PA Supreme Court Decision Should Be the Basis to Challenge Judicial Immunity and Self-Recusal

Pennsylvania is the state to watch, with its ongoing  major challenges  to  jurisdiction in our courts,  through what apparently started as a political agenda, against  the State Attorney General Kathleen Kane.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the first  and oldest in the country- the birthplace of democracy, with the most precedent set.   It is ironic that it is also the venue of one of the worst cases of judicial corruption in the country- The Kids for Cash Scandal;  and now that same Judicial Branch is  imposing its dubious power to try to  exceed their jurisdiction, and retain control of the government.

The major cause  of the decline of our democracy,   has its roots in the claims of “judicial independence” and the self-regulated judiciary.  There is just no one to go to when the law is being broken by judges- who use “discretionary” rule to deny  due process in violation of  civil rights. The concurring opinions are highly  hypocritical-  in the rulings issued today regarding  Attorney General  Kane.  In the ruling which precipitated this appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it was held by  lower court  Judge Carpenter, of Montgomery County,  that the Attorney General cannot investigate herself.  However,   judges get to decide every day if they should recuse themselves, and they control their own disciplinary process, and that of lawyers.

Below are the concurring and dissenting opinions from today – on the Attorney General’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the courts – who appointed a special prosecutor to investigate her. Prosecution is the jurisdiction of her office – not the courts. According to the doctrine of separation of powers, the judiciary does not have the power to appoint a prosecutor.  Below are the links to the rulings.

Hopefully, Attorney General Kane will challenge the constitutionality of this in the Federal courts, and begin to address the mass of complaints their office receives regarding lack of judicial integrity.  The only one that got it right, is the only woman on the bench – Madame Justice Todd- who wrote the dissenting opinion:

In Re: 35th Statewide Inv Grand Jury / of: AG (opinion announcing the judgment of the court)
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2015/197-mm-2014-1.html

Date: March 31, 2015
Docket Number: 197 MM 2014

In Re: 35th Statewide Inv Grand Jury / of: AG (concurring)
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2015/197-mm-2014-2.html

Date: March 31, 2015
Docket Number: 197 MM 2014

In Re: 35th Statewide Inv Grand Jury / of: AG (dissenting)
http://law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2015/197-mm-2014-3.html

Date: March 31, 2015
Docket Number: 197 MM 2014