-TV, 9/11)

"I've been a judge for 18 years, and I have never seen this kind of attention placed on the retention elections."

PACleanSweep believes it's high time Pennsylvanians paid more attention to judicial retentions. They've effectively been a 'gimme' for judges for almost 40 years.

"What I would hope, though, is that the citizens will judge the records of the judges who are standing for retention this year and determine whether they have faithfully fulfilled their oath of office."

PACleanSweep agrees wholeheartedly with Judge Ford Elliot. Here is their oath of office (from the PA Constitution):

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

Note how allegiance to the Constitution comes before the duties of their office in the oath. We challenge Judge Ford Elliot - and every single judge up for retention - to detail the step-by-step constitutionality of the judicial pay raise from start to finish.

Ken Gormley of the Allegheny County Bar Association (on KDKA-TV, 9/11)

"The moment you start putting these political pressures on these judges you are jeopardizing their ability to remain impartial and that's exactly the opposite of what we're trying to accomplish."

Judges should be extremely partial - to the ultimate will of the people, the Constitution. The Constitution is not a political issue. Judges need to follow the rules We the People have laid out for them. If they don't follow our very simple rules, how can we allow them to continue to weigh other questions of law?

Sean Connolly, spokesman for Supreme Court Justice Tom Saylor's retention campaign (in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, 9/14)

"We're talking about a judge who voted against the pay raise, who voted in favor of lobbyist reform and who has defended the state's right-to-know law on many occasions."

We're also talking about a judge who joined the unanimous 6-0 Supreme Court decision that claimed the bastardized legislative process used to pass the slots bill was just fine and dandy. The same vulgar process was used to ultimately raise Saylor's salary. Although he dissented on the pay raise decision, he didn't return any of the money nor did he make any statement regarding the clear violations of the Constitution that created the pay raise in the first place.

Saylor's inaction speaks so loudly we can't hear the words he's trying to say.

Pennsylvania Bar Association President Andrew Susko (in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, 9/14)

Susko labeled the PACleanSweep campaign "an irresponsible call to the voting electorate that... could do severe, lasting damage to our judicial system."

Sorry, Mr. Susko, the "severe, lasting damage" to the judicial system was first inflicted by the Supreme Court on the slots bill, then by Chief Justice Ralph Cappy while advocating for a pay raise behind closed doors, again when Justice Cappy called public outrage to the pay raise "knee-jerk" and citizen anger "unfair, superficial, and shortsighted," again by the Supreme Court (sans Judge Cappy) on the pay raise decision and finally, by every judge in the state who is still accepting the pay raise.

PACleanSweep challenges Susko to reveal what number of judges voted out of office would be responsible, if our campaign is an "irresponsible call to the voting electorate?" 60? 45? 30? 15? 5? 1? The Pennsylvania Bar Association recommends that voters retain every single one of the statewide judges - but has not addressed the constitutional issues of the pay raise. Is that a responsible position?

Revisiting Susko's "lasting damage" claim, every judge who is not retained in 2007 can run for the office again when it comes up for a contested election in a couple of years. Any appointed replacement would be temporary - and certainly will be qualified to hold the job. The Commonwealth will not crumble and the sky will not fall, but we just might get some judges who actually care about our Constitution.

(on the Pennsylvania Bar Association website, 9/13)

Susko allowed that PACleanSweep just might be right on the constitutional issue.

"In November, voters should evaluate judges on their full judicial record and not on a single legislative act or judicial decision."

That statement is eerily reminiscent of statements made by former legislators in 2005 and early 2006 before the people of Pennsylvania voted them out of office. Remember them?

(in The Legal Intelligencer, 9/12)

Just one day before Susko's statement on the PBA website, he was quoted on the matter of Chief Justice Ralph Cappy's announced retirement. Two paragraphs in the article caught PACleanSweep's eye:

While some might be concerned about the court going through such rapid change and having a new leader, Pennsylvania Bar Association President Andrew Susko said he wasn't worried.

"I think highly of Justice Castille," he said, adding that he had tried a case against Castille shortly before Castille's election to the bench. "I have a high degree of confidence in his ability to lead the court."

So is Susko worried about damage to the courts if judges leave or not?

Another paragraph warrants some attention as well:

Susko said Cappy "demonstrated a lot of courage" in arguing in favor of higher salaries for judges.

Hmmmm... courage... courage... now where did we hear that before? That's right - it's what Chief Justice Cappy himself said about the General Assembly's passage of the pay raise.

Finally, let's ask Mr. Susko this: How many of the 67 judges up for retention on November 6 are, or ever have been, members of his Pennsylvania Bar Association?

Philadelphia Bar Association Chancellor Jane Dalton (on The Legal Intelligencer Blog, 9/18)

From the blog entry:

Philadelphia Bar Association Chancellor Jane Dalton's statement reiterated the bar association's position that a high-quality bench requires "proper compensation." Dalton also said that it would undermine the judicial process to reject every single judge on the sole issue of the 2005 pay raise.

"A judge does not and must not answer to the popular will of the people. A judge must only answer to the law, the facts and reason," Dalton's statement said.

We challenge Chancellor Dalton's use of the term "proper compensation." If she's talking about higher pay, we've never argued over the particular salaries of judges. On the other hand, if the Philadelphia Bar Association is claiming that the way judges received a pay raise was "proper," then they too must be in favor of trampling our Constitution. If judges want a pay raise, they need to abide by the Constitution to get it.

We are not asking judges to "answer to the popular will of the people." We are demanding they uphold their oath to support, obey and defend the Constitution. That document is not a whim, a fad or a passing fancy - it is the ultimate will of the people expressed in a permanent document that can only be changed through extraordinary means.

We agree that "a judge must only answer to the law, the facts and reason." That's why we repeat our challenge for every single judge up for retention to delineate the constitutionality of their pay raise from start to finish.

Brett Lieberman (Pennsyltucky Blog, 9/14)

Lieberman wrote a column, the title of which - "Why think when you can just vote 'no'" - inferred that PACleanSweep is running a campaign based on stupidity and any voter who follows through is equally stupid. He said we "blamed the judges for all of society's ills regardless of whether of not they ruled on them."

He also claimed that blaming judges for personally benefiting from the resultant loot of the judicial swindle "is a lot like blaming the Phillies' ball boy or the Philly Fanatic [sic] for their play on the field."

Lieberman's assessments are off the mark. If the Phillies cheat to win, neither the Phanatic nor the ball boy take home the World Series trophy. We don't blame the judges for all the ills of society, but we do blame them for their silence during the creation of an atmosphere where no Pennsylvanian knows if the rule of law matters anymore.

Why hasn't Lieberman equally branded those who advocate a straight 'yes' vote as unthinking? Has he read Reason #10 of our Top Ten Reasons to Vote 'No'? Does he understand the constitutional timeline and issues? Would he accept money he knew was swindled from others? We don't think he would, but what's so magical about black robes that makes it OK for judges to do it?

PACleanSweep does not believe Pennsylvanians will be fooled by smoke and mirrors or Chicken Little arguments. Instead, we have faith that Pennsylvanians will see the forest for the trees and vote out judges en masse on November 6.

Vote NO on November 6!

2007 Retention Candidate List

Top Ten Reasons to Vote 'No'

What YOU Need to Do on November 6

PACleanSweep Judicial Retention Poll Results

Pennsylvania's Judicial Retention System

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