Since I posted my original diary, the PA Democratic Committee has made their endorsements, and a few articles and tweets have appeared quoting the candidates. I thought some of what they said was revealing and worth sharing:
www.politicspa.com/…
For Superior Court: for some reason, two of the candidates, Lillian Harris Ransom and Albert Flora, did not participate in the endorsement process or even appear at the forum. The other five were all there, and here are some comments they made:
The forum focused on issues ranging from the First Amendment protections, immigration, family law, and LGBT rights.
All of the candidates agreed that the Court needed to protect the First Amendment, especially the freedom of the press.
We need to “make sure the media is not intimidated,” Moulton said.
“Freedom of the press is one of the most fundamental freedom in the U.S.,” Nichols echoed.
You’d better hope any judge, especially a Democratic one, thinks that way. We all know who they probably had in mind when they said that.
The candidates all agreed that when issues that relate to immigration would come before the Court they would need to treat those cases with compassion.
On social issues and LGBT rights, the candidates all said that the Court needed to protect the rights women and the LGBT community.
“I have dealt with many LGBTQ issues. I would look at these cases the same as any other cases, those litigants deserve what everybody else does before the court, to be treated fairly,” Kunselman said.
I’d certainly trust a Democrat over a Republican to treat immigrants compassionately. Kunselman’s response is reasonable, but leaves me wanting more. In particular, I’d like to know more about the issues she’s dealt with. I haven’t been able to find that.
“We need to be sensitive and mindful, as a judge we have to go over and above,” McLaughlin said.
Caye summed up the entire panel: “I think it is very important when you are electing judges you elect judges who share your same values.”
Caye is right, although the Not Recommended rating prevents me from voting for him, and I’m not that enthused about his background anyway.
For Commonwealth Court, all seven candidates showed up.
There are two openings on the nine-member court, which hears challenges to state legislation and executive actions. It’s the first step for most legal action that intersects with state politics, and currently has 7 Republican judges and 2 Democrats.
That counts the two interim appointed judges. Excluding them, it’s 6-1 Republican, and the one Democrat, Michael Wojcik, was just elected in 2015, breaking a GOP winning streak dating back 20 years and 7 seats. We really need to start making up ground now. Consider the recent case where Commonwealth Court struck down Tom Wolf’s executive order allowing home health workers to unionize. Only one judge dissented—Michael Wojcik. phinational.org/...
On school funding, the candidates all agreed that education needs to be funded fairly and in accordance with the constitutional requirements.
“There is a Constitutional requirement for a free and public education,” Barbin said.
If courts actually tried to force districts to be funded equally, what a difference that would make. I don’t know what the PA constitutional requirements are, though.
The candidates agreed also that the Court does not make the laws, but interprets the laws and the Constitution.
“The Court’s job is to interpret the laws, not make them,” Eagan said.
I wish Democrats would stop spouting worthless platitudes like that. That’s why we’ve been losing the battle over the judiciary and interpretation of the Constitution for decades. We accept the GOP framing and water it down. Fact is, judges make policy. Republicans know this. That’s why they fight so hard to get pro-Trump toadies like Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito. Eagen himself knows it, if his comments to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about looking out for working families from the bench are any indication. Democrats need to have more courage on these issues. (Related, I would endorse a primary challenge to any senator who doesn’t vote to filibuster Gorsuch, because they’re voting then to write Trump’s platform into the Constitution, before we even get to the questions about Trump’s legitimacy.)
The candidates addressed what the Court should do when it faces issues of police power. Most of the candidates agreed that it was a balancing act that had to be performed.
“We know the balance we have to abide by, know the Commonwealth Court is in a unique position to protect Constitutional rights of all citizens,” said Cosgrove. He was appointed to the Court by Gov. Tom Wolf in July and is running for a full term.
“There are a lot of good police officers out there, and they have a difficult job. We cannot make their job harder, but we have to balance that with individual rights,” Barry said.
That’s the best response we’re going to get, given the vagaries of judicial elections. In such races, ads talking about crime are prevalent and effective, and police union backing often is significant for actually getting elected.
“It is very important to have a woman’s perspective on the Commonwealth Court,” Clark said.
Crumlish pointed to the Pa. and U.S. constitutions as the main driver for the protections of women’s rights.
“Both of our Constitutions provide all the protection we need.”
Clark is right, although if we want to vote for a woman, we should vote for Ellen Ceisler. In addition to her very solid record, Ceisler is Recommended by the bar. Clark is Not Recommended.
Crumlish would presumably defend women’s rights as a judge, given that he thinks they are included in the Constitutions. His statement is only half true, though. As Paul Krugman pointed out in his chilling column last week, institutions are only as strong or weak as the people who operate them. The Constitutions may provide legal protections, but they depend on fair-minded officials, especially judges, to implement them. Remember Ledbetter v Goodyear, where Alito rewrote equal pay law to legalize discrimination.
When addressing the tension between shale and natural gas development and environmental concerns, all of the candidates agreed that it was a balancing act between the two sides.
“The Commonwealth Court is ground zero of all of these issues, and I believe the Commonwealth Court can do a better job at examining the issues surrounding these issues,” Ceisler said in her response.
Reasonable, although it doesn’t tell us much about her views. She’d probably be less sympathetic to fracking and fossil fuel interests than the current GOP-dominated court, though.
For Supreme Court, Democrats have only one candidate, Dwayne Woodruff:
“We have gotten to the point where instead of the people electing their representatives, the representatives are electing their districts,” he said.
