Is That Legal?

You can hear our local Superior Court District 15B candidate's weigh in on this subject over at CitizenWill.

In America, non-partisan has always meant one of the two parties winning. If there is anything which Republicans and Democrats can agree on, without hesitation or qualification, it is that they deserve to split the spoils, and absolutely no one else should be allowed a chance to participate.

This is what rule of law means, doesn't it?

Pennsylvania has the weirdest rules for judicial elections; judges aren't allowed to campaign.

I've never understood the logic of electing judges when the voters don't have the slightest idea what they judges are even like. I realize that they don't want judges pandering to voters, but then the judges should be appointed out right. As it is, the judges are mute in public and pander to the parties instead so they can get on the ballot.

The struggle for "balance of power" appears, on it's face, to invade the judiciary as well. It is interesting to note that on the federal level the Judges have essentially siad "back off" to the political pressures. Though not perfect they are beholding to the law and the Constitution that gave it birth. If the "rule of law" is violated by the judiciary there are methods for removing them.

There is no non-partisan anything anymore. Our local city council is a partisan bastion. Everyone knows which candidates are right or left, fundy or ... science-based, for progress or against anything and everything (until they get elected and realize their fantasy world isn't quite salvageable).