ShareThis Page
REJECTING NIGRO: It is a revolution |

REJECTING NIGRO: It is a revolution

| Thursday, November 10, 2005 12:00 a.m

Once offered Voltaire, the French writer and historian: “The public is a ferocious beast — one must either chain it up or flee from it.”

Unable to forge a chain with links strong enough to restrain a pay-jacking-angered public whose most immediate electoral outlet was two Pennsylvania Supreme Court retention races, Justice Russell Nigro was ordered to flee in Tuesday’s election. Justice Sandra Schultz Newman was spared. Barely.

And if the leaders of this commonwealth previously had any doubts that “The Revolution” they inspired was all talk radio, editorial page malarkey and no action, well, rest assured they’re now desperately looking for ways to reinforce the walls of Fort Susquehanna.

But once a revolution begins, there is no stopping it until the heads are on pikes, metaphorically speaking, of course. Not even an outright repeal of the pay raise can stop this revolution.

Mr. Justice Nigro’s rejection should be considered the first battle victory in a yearlong war to rid Pennsylvania government of its highwaymen, Democrat and Republican.

That goes for Gov. Ed Rendell; it goes for every member of the state Legislature who initially voted for the unconstitutional pay raise, those who unconstitutionally accepted the raises early in “unvouchered expenses” and those who voted against the pay raise but took it anyway.

Let the revolution proceed.

Categories: News
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.