Now we have a firm grasp of the obvious. And electing Woodruff is part of the solution, for sure.
“It’s been our judicial system that has been our backstop to make sure that our individual rights and our family rights are protected,” Judge Woodruff told the committee.
Reiterating the point he made in that tweet I posted in my first diary. And here:
“I think the issues that are going on in our country and particularly in our state call for strong leadership,” Woodruff said.
“The things that I believe in regard to women’s rights and civil rights and all those things that are coming into question now and it is something that the judicial system can help resolve and protect,” Woodruff said.
“I believe that the judiciary system is that line of defense to make sure that our rights are protected and the Constitution is followed as well.”
Woodruff gets it. And Carolyn Nichols does, too. In tweeting about her endorsement from the PA Democratic Party, she included this hashtag: #BlackRobesMatter. I don’t think that requires elaboration.
I also want to mention that Keystone Progress, an organization dedicated to advancing progressive politics in PA, is holding a summit this weekend. It looks like these judicial elections are not even on the agenda, in what would be another example of liberal shortsightedness. www.politicspa.com/…
One item on the agenda is: “Why We Must Protect Governor’ Wolf’s Moratorium on Executions.” Then how can one ignore the judiciary, which has a case before it deciding the constitutionality of that moratorium? A reminder that this issue goes to Commonwealth Court—and that one Democratic candidate, Joe Cosgrove, is a staunch opponent of the death penalty, represented clients facing capital sentences, and even got Mother Teresa to testify in a sentencing hearing. So if you really care about ending the death penalty, here’s a great way to do it! Give people like Joe Cosgrove a powerful position where they can act!
Also: Redistricting Reform in Pennsylvania. And whose fault is it that PA’s districts are so badly gerrymandered? In no small part, the PA Supreme Court, which in 2011 appointed a Republican tiebreaker to the redistricting commission and then upheld the plan against all challenges. How do we fight for fair districts? We need fair judges, for one! People like Dwayne Woodruff, for instance.
Stopping Polluters with Local Ordinances. If judges will strike down said ordinances, this tactic ultimately accomplishes nothing. Commonwealth Court is currently GOP-dominated, pro-polluter—but we have a chance to make up ground this year! We should also be aware that one GOP candidate has made his law career by representing polluters.
How to Support Immigrant and Refugee Communities in the Trump Era. Maybe by electing pro-democracy judges who will have actual power to defend immigrant and refugee rights? Ellen Ceisler, running for Commonwealth Court, has been involved with the anti-Defamation League.
Similarly, The Muslim Ban: Anti-Arab and Anti-Muslim Bigotry. And who can actually do something? Judges. Who were the three 9th Circuit judges who ruled against the ban? Two were Democrats—one appointed by Jimmy Carter, the other by Barack Obama. The third may be a Republican, but he’s from Hawaii, easily the most multicultural and diverse state in the country. Out there, there simply isn’t much bigotry. Republican judges have made it clear for some time that party loyalty and bigotry trump the rule of law (yes, that was intentional). Remember King v Burwell--the plaintiffs trying to kill the subsidies had no legal case whatsoever, yet every Republican judge who heard the case, other than Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts, ruled in their favor. Remember that Samuel Alito specifically cited his bigoted views as his reason for getting into politics. Then tell me we can afford to ignore the courts.
Why Labor’s Issues are the Progressive Community’s Issues. A great way to support labor is get some judges who will rule in labor’s favor for a change! Remember that if Democrats buckle and allow Gorsuch through, the GOP will have a 5-4 majority to insert right-to-work into the Constitution. Also remember, Todd Eagen, Democrat for Commonwealth Court, has made his career by representing workers!
Fighting Gun Violence in the New Era of American Government. Try electing judges who won’t reflexively do the NRA’s bidding. They’re the ones overturning laws on constitutional grounds. A law can be changed by a future legislature, but altering the Constitution is far harder.
Buckle Up, Buttercup: Reproductive Freedom in the Trump Era. Who expands or restricts reproductive rights? Judges enacted Hobby Lobby. Judges enacted Roe v Wade. The PA legislature is dominated by fascists, Tom Wolf is no more than 50-50 to win reelection, so the PA courts are the last line of defense.
Increasing Diversity in Advocacy Groups. And From Recruitment and Representing: How to Get More Women Elected. We have a great chance to act on both ideas this year. We have an African-American candidate for PA Supreme Court, and Dwayne Woodruff understands the value of diversity and the crisis democracy faces. We have four women running in our primary for Superior Court, and two are women of color. Deborah Kunselman, Lillian Harris Ransom, Carolyn Nichols, Maria McLaughlin. We also have Ellen Ceisler in the race for Commonwealth Court.
[Side note: Tulsi Gabbard is quoted as saying: www.politicspa.com/...
“There are some who think that the best way to approach the next four years is through constant and consistent obstruction at every step and every turn. I disagree with that,” she said.
“We can best serve our communities, our state and our country by stepping up as leaders.”
I say, ask Neville Chamberlain how working with and appeasing a fascist bully worked out.]
Please share information on these races with any PA progressives you know. (And if you have more information than I’ve written, please chime in!) I don’t think enough liberals appreciate the importance of having sympathetic judges—especially now, given the crisis of democracy. Do not, at any time, forget Krugman’s warning—institutions are no stronger or weaker than the people operating them. Will we get, or in many cases will we be, the people we need to get, need to be, in our moment of peril?