ShareThis Page

For Superior Court: Elect Vic Stabile

| Friday, Nov. 1, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Vic Stabile of Carlisle, the Republican nominee for state Superior Court judge.
Vic Stabile of Carlisle, the Republican nominee for state Superior Court judge.

One might think that it being the only statewide race in Tuesday's election, the Pennsylvania Superior Court contest between Democrat Jack McVay and Republican Vic Stabile would have garnered more attention. But with voter turnout expected to struggle to reach 20 percent, well, you get the picture.

Mr. McVay, 57, of Shadyside, has sat on the Common Pleas Court bench in Allegheny County since 2008. He made unsuccessful runs for Commonwealth Court in 1995 and 1997.

Mr. Stabile, 56, of Carlisle (in Cumberland County), a highly regarded lawyer, never has been a judge, though he has run for Superior Court before, in 2011.

The winner will join the 15-member court that hears, primarily, appeals of Common Pleas decisions.

While much has been made in some circles of Stabile's lack of judicial experience, it's quite misleading. Stabile gained valuable experience at the appellate level, in which he now seeks to serve, not only as a Commonwealth Court clerk between 1982 and 1984 but as an experienced litigator before the appellate courts.

We like that kind of resume in this race. And Vic Stabile is the kind of experienced legal scholar needed on the Superior Court. He is most worthy of your vote.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.