Pittsburgh Trib-Review writes that candidates in Pennsylvania in particular and in 38 other states to some degree there will be much greater scrutiny of the ethical positions that they hold, now that the Supreme Court has stricken a Minnesota rule that barred judicial candidates from expressing opinions on issues.
Opines Duquesne law professor Joseph Sabino Mistick:
“It’s a different ballgame now. You can no longer hide behind the ethical requirements that judges and judicial candidates not comment. Prior to this, voters were expected to base their decisions on a sense of a candidate’s character,” he said. “Now they are able to find out how the candidates actually stand, keeping in mind that once sworn in as a judge, it’s still your duty to uphold the law as it exists.”
Labels: judicial nominees, politics, scrutiny