ShareThis Page

Reformers seek Supreme Court Justice Orie Melvin recusal

| Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2012

HARRISBURG — Several reform groups today called on Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin, of Marshall, to step back from a legislative redistricting case the high court will hear on Monday.

They argued she should recuse herself because her sister, Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, is affected by the legislation. Others claimed she should resign or take a leave of absence because of a pending criminal investigation of Melvin's conduct. Jane Orie and her sister Janine, a former court employee of Melvin's, are accused of using taxpayers' resources to help Melvin campaign for the Supreme Court.

Melvin is already recusing herself from any criminal cases from Allegheny County. Citizens have "a right to have a justice who does the job, the whole job and nothing but the job," said Timothy Potts, co-founder of Democracy Rising PA.

Melvin could not be reached for comment.

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