Openings on sullied Pennsylvania Supreme Court beckon candidates |

Openings on sullied Pennsylvania Supreme Court beckon candidates

The Associated Press

HARRISBURG — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory recently.

A pornographic email scandal caused one justice to quit and a second one to accuse him of making threats. Another left the court in disgrace after being convicted of using government staff to campaign.

Voters soon will get a chance to render their own verdict on the seven-member court, with three spots are up for election next year. Ambitious lawyers and lower-level judges are lining up to make sure there will be choices.

Three Democrats on the Superior Court have confirmed they are running, and at least nine other names are floating around in the state’s political world as potential candidates.

The high court’s public image and integrity will figure significantly in the debate.

“Any and all recommendations to improve the court, whether improving transparency, showing that you’re not beholden to anybody, I guess proving that you’re independent, highly qualified — I think all of those are going to be on the radar screen,” said Lynn Marks with the court reform advocacy group Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts.

Chief Justice Ron Castille will retire at the end of next month, having reached the mandatory age limit of 70.

There is one vacancy, a seat held until last month by Democrat Seamus McCaffery, who announced his immediate retirement shortly after he was implicated in sending and receiving emails with pornographic and other explicit content.

Among the people angling to run is Justice Corry Stevens, a Luzerne County Republican who was appointed by Gov. Tom Corbett last year after Justice Joan Orie Melvin resigned to be sentenced in her public corruption case.

Stevens said he has been gauging support to stay on the court while balancing a particularly heavy workload. The Supreme Court has cases to wrap up before Castille retires.

The state House and Senate took the first steps last year toward a constitutional amendment that would let judges serve until 75, a proposal that could go before voters as soon as next spring. Its passage is particularly important for older potential candidates like Stevens, who is 68.

The court currently has six members: Castille, Stevens, Michael Eakin and Tom Saylor, all Republicans; and Max Baer and Debra Todd, Democrats.

Superior Court judges who confirmed this week that they are running are Democrats Anne Lazarus, David Wecht and Christine Donohue.

Wecht said the Supreme Court should project values of judicial service and solid decision-making and “not a reputation for conflict and rancor.”

Another Superior Court judge, Republican John Bender, said he hopes to run.

“If I call the leadership of the Republican Party and they say, ‘No, we hate you,’ I might not run,” Bender said. “But I don’t think that’s going to happen.”

At least two other Superior Court judges might be considering joining the pack but did not respond to phone messages seeking comment. Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Dwayne Woodruff — a former Steelers cornerback — told the Philadelphia Daily News last week he was weighing whether to run. He did not return a message.

Another potential candidate is Democrat Mike Scott, a partner in the firm Reed Smith, who expects to decide in the next few weeks.

Jefferson County Common Pleas Judge John Foradora said he had family priorities — and logistical challenges — to sort out before deciding.

“I don’t want to be involved in all this money raising and special interest stuff that’s put a cloud over the court. But I also don’t know how to get my message out without it,” the Democrat said.

“There’s got to be a way that doesn’t look so distasteful to the public.”

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.