For Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Elect Joan Orie Melvin
Unlike some, we don't think the deciding factor in elevating Joan Orie Melvin to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should be her gender. How revolting that is, especially in this supposedly post-gender society that social elites claim they embrace.
What we do care about is legal acumen, temperament and moxie. And on all three counts, Judge Orie Melvin of Marshall, a Republican and a state Superior Court judge since 1997, is the best choice for the state's highest court.
Orie Melvin's opponent, fellow Superior Court Judge Jack Panella, a Democrat of Easton, talks a pretty good game. But then he decided to go "negative" in his sanctioned campaign ads. How odd, considering the Panella campaign's huge money advantage and his standing in the polls.
But Orie Melvin went "negative," too, you retort. In defense, folks, in defense.
The state Supreme Court has been in the Democrats' control since 2007. An Orie Melvin win would return it to Republican control just in time for any necessary adjudication of the coming redistricting. And that would be a welcome check and balance to a Pennsylvania Democratic Party convinced its star is rising.
Elect Joan Orie Melvin to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
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.