By Ralph R. Reiland on 11.7.07 @ 12:07AM
A gag rule for everyone? Evidently, that's what an incoming state supreme court chief justice has in mind.
"It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that
will determine our fate," warned United States Supreme Court
Associate Justice William O. Douglas. "There must be no limit on
the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject
must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies."
Similarly, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo L.
Black stated the following regarding the central importance of free
expression: "The Press was protected so that it could bare the
secrets of the government and inform the people. Only a free and
unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.
And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the
duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the
people."
Unfortunately, that caliber of thinking and degree of commitment
to our liberty and constitutional rights is not what we're seeing
at the very top level of the Pennsylvania judiciary.
Here's how, for instance, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice
Ronald Castille, set to become Chief Justice of the state's highest
court when Ralph Cappy retires at the end of this year, responded
to Duquesne University law professor Ken Gormley in declining an
invitation to appear at a Duquesne reception and tribute for U.S.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito:
At the present time I feel it would be inappropriate to
lend the prestige of this Court to this event by my attendance as
long as one of your cohorts in the teaching profession at Duquesne
Law School continues his unfounded, slanderous, and libelous
attacks on the integrity of this Court. His latest attacks appear
in the Beaver County Times dated February 22, 2007 in an
article where the professor is quoted as stating that the seven
Justices of this Court are "even more corrupt than the Legislature"
and stating that the judicial compensation opinion was a "judicial
swindle."
The "cohort" being accused of illegal speech by Justice Castille is
Duquesne University Law School professor Bruce Ledewitz, an
outspoken critic of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's ruling that
upheld the judicial pay hike section of the illegal pay-jacking
scam that was passed in an unconstitutional fashion by the
Harrisburg politicians in their 2 a.m. raid on the state treasury
in July 2005.
Additionally in his March 2007 letter to Professor Gormley,
Justice Castille threatened punishment for Professor Ledewitz:
While these statements may be the personal opinion of
your colleague, they are charges that an attorney cannot make
against the Supreme Court and its members without subjecting that
attorney to possible sanctions by the Disciplinary Board. The
charges appear to me to be clear violations of the Rules of
Professional Conduct and therefore worthy of the Board's
attention.
The Disciplinary Board is empowered to suspend law licenses and
disbar attorneys. Conveniently, the 16 members of the Disciplinary
Board are appointed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Clearly, Justice Castille is no Hugo Black. "Without deviation,
without exception, without any ifs, buts, or whereases, freedom of
speech," wrote United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo
L. Black, "means that you shall not do something to people either
for the views they express, or the words they speak or write."
Sworn to uphold the law, Castille might benefit from re-reading
this section of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, unambiguous
in declaring the right of the inhabitants of the state to free
expression: "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and
of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore, the freedom
of the press ought not to be retrained."
Castille concluded his letter to Duquesne by suggesting that
professor Ledewitz be banished: "It is disgraceful that Duquesne
Law School continues to provide the professor a forum to make these
charges."
One wonders if Justice Castille finds it also "disgraceful" that
Superior Court Judge Joan Orie Melvin has renounced the pay-jacking
and given the money back to the state. Or if Castille sees
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge Tom Saylor's sole dissenting vote
against the pay-jacking as "disgraceful."
No, what's disgraceful here is not Duquesne University,
Ledewitz, Melvin or Saylor. The true disgrace is the
unconstitutional pay grab, the unchecked greed and corruption of
our "public servants," the threats to our freedom, and the
arrogance, indecency, and incompetency of those who seek to banish
anyone who has the integrity and courage to tell the truth.
topics:
Constitution, Law, Supreme Court
