While I am glad to see that it looks like the current slate of nominees are well on their way to confirmation, I’m still peeved that the whole process took so long. At this point, some these judges are going to be on the bench for as little as six months. Some will need a few months to get up to speed.
This is what Chief Justice Castille had to say about his fellow Republican Johnny Butler:
“Johnny Butler will have the hardest time trying to become an appellate judge.At least on the Commonwealth Court they handle a lot of labor-related cases, workers’ comp and things like that. So he’ll have a grounding in that area of the law,” Castille said.
“I can speak from personal experience that it’s going to be a tough transition never having been a judge,” he said.
The committee recommended each of the nominees for confirmation and forwarded the nominations to the Senate Rules Committee. Senate Republican Counsel Stephen C. MacNett said he expects the full Senate to vote on the nominations Monday or Tuesday.
Butler, a towering presence, waxed poetic on the importance of the judiciary and rule of law in a worldwide struggle for freedom. Even the Commonwealth Court, to which he is nominated, plays an important role in applying the rule of law and the pursuit of justice, Butler said.
“I am ready willing and able to pursue, as a judge of the Commonwealth Court, the rule of law and the pursuit of justice,” he said.
Butler joined the boutique litigation firm Booth & Tucker in Philadelphia in 2003. He served in the public sector for 31 years as secretary of Labor and Industry in the Ridge Administration and as regional director of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. During his remarks, Butler also thanked Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi for his involvement in his nomination. He will fill a vacancy created by former Commonwealth Court Judge James Gardner Colins’ resignation.
Members of the committee remarked on the nominees qualifications, but asked no probing questions about the nominees background or position on hotkey issues.
The nominees each said their meetings with members of the Senate were conducted with professionalism and courtesy and they expressed gratitude to the Judiciary Committee for acting swiftly on the confirmation.
The hearing Friday was the penultimate step in an effort to fill the vacant seats that has lasted nearly six months. Rendell’s original slate of nominees was rejected by the Senate in a 24-26 vote May 15.
Judicial Math
If all four nominees are approved, where would that leave the composition of our state courts? If Judge Greenspan gets the thumbs-up for the state Supreme Court, Democrats would enjoy a 5-4 edge there. By my count, if Johnny Butler gets a seat on Commonwealth Court, Republicans would gain an 8-7 edge, no? Also, if Judges Freedburg and Cleland are approved, Republicans would have a 9-7 advantage there, correct? Just trying to get my judicial math down.
"Judicial Math"
Your “Judicial Math” is off for a few reasons. First, there are only 9 judges on the Commonwealth Court and 15 on Superior Court. Second, party registration is irrelevant to judicial decision-making, so this notion of “political control” of a court that underlies your comment is misplaced. Cases are not decided on political grounds for the most part, and even in those few situations where people have accused the Supreme Court of being “political,” the voting on those decisions cannot be reconciled according to party registration. In the overwhelming majority of cases, philosophy matters, not party registration.
Fuzzy Math
Thank you for correcting my mistakes with the overall seat count, Rob. I also appreciate the lecture on the role of the judiciary in Pennsylvania. I’m well aware of how the courts function in the state. As judges are elected, not appointed, here, I was merely trying to ascertain what the new compositions may look like in the state court system.
Fuzzy Math
You are welcome. And, I am glad that you are aware of how the courts work. Please excuse my misunderstanding the nature of your question (although I still don’t understand why political makeup would be relevant to the election process), because I regularly encounter folks who actually do think that political registration of judges somehow has something to do with their decisions. Just last week a plaintiff personal injury lawyer told me that he argued in defense of one of his verdicts to a Superior Court panel of “three Republicans,” and therefore was concerned that he might lose. I laughed out loud, because I know that each of the three Republicans on that panel has affirmed many more plaintiff verdicts than they have reversed. Just two weeks ago, a panel of three conservative Republicans on the Third Circuit reversed an antitrust decision in favor of the defendant and granted the plaintiff a new trial.
Post new comment