ShareThis Page
For Pa. Supreme Court: Nominate Allen, Stevens & Wecht |

For Pa. Supreme Court: Nominate Allen, Stevens & Wecht

| Thursday, May 14, 2015 8:55 p.m

Primary elections typically don’t fall into the “historic” category. But Tuesday’s primary is just that for a Pennsylvania Supreme Court sadly better known in recent years for its infighting and scandals than for its jurisprudence.

For the first time in its history — nearly 300 years — there are three open seats on the commonwealth’s highest court. Six Democrats and 10 Republicans seek their parties’ nominations. We are comfortable endorsing three:

Cheryl L. Allen, a Hampton Republican, has a long history as an exemplary jurist. She has served on the state Superior Court for the last seven years. Before that, she served on Allegheny County Common Pleas Court for 18 years. She is the definition of experience, impartiality and good temperament.

Correale F. Stevens, a Luzerne County Republican, was appointed to the Supreme Court by Gov. Tom Corbett in 2013 to replace Justice Joan Orie Melvin, who left the court in criminal disgrace. His combined 23 years as a Common Pleas and Superior court judge established a solid foundation for this jurist with a strikingly good temperament and excellent grasp of the law.

David N. Wecht, an Indiana Township Democrat, offers a most impressive legal intellect. He has served with distinction on the Superior Court for the past four years and was an Allegheny County Common Pleas judge for eight years. Intense, probing and wickedly articulate, Judge Wecht exudes integrity, legal and personal.

Categories: Editorials
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.