Court's question: Which judges can suspend judges?
Right after Philadelphia Traffic Court Judge Mark A. Bruno was indicted in a federal ticket-fixing probe, the state Supreme Court landed on him hard, suspending him without pay.
But then, another judicial oversight organization weighed in. Not so fast, said the state Court of Judicial Discipline.
In May, that panel ruled that the federal case against Bruno was weak and ordered his pay - but not his duties - reinstated until his criminal trial.
With those rival rulings as a backdrop, a lawyer for the Judicial Conduct Board, the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the judicial court, stood in court Tuesday to argue that the Supreme Court needed to butt out - that it was the job of the conduct board and its judicial court to suspend judges.
But then, another judicial oversight organization weighed in. Not so fast, said the state Court of Judicial Discipline.
In May, that panel ruled that the federal case against Bruno was weak and ordered his pay - but not his duties - reinstated until his criminal trial.
With those rival rulings as a backdrop, a lawyer for the Judicial Conduct Board, the investigative and prosecutorial arm of the judicial court, stood in court Tuesday to argue that the Supreme Court needed to butt out - that it was the job of the conduct board and its judicial court to suspend judges.
In one of the day's many ironies, Robert A. Graci had to make this argument to the very body whose actions he was challenging, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Graci also argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds and wrongly sought to discipline another Traffic Court judge, Christine Solomon. In April, the justices put Solomon on notice that they planned to suspend her without pay for three months - a $22,000 cut - for allegedly stonewalling an internal inquiry into Traffic Court corruption.
The report from that inquiry gave Solomon some notoriety: She was quoted as having told investigators she was aware of ticket-fixing, but did not want to incriminate others by providing details.
The same report strongly suggested that a state Supreme Court justice, Seamus P. McCaffery, had fixed a ticket for his wife. McCaffery has denied this.
McCaffery was among the seven justices who heard Tuesday's arguments over which court had the power to discipline Bruno and Solomon.
During arguments in the Supreme Court's ornate courtroom on the fourth floor of City Hall, Graci faced quite a grilling. When he pointed out that the high court had waited for months to move against Solomon, Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille would have none of it.
"We can act whenever we want. We are the Supreme Court," Castille said. "We have some other things on our plate."
Graci and Samuel C. Stretton, a lawyer for Bruno and Solomon, argued that voters wiped out the high court's ability to discipline judges by amending the state constitution in 1993 to create the eight-member Court of Judicial Discipline, which includes judges, lawyers, and lay people.
"The electorate took you out of the disciplinary process," Graci told the justices.
In questions Tuesday, several justices suggested that the constitutional amendment left the Supreme Court a "concurrent" right to suspend judges, as part of its mandate to oversee the state court system.
Stretton suggested a compromise: The high court could impose quick initial suspensions of errant judges, then retreat from the field once the judicial court got involved. He said the need to sort out the issue was obvious.
"Just look at the confusion and mess that has happened," he said.
Contact Craig R. McCoy at 215-854-4821 or cmccoy@phillynews.com or follow @CraigRMcCoy on Twitter.
Graci also argued that the Supreme Court had overstepped its bounds and wrongly sought to discipline another Traffic Court judge, Christine Solomon. In April, the justices put Solomon on notice that they planned to suspend her without pay for three months - a $22,000 cut - for allegedly stonewalling an internal inquiry into Traffic Court corruption.
The report from that inquiry gave Solomon some notoriety: She was quoted as having told investigators she was aware of ticket-fixing, but did not want to incriminate others by providing details.
The same report strongly suggested that a state Supreme Court justice, Seamus P. McCaffery, had fixed a ticket for his wife. McCaffery has denied this.
McCaffery was among the seven justices who heard Tuesday's arguments over which court had the power to discipline Bruno and Solomon.
During arguments in the Supreme Court's ornate courtroom on the fourth floor of City Hall, Graci faced quite a grilling. When he pointed out that the high court had waited for months to move against Solomon, Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille would have none of it.
"We can act whenever we want. We are the Supreme Court," Castille said. "We have some other things on our plate."
Graci and Samuel C. Stretton, a lawyer for Bruno and Solomon, argued that voters wiped out the high court's ability to discipline judges by amending the state constitution in 1993 to create the eight-member Court of Judicial Discipline, which includes judges, lawyers, and lay people.
"The electorate took you out of the disciplinary process," Graci told the justices.
In questions Tuesday, several justices suggested that the constitutional amendment left the Supreme Court a "concurrent" right to suspend judges, as part of its mandate to oversee the state court system.
Stretton suggested a compromise: The high court could impose quick initial suspensions of errant judges, then retreat from the field once the judicial court got involved. He said the need to sort out the issue was obvious.
"Just look at the confusion and mess that has happened," he said.
Contact Craig R. McCoy at 215-854-4821 or cmccoy@phillynews.com or follow @CraigRMcCoy on Twitter.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment will be held for approval by the blog owner.