Buried in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s latest deadlock on a question in litigation over the constitutional amendment to change the mandatory judicial retirement age, beyond the detailed review of the layered lawsuit and the careful reasoning spread through four separate opinions, lay a dispute over the influence of “public opinion” on the justices’ decisions.
In an opinion supporting reversal of the Commonwealth Court’s ruling in Sprague v. CortÉs, Justice David Wecht said his concerns about the public’s ability to fully understand the meaning of the ballot question were shared by many others. In doing so, he referenced “numerous commentators,” including editorials published in The Legal and the Philadelphia Daily News, to demonstrate the significant public interest in the issue.
This content has been archived.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]
