Stance not 'political'
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, Feb. 11, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Stance not ‘political'
I believe the news story “Attorney seeks to bring political stance to Westmoreland bench” (Feb. 1 and TribLIVE.com) about Greensburg attorney Harry Smail Jr. announcing his Westmoreland County Common Pleas Court candidacy is misleading.
Mr. Smail understands the importance of judges being impartial and fair. As a judge, Harry will always uphold the letter of the law and the Constitution. The experiences that Smail has had, in and out of the courtroom, will lead him to be fair in all cases.
His desire to protect the rights of our citizens based on the Constitution is not a political stance; it is what judges are sworn to do. How did we get to this point, where voicing support for the defense of our rights under the Constitution is labeled as “political”?
The writer is campaign manager for Harry Smail Jr.
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.
- Knives vs. guns II
- Bloomberg & coal
- Knives vs. guns I
- Resurrection? Yes, really
- ‘Son of God’
- Dingell’s lesson
- Tragedy’s ramifications III
- Parental dysfunction
- Life-affirming photo
- Not believable
- Amazing support