Unfortunately, it appears that the role of the press, at least in Pennsylvania, in reporting acts of judicial conduct, has become almost an adversarial process. Obviously, one does not want a purely supportive press. On the other hand, the press should not necessarily view itself as an adversary to the judiciary or really any form or government. A purely adversarial approach will undermine these institutions, which is not a good thing in a democratic society.
For instance, there were suggestions a while back that a justice tried to appoint a supporter to the Court of Judicial Discipline (CJD) when there was a matter before the court involving that justice. Unfortunately, that was just not true. That person had no relationship with the justice and that name had been considered for a period of time. It just so happened that the person was from the same county, but there was no relationship.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
