For Westmoreland County Common Pleas judge: Vote for Bill McCabe
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, May 13, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Among three lawyers in the May 21 primary for Westmoreland County judge, Bill McCabe excels both in experience and in the respect of his peers. He's well-suited for a seat on Common Pleas Court.
Mr. McCabe, 57, a Democrat of North Huntingdon, has spent 32 years as a practicing lawyer, including four years as a county prosecutor. A partner with DeBernardo, Antoniono, McCabe, Davis & DeDiana, P.C. in Greensburg, he's experienced in civil, criminal and family law.
That level of experience and accomplishment was recognized last month when McCabe received the Westmoreland County Bar Association's President's Award for Professionalism. And in his first run for judge, he has picked up the overwhelming support of local lawyers participating in the bar association's survey of judicial candidates.
Of the three, all of whom have cross-filed for both the Democrat and Republican nomination, McCabe was recommended by 88 percent of the lawyers, followed by Republicans Meagan Bilik DeFazio, 38, of North Huntingdon, with 36 percent, and Harry Smail Jr., 47, of Hempfield, with 20 percent. Both Mrs. Bilik DeFazio and Mr. Smail ran for judge four years ago.
In play this year is one seat on the Westmoreland bench because of the mandatory retirement of Judge John Driscoll. Conceivably, one candidate could lock up the race by winning both the Republican and Democrat nominations.
The choice is clear. For Westmoreland judge, vote for Bill McCabe.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The market speaks: Cadillac dealers reject another electric folly
- The Malaysian jetliner probe: Passport insecurity
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass
- The IRS scandal: Compelling Lerner
- Market perversions: Chrysler retreats