ShareThis Page

Casey, Toomey conflict over Trump judicial appointment to Third Circuit

| Tuesday, April 10, 2018, 5:15 p.m.
David J. Porter
David J. Porter

Pennsylvania's two U.S. senators announced opposing views Tuesday of President Trump's choice to fill a vacancy on a federal court representing Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware.

David J. Porter, a business litigation lawyer for the Pittsburgh branch of law firm Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, was nominated to be a circuit judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Democratic Sen. Bob Casey said Porter “has advocated legal theories that stack the deck against workers, deny Pennsylvanians access to health care and undermine the equal protection of our laws for all Americans.”

Republican Sen. Pat Toomey said Porter “understands that the proper role of a judge in America's constitutional system is to apply the law as written and to treat everyone who comes before him equally, not to impose his policy preferences from the bench.”

Porter drew national attention when former President Obama nominated him for the U.S. District Court in 2014.

Progressive group Keystone Progress launched a successful campaign against his appointment , calling him a “right-wing activist and leader in anti-choice, anti-marriage equality, pro-gun movements in Pennsylvania.”

He has written in opposition to the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate and was an attorney for former Pennsylvania senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

Wes Venteicher is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-380-5676, or via Twitter @wesventeicher.

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.

click me