Supreme Court hopeful Joan Orie Melvin stumps in Erie

Supreme Court judge candidate Joan Orie Melvin said she has seen the pain in Luzerne County, where two county judges were recently indicted in a $ 2.6 million kickback scheme.

[Old Cynic]

This is one of the GOOD ones. She should be considered.

[Krakus]

Old Cynic wrote:

This is one of the GOOD ones. She should be considered.

Ms Orie is certianly a capable and experineced legislator, but I tend to favor a nominee for the highest court in the Commonwealth having some specific appellate court experience to recommend them.

[Stu Pedaso]

She's a Republican. Knows her place too, I'll bet.

[Mike in Rockville]

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
Ms Orie is certianly a capable and experineced legislator, but I tend to favor a nominee for the highest court in the Commonwealth having some specific appellate court experience to recommend them.

Why? Many of the best SCOTUS justices had no appellate experience. What's wrong with practioners, trial judges, and law professors? For the first time in our history every member of the SCOTUS was an appellate judge before being "elevated." Chief Justice Marshal was not an appellate judge, nor was Justice Douglas. Having been appellate judges does not seem to have done much for the current crop.

[Old Cynic]

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
Ms Orie is certianly a capable and experineced legislator, but I tend to favor a nominee for the highest court in the Commonwealth having some specific appellate court experience to recommend them.

WOW - We really disagree here! One of the problems with government at all levels is that "experience" crap that you mention. As these pols get their "experience" they collect debt that gets paid back.

Experience means nothing, it's useless, I refer to the current sitting President of the United States. Common sense and independence is the only way to elect any politician. Any politician who comes "thru the ranks" should be avoided like the plague.

[Krakus]

Mike in Rockville wrote:

<quoted text>Why? Many of the best SCOTUS justices had no appellate experience. What's wrong with practioners, trial judges, and law professors? For the first time in our history every member of the SCOTUS was an appellate judge before being "elevated." Chief Justice Marshal was not an appellate judge, nor was Justice Douglas. Having been appellate judges does not seem to have done much for the current crop.

Does Ms. Orie have extensive trial experience? Has she served as a judge or a tenured law professor? More importantly, I'd think, is the fact she's NOT being considered for the Supreme Court of the United States in any case... you need to read the articles before weighing in, sir. And given the country is just lttle over two hundred years of age since the U.S. Supreme Court was established, yes, a good number of the early justices would not have judicial experience. But the lack of great minds on the court in recent years is more an indictment of the political environment of recent decades and so the Presidents who nominated them and the Senates from whom they required confirmation than any standard of personal experience. Perhaps you could enumerate what extraordinary qualities do you devine in Ms. Orie that would recommend her to a seat on the PA Supreme Court?

[Krakus]

Old Cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW - We really disagree here! One of the problems with government at all levels is that "experience" crap that you mention. As these pols get their "experience" they collect debt that gets paid back.
Experience means nothing, it's useless, I refer to the current sitting President of the United States. Common sense and independence is the only way to elect any politician. Any politician who comes "thru the ranks" should be avoided like the plague.

A good point, old man; should we be electing our judges, which tends to draw the "experienced" politicians into the arena, or should they be appointed through some process instead? Your thoughts, old and "experienced" one (and experience that you have touted as qualification)?

[Old Cynic]

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
A good point, old man; should we be electing our judges, which tends to draw the "experienced" politicians into the arena, or should they be appointed through some process instead? Your thoughts, old and "experienced" one (and experience that you have touted as qualification)?

Outside of knowledge of courtroom protocol, civility, and general respect I feel any one of average intelligence with a basic understanding of our laws and customs could be a judge. A simple reading and comprehension test during the jury selection process could result in a judge from the jury pool for each case. My concept, admittedly different, would have one juror from each jury selected act as judge. Each case would have it's own jury and it's own judge, selected from that particular jury call up. I envision attorneys having to actually prepare cases for trial, rather than for a particular judge, which they get to know. As to supreme court decisions, the laws should be sent back to the legislature that passed them in the first place for adjustment, clarification, or demise. No court would be allowed to legislate or set precedent.

[YOU SAID IT ALL]

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
A good point, old man; should we be electing our judges, which tends to draw the "experienced" politicians into the arena, or should they be appointed through some process instead? Your thoughts, old and "experienced" one (and experience that you have touted as qualification)?

There are arguments, pro and con, for judicial appointees or judicial electees. I would prefer them to be elected but with only a small, one-term period of service....say 4 years. Then perhaps a second term. Either way....a term limit of no more than 8 years and certainly not this 10 year election bullshit. No judge should be able to serve in one election for 10 years. It's absurd.

