ShareThis Page

For Pa. Superior Court: Elect Alice Beck Dubow

| Sunday, Oct. 18, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

Pennsylvanians should choose Democrat Alice Beck Dubow over Republican Emil Giordano to fill an open Superior Court seat. The 15-member court handles appeals of criminal cases and most appeals of civil cases from Pennsylvania's county courts.

Elected to Philadelphia Common Pleas Court in 2007, Judge Dubow has presided over family court cases, criminal trials and civil litigation. She also has 23 years of experience practicing law in private and public roles that span commercial, trial and appellate court litigation, five years as an assistant and deputy divisional city solicitor for Philadelphia, and seven years representing Drexel University. Drawing on expertise she developed along the way, she has written a book on corporate taxation in Pennsylvania and co-written another, for judges, about compiling research on childhood trauma.

(As an aside, her mother, Phyllis Dubow, was the first woman elected to Superior Court (in 1983); she left the bench a decade ago. Her father is renowned psychiatrist Aaron Beck.)

Judge Giordano has been a Northampton County Common Pleas judge since 2003, presiding over criminal, civil and family court matters and serving as administrative judge of the county's Orphans Court. He also has served as an assistant district attorney, assistant public defender, municipal solicitor and, in private practice, as a civil litigator and lead counsel.

But Alice Beck Dubow's broad experience makes her the better choice for Superior Court on Nov. 3.

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.