
Marionettes
As fit citizens, neighbors and running mates, we are tyranny fighters, water-game professionals, WPIAL and PIAA bound, wiki instigators, sports fans, liberty lovers, world travelers, non-credentialed Olympic photographers, UU netizens, church goers, open source boosters, school advocates, South Siders, retired and not, swim coaches, water polo players, ex-publishers and polar bear swimmers, N@.
Red flags should go up anytime a Court requires one hundred pages to explain its position, and the recent opinion by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding the 2005 pay raise fiasco is no exception.
The case was unusual in its origin, as the Court reached down to combine three separate cases from lower courts for an opportunity to make a general legal opinion. One case challenged the constitutionality of the pay raise itself, while two others challenged the constitutionality of its repeal.
This combination allowed the Court to cherry pick arguments from briefs filed on behalf of many different parties in each case in order to form its eventual ruling. One wonders whether the Court would have made such a move had their own compensation not been at stake.
Logic would dictate that if the pay raise itself was unconstitutional, any issue regarding its repeal would be moot. But the Court approached it differently, establishing opinions regarding the repeal first, based upon the assumption that the pay raise was constitutional. Doing it any other way would not have allowed the preservation of the judicial raises.
While the opinion goes to great lengths to explain the necessity for an independent judiciary and demands that the other two co-equal branches of government be kept from stepping on judicial turf, it offers no reciprocal respect of the legislature’s prerogative to make a bill an ‘all or nothing’ affair by inserting a non- severability clause.
Another contradiction lies with the Court’s willingness to revisit its original ruling on unvouchered expenses, while on the other hand considering its 2005 opinion regarding legislative shenanigans with the slots bill to be rock-solid precedent. In other words, it’s acceptable to correct a twenty year old mistake but unacceptable to do the same for a decision made just last year.
The biggest insult to our intelligence, however, is the Court’s claim that it had nothing to do with the original pay raise legislation. Published reports from as early as November 2004 mention Chief Justice Ralph Cappy’s overtures to the legislature for a judicial pay raise.
The opinion opens with an explanation of the political implications of the pay raise and an account of the public fallout, including the first-ever non-retention of one of its own last year. With this in mind, the fact that the lone dissenter to this opinion is the very next justice up for retention in 2007 comes as no surprise.
The timing of this ruling raises questions as well. Is its release less than seven weeks before a general election an indication that the Court wished to ‘stick it’ to the legislature in return for botching pay raises for the judiciary? The emphasis on protecting judicial turf lends credence to the notion, as does the fact that public anti-pay raise furor has otherwise taken a hiatus of late.
In legalese, the Court needed one hundred pages to delineate why they restored their own pay raises, but in plain English it takes only three words: Because they can. This should come as no surprise to citizens who regularly follow the Court’s slicing and dicing of the Constitution’s plain language.
The usual follow-up to the brazen ‘because we can’ position is an equally arrogant question: So waddaya gonna do about it? The Court’s opinion actually hints at the answer.
“In our democratic form of government, there are other methods, besides lawsuits, which may serve as a corrective tool for legislative excesses, the primary method being the political process. This case has borne out the effectiveness of that process,” the Court notes.
The opinion fails to mention, however, that the same option is available to address judicial excesses. Pennsylvanians who wish to regain control of their government should choose to not retain members of the judiciary at future elections, following the precedent set last year with Russell Nigro.
Not just because we can, but also because it’s the right thing to do.
Brash bemoans publicity of private life - New Zealand, world, sport, business & entertainment news on Stuff.co.nz The suggestion is crap. I have always made a point of telling the New Zealand public what my policies are and what I stand for in a policy sense. I've never held myself up as a morals campaigner.'Not only am I trying to get a grip on video blogging and my associated mulit-media archives, I'm excited to tune into more news and research into life in New Zealand.
New Hazlett Theater Opening Celebration - PittsburghLIVE.com: "New Hazlett Theater Opening Celebration
On Religion: What sort of end will Harry Potter meet? | naplesnews.com | Naples Daily News “A hero is not perfect. In fact, his flaws are part of what make him great,” said Tobias, pastor of St. John the Baptist Orthodox Church outside Pittsburgh. “By the end of a story like this one, the hero has simply become too big to remain in this world. This kind of hero is born for a purpose and he dies for a purpose.”
Surveying the mayoral landscape - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Surveying the mayoral landscapeJoe Sabino Mistick article on the mayor landscape is a blunder of the highest order. This isn't a survey with any sense of truth. It is typical of Pittsburgh's media blunders and why we need a vibant internet and blogger network to point out the failure in their ways.
Alabama bayou getting some expert advice on Katrina rebuilding BAYOU LA BATRE, Ala. A panel of experts whose Hurricane Katrina rebuilding advice upset some New Orleanians will focus on Bayou La Batre's storm recovery in a weeklong visit.OMG. Run.
Arriving tomorrow (Sunday) night, a 10-member panel from the Washington, DC-based Urban Land Institute brings a range of expertise, including developers, architects, market analysts, and urban planners.
The panel includes former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy and former U-L-I Chairman Smedes York of Raleigh, North Carolina.
The panelists will interview about 70 people on Tuesday about the bayou's future and rebuilding efforts before spending Wednesday and Thursday preparing their presentation for delivery Friday morning at Bayou La Batre Community Center.
Transit hearings on possible fare increases shift into reverse State and Allegheny County officials have asked the Port Authority to hold off on public hearings on a possible fare increase and service cuts until a state commission finishes its report on long-term transportation funding.Don't you hate it when you see the county executive say -- "Wait until after the election." Or, where the exact words, "What's the rush? We've got to break ground on the twin tunnels first, then pull the rug out from under the poor?"
Governor Rendell's health good
Gov. Ed Rendell is slightly overweight and takes Zocor to lower his cholesterol, but overall he's a 'healthy, 62-year-old man,'' doctors say.
The results of his annual physical were released yesterday by his campaign. He took the exam July 17.
Mr. Rendell, who is known around the Capitol and in his hometown of Philadelphia as someone who loves to eat, weighs 257 pounds, which is seven more than when he was elected in 2002. His height is 5 feet 11 inches.
To control his weight he exercises 30 to 35 minutes a day on a treadmill and rides a stationary bike, said campaign spokesman Dan Fee.
blog.myspace.com/leapspeakers National Conference of Editorial Writers Annual Convention, Pittsburgh, PA
Newspaper editorial writers are getting a dose of reality when they wander thru the exhibit area at their annual convention this wk, when they round the corner and encounter the LEAP exhibition booth, staffed by the savvy experts HOWARD WOOLDRIDGE and STEVE HEATH. Howard, is, of course, a co-founder of LEAP and a member of the e-board while Steve is a longtime activist focusing on media, OpEd efforts and Letters to the Editor. Steve's wife Doreen is helping out at this very important conference, too. Rarely do newspaper editorial boards write an opinion on drug war efficacy--and hardly ever do they write about the idea of ending drug prohibition--but mostly that is due to the fact that people fm the criminal justice system have approached them to advocate ending the War on Drugs. That's how it is done: editorial staffs host politicians, public health specialists, single issue advocates and others into their offices to pitch to them their views. After grilling the guests and studying the issue they usually come out with an opinion piece under the masthead of the paper so this is a unique opportunity for them to meet LEAP, hear our pitch and then we'll work to set up interviews around the country. Which begs the question:
have you ever called or written to your editorial board about Drug War efficacy? It's an easy bit of activism that everyone can perform. Look at your paper today...find the editorial/opinion section (like this ONE) and find out who the people are behind the opinions. Get the contact information and send it to me AFTER you have first attempted to reach them yourself.