[Krakus]

Old Cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Outside of knowledge of courtroom protocol, civility, and general respect I feel any one of average intelligence with a basic understanding of our laws and customs could be a judge. A simple reading and comprehension test during the jury selection process could result in a judge from the jury pool for each case. My concept, admittedly different, would have one juror from each jury selected act as judge. Each case would have it's own jury and it's own judge, selected from that particular jury call up. I envision attorneys having to actually prepare cases for trial, rather than for a particular judge, which they get to know. As to supreme court decisions, the laws should be sent back to the legislature that passed them in the first place for adjustment, clarification, or demise. No court would be allowed to legislate or set precedent.

Well, that pretty much abandons the U.S. Constitution and the American jurisprudence system as it has evolved over past more than two centuries. You are an anarchist, old man!

[Stop Her Now]

She's a friend of Mike Joyce (now sitting in a federal prison camp in W.Va.) 'Nuff said.

[Bob Oppenheimer]

she just wants her piece of the pie too.

[Old Cynic]

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, that pretty much abandons the U.S. Constitution and the American jurisprudence system as it has evolved over past more than two centuries. You are an anarchist, old man!

Well now - How's that "Hope and Change" thingy working for you? Do you actually think that our "justice" system is working as the founders intended?

[Krakus]

Old Cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Well now - How's that "Hope and Change" thingy working for you? Do you actually think that our "justice" system is working as the founders intended?

I really don't care whether or not it operates as the Founders intended; that it operates to serve justice in the twenty-first century is the only relevant standard. They weren't omniscient, nor do I believe they sought any such thing; they crafted a system that best met their needs, and it top there great credit we have adapted that model over time to address our needs.

As for Hope & Change, old man, whadya think of that Nobel Peace Prize for Obama? As Bill Maher so aptly put it: "In your face George W. Bush, you cowboy *sshole!"

[Stop Him Now]

Even CBS News Jeff Greenfield thinks obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize is a JOKE!! It now means nothing!!!

[Realist]

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
Ms Orie is certianly a capable and experineced legislator, but I tend to favor a nominee for the highest court in the Commonwealth having some specific appellate court experience to recommend them.

She's been on the Superior Court (one of the two appellate courts below the Pa. Supreme Court) for around 12 years. She's been a judge for 24 years. What more experience do you want?

[Old Cynic]

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
I really don't care whether or not it operates as the Founders intended; that it operates to serve justice in the twenty-first century is the only relevant standard. They weren't omniscient, nor do I believe they sought any such thing; they crafted a system that best met their needs, and it top there great credit we have adapted that model over time to address our needs.
As for Hope & Change, old man, whadya think of that Nobel Peace Prize for Obama? As Bill Maher so aptly put it: "In your face George W. Bush, you cowboy *sshole!"

I think that Obama definitely earned the Nobel prize. When you have accomplished as much as he has in his life he is definitely qualified to receive the medal and cherish the prize. That does not, however, say that I agree with him on many counts. And I say again, what has GW Bush have to do with any of this? He's been powerless for about a year now, hasn't uttered a public word (that I know of) and is less involved than Carter.

[Old Cynic]

MARKETWATCH FIRST TAKE
Oct. 12, 2009, 8:47 a.m. EDT · Recommend (10)· Post:
Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics
Commentary: Michael Moore, Timothy Geithner also passed over
View all MarketWatch First Take ›
‹ Previous Column
Oslo's pre-emptive peace strike
First Take ›
Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics
STORYCOMMENTS SCREENER (118)
AlertEmailPrintShare By MarketWatch
LONDON (MarketWatch)-- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.

While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the nearly nine months he's been in office, the same clearly can't be said for economics.

The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats.

From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap and tax bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the un-dead healthcare "reform" act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years.

Yet the Nobel panel chose instead to award the prize to two obscure academics,-- Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson -- one noted for her work on managing collective resources, and the other for his work on transaction costs. See full story.

Other surprise losers include celebrity non-economist filmmaker Michael Moore, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Larry Summers, head of the U.S. national economic council.

It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year.

[Bob Oppenheimer]

Stop Him Now wrote:

Even CBS News Jeff Greenfield thinks obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize is a JOKE!! It now means nothing!!!

Obama is the losers' winner.

[Krakus]

Realist wrote:

<quoted text>
She's been on the Superior Court (one of the two appellate courts below the Pa. Supreme Court) for around 12 years. She's been a judge for 24 years. What more experience do you want?

Whoops, that old man's really gonna enjoy this: I mistook Judge Joan Orie for Senator Jane Orie. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!