For Allegheny County Common Pleas Court: Elect Ward, Satler, Bush & Murray
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Six candidates are vying for four seats on Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. We recommend voters elect the following on Tuesday:
• Bill Ward, 61, of Mt. Lebanon, has been serving on the court since last year's appointment by Gov. Tom Corbett. And it's clear to see why, what with his extensive legal and criminal law background. His solid legal mind and even temperament render him worthy of election in his own right.
• Jen Satler, 38, of the North Side, is a veteran of the county public defender's office and mock trial instruction at Pitt. Experienced and youthful, she's the kind of person we see as having a long-term, positive effect on a court system that some consider to, at times, lack vigor.
• Eleanor Bush, 53, of Squirrel Hill, is particularly qualified for the Family Division, where new judges typically begin their tenure. This sharp legal mind not only oversees training for the Statewide Adoption and Permanency Network, she has extensive experience in legal advocacy for families and children. She'll be an excellent addition to the bench.
• P.J. Murray, 52, of Upper St. Clair, strikes us as having the perfect qualifications for a judge — great legal experience and the humble nature of someone who simply does not say he wants to “give back to the community” but practices that mantra. Well-seasoned in the law, his fine temperament will help him meet the bench's many challenges.
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.
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- The market speaks: Cadillac dealers reject another electric folly
- Market perversions: Chrysler retreats
- Sunday pops
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass
- THE BOX
- Big Labor’s losses
- The IRS scandal: Compelling Lerner
- Another EPA crock: Sulfur silliness
- The Adegbile nomination: Rejecting race-baiting
- The Thursday wrap