From the CHAMBERSBURG’S PUBLIC OPINION:
The typical citizen’s defining notion of a judge has historically centered on the idea that his or her rulings will impartially adhere to the evidence, laws or legal precedent before his or her eyes.
But the idea of a judge as an unbiased arbiter of competing arguments has been undermined in Pennsylvania by recent developments on the state and national stage.
They include a 2009 state Supreme Court election notable for its cost and caustic nature; the Luzerne County “kids-for-cash” scandal; U.S. Supreme Court decisions to allow more money into judicial campaigns; and a bitter and polarized electorate…
Click here to read the full article.
