Major Reforms Hit PA Courts [VIDEO]

[Counterpoint PA]

This is a video from my show Counterpoint PA, the only grassroots progressive newscast exclusively about Pennsylvania politics.

In this video, I explain some recently announced major reforms to Pennsylvania courts including a ban on judges hiring family and campaign donors, a requirement that judges disqualify themselves from cases involving campaign donors, and a ban on judges serving on corporate boards, providing some often hard-to-believe context along the way of examples of real judicial behavior in the state that these reforms would have prevented (or at least punished).

For a transcript, links to the sources used in this story, or to browse the show's categorized video archive, go to http://counterpointpa.org. (Go here if you want to go right to the post for this video.)

Stay in touch on Twitter @CounterpointPA and on Facebook at http://facebook.com/counterpointpa and stay tuned throughout January for the rest of this month's show. For those who have watched before, you may have noticed that in the past I have always put out an entire show (at least four PA Headlines, plus the more in-depth The Breakdown and Olbermann-style Worst Pennsylvanians of the Week) in the span of a week. I'm loosening up the schedule now to spread the videos out more, so now videos will come out throughout the month. For more details on format changes to the show and why I made them, check out this post from the show's site.

[sabrina 1]

1. Finally got some time to check your links.

Re the changes in the PA courts, they sound very good. Makes you wonder why it took so long:

In this video, I explain some recently announced major reforms to Pennsylvania courts including a ban on judges hiring family and campaign donors, a requirement that judges disqualify themselves from cases involving campaign donors, and a ban on judges serving on corporate boards, providing some often hard-to-believe context along the way of examples of real judicial behavior in the state that these reforms would have prevented (or at least punished).

If we could get something done about the SC justices not being required by law to recuse themselves when they have a Conflict of Interest, but allowing them to continue on the 'honor system', we might have defeated Citizens United. There was a clear conflict of interest with Clarence Thomas regarding Citizens United but he refused to recuse himself and is not compelled to do so by law unfortunately.

Good reforms and good luck with your show.

[Counterpoint PA]

2. Thanks very much for watching! :)

I agree that it's somewhat mind-boggling that since these reforms are new, things like this have been going on forever in Pennsylvania, it's just never been against the law. PA's court system is notoriously under-regulated, so I think if there was hope for PA, there is hope for SC. Good luck!

[sabrina 1]

3. You're welcome ... keep up the good work!