State representative calls for impeachment of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Wecht

A Pennsylvania House representative is calling for the impeachment of state Supreme Court Justice David N. Wecht, contending that he is legislating from the bench.

Rep. Frank Ryan, R-Lebanon, introduced House Resolution 1044 on Tuesday criticizing Wecht for judicial activism in recent cases: the 2018 case on redistricting, as well as opinions relative to the upcoming election and Gov. Tom Wolf’s pandemic shutdown orders.

The resolution, which was referred on Tuesday to the Judiciary Committee, has 35 co-sponsors.

Still, it is unlikely that the resolution will gain enough traction to lead to impeachment proceedings. A similar, controversial measure was introduced in the 2017-18 session to impeach the five Democratic justices who voted to strike down the Congressional Redistricting Act of 2011 as unconstitutional.

It never even made it to committee.

This week’s resolution targets only Wecht, who, Ryan said, has routinely violated his oath of office through his decisions on the bench.

“Members should understand that I do not take this first step towards the removal of a Supreme Court justice lightly,” Ryan said in his resolution. “Regrettably, Justice Wecht’s actions undermine the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; betray the trust of the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and have brought disrepute to the Unified Judicial System.”

He called Wecht “unfit to continue to serve.”

In a response, Wecht quoted former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who championed the Founding Founders’ notion that “the protection of our liberties, and the rule of law itself, rely upon an independent judiciary.”

“In the United States of America, we do not impeach judges with whose opinions we disagree. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of mobs,” Wecht said. “When anyone, including legislators, attempts to intimidate our judges, they threaten our liberties and the rule of law. It is ironic that here in Pennsylvania, the cradle of our nation’s liberty, some would forget our history and the tradition of judicial independence that has safeguarded our people’s freedoms.”

In the House resolution, Ryan cited the redistricting case; the case in which the court said the City of Pittsburgh had the right to pass a paid sick leave ordinance; as well as recent cases involving mail-in ballots for the upcoming election and the governor emergency disaster proclamation relative to the covid-19 pandemic.

Wecht was the author of the majority opinion in the sick leave case, as well as the July 1 decision in which the court ruled against Senate Republicans, finding that the General Assembly could not terminate the governor’s proclamation without submitting the resolution to the governor for approval or veto.

But in all of the cases cited by Ryan, Wecht was joined by a majority of the court.

Bruce Ledewitz, a professor at Duquesne University School of Law who specializes in state and federal constitutional law, said that “you don’t usually impeach and remove somebody over their decisions.”

But, Ledewitz continued, this could be a way for the majority to “rein in” what it thinks is a “runaway court.”

He called impeachment a check that the Legislature has over the judicial branch.

“You can’t really fault the majority if it feels it’s been harmed by an out-of-control judiciary.”

But, Ledwitz continued, “If you can get a two-thirds majority to vote to remove a judge over decisions, then the decisions must be pretty against the pale.”

He also said it was strange that the resolution would single out Wecht and not the other four Democratic justices.

“He’s an object lesson,” Ledewitz said. “Undoubtedly, they’re upset with the four-justice majority [in the redistricting case].”

But Ryan explained that when Wecht ran for the Supreme Court in 2015, one of the issues he addressed on the campaign trail was redistricting. Therefore, Ryan said, Wecht should have recused from the case when it came before the court in 2018.

Now, he continued, he wants to send a message.

“He’s legislating from the bench,” Ryan said. “This is strictly a constitutional issue for me.”

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, the co-chair of the state Commission on Judicial Independence, said in a statement Wednesday that no judge should be subject to removal by a “co-equal branch simply because they are doing their job in interpreting the law.

“This effort by some members of the Pennsylvania legislature is just the latest bid in what seems like a national trend — threatening to impeach judges because of disagreement with their decisions,” Jones said. “This challenge, like the others, is a direct threat to a bedrock of our constitutional democracy — an independent judiciary. Judges need to decide cases based on their understanding of what the law requires, without worrying that they might be removed from office if political actors don’t like their decisions.”

Because the House is in a recess now because of a recent positive covid-19 test by Rep. Paul Schemel, R-Franklin, Ryan is not sure that his resolution will make it through this session. The judiciary committee, where the resolution is now, could hold hearings, amend the resolution, vote on it or let it sit.