Nominee process frustrates Rendell |

Nominee process frustrates Rendell

HARRISBURG — Gov. Ed Rendell on Thursday expressed frustration with the Republican-controlled Senate’s inaction on two of his nominees for judge on the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas.

“The pace has been unbelievably slow,” said Rendell, a Democrat. The governor said he is “enormously frustrated” by the delay and with the pace of legislation in general at the state Capitol.

Edward Borkowski, the first assistant district attorney in Allegheny County, was nominated by Rendell in May to replace Common Pleas Judge Joseph Jaffe, who resigned last April after pleading guilty to federal charges of extorting money from a defense lawyer.

Borkowski, of Lawrenceville, has headed the homicide division of the District Attorney’s office for six years.

City Councilman Alan Hertzberg, of Crafton Heights, was nominated in January. He would fill the seat vacated when former Common Pleas Judge Max Baer was elected to the Supreme Court. Hertzberg has been a city councilman since 1994.

Jaffe and Baer both were assigned to the civil division. Common Pleas President Judge Joseph James has said he wants to put one new judge into criminal court and the other into family court to address heavy caseloads.

Judicial nominees frequently win approval as part of a political package — a deal — and the nominations of Borkowski and Hertzberg are no different.

“When you have a Senate of the opposing party, you have to negotiate all appointments, including judicial appointments,” said G. Terry Madonna, a Harrisburg political analyst.

“Senate Republicans are in the driver’s seat on the confirmations and they deal from a position of strength,” he said.

Only after considerable “horse-trading and jawboning” are deals constructed on gubernatorial appointments, including judgeships, Madonna said.

There soon will be a third vacancy on the Court of Common Pleas: Judge Alan S. Penkower has said he intends to retire later this year.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.