Court Opinion

ID: 9696914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:01:30.294507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:27.628225
License: Public Domain

McDERMOTT, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
The removal of a duly elected judicial officer is a matter of the gravest possible concern. The exercise of such power must be rounded at the very least, with all the fundamental protections known to the constitutional jurisprudence of this Commonwealth.
The power to remove by this court or any tribunal, however well founded, constituted, intended or necessary its purpose, by its very nature is capable of compromising the franchise of the people and the independence/ of the institution it is designed to guard. Both the people and person sought to be removed must precisely know the reasons for the exercise of such power. Those reasons must be grave reasons, based upon facts that constitute misbehavior tantamount to the intentional violation of known precise rules of law, and the proofs must, as for the protection of our other liberties, be beyond a reasonable doubt.
To do less is to put the judicial institution to the possible whim of the tides of the times. Nothing could prove more destructive of that judicial independence so vital to our liberty, than an uncertain or ambiguous standard, changeable at the whim of this Court or the Judicial Inquiry Review Board.
*156The power to remove and discipline is deposited by the Constitution in this Court. Article 5 § 18 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides in relevant part:
any justice or judge may be suspended, removed from office or otherwise disciplined for violation of section seventeen of this article, misconduct in office, neglect of duty, failure to perform his duties, or conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice or brings the judicial office into disrepute ...
Article 5 § 18(d). Section 17 of the same Article describes the activities from which all judges and justices are prohibited:
(a) Justices and judges shall devote full time to their judicial duties, and shall not engage in the practice of law, hold office in a political party or political organization, or hold an office or position of profit in the government of the United States, the Commonwealth or any municipal corporation or political subdivision thereof, except in the armed service of the United States or the Commonwealth.
(b) Justices and judges shall not engage in any activity prohibited by law and shall not violate any canon of legal or judicial ethics prescribed by the Supreme Court. Justices of the peace shall be governed by rules or canons which shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court.
(c) No justice, judge or justice of the peace shall be paid or accept for the performance of any judicial duty or for any service connected with his office, any fee, emolument or prerequisite — site other than the salary and expenses provided by law.
(d) No duties shall be imposed by law upon the Supreme Court or any of the justices thereof or the Superior court or any of the judges thereof, except such as are judicial, nor shall any of them exercise any power of appointment except as provided in this Constitution.
Art. 5 § 17.
Although the Constitution lays out the reasons upon which this Court may act, it does not set forth what *157standards are to be utilized in determining when its injunctions have been violated. The majority opinion does little if anything to rectify that situation. Instead the majority, without apparent disquietude, lumps all types of discipline together, and enunciates an ambiguous burden of proof.
There can be no question but that whatever standards may be delineated, they must comport with the traditional constitutional requirements of due process. Neither this Court, nor any tribunal can, within that tradition, set standards of procedure that would render elected officials, judicial or otherwise, at the mercy of whim, or small reason.
Under our state Constitution there are only two ways in which a judicial officer can be removed. The first is by the procedure at hand, where the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board, after a hearing, recommends removal and this Court accepts that recommendation. The second is by impeachment. See Article 6 § 6. A comparison of two methods clearly demonstrates that there are significant safeguards in the latter method, not the least of which is the ability to confront the body which is ultimately passing judgment, and the fact that the Senate must arrive at a decision by a two thirds-majority.
I cannot believe that the Constitution intended to allow more relaxed standards to be applied by this Court. This Court could not maintain its jurisprudential integrity if it fails to protect, in any context, the basic rights of an accused, and in these instances, the corollary right of the people to those they elect.
Because of the uniqueness of the penalty of removal I would require more safeguards than the majority accords. Firstly, prior to concluding that the activities of a given judge or justice warranted removal, I would require that the allegations be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Secondly, absent a criminal conviction, I would require that prior to removal this Court exercise its constitutional power to receive evidence, Article 5 § 18(h), and at a minimum, *158allow the judge or justice in question an audience before this Court.1
Since the other sanctions described in Article 5 § 18 are lesser, and more in the nature of disciplining members of the judiciary, with an eye towards improving their performance and the overall performance of the judiciary, I would accept lesser safeguards, and would accept that clear and convincing evidence, as determined by the Judicial Inquiry and Review Board and this Court, would suffice as a basis for the imposition of such discipline.
After completely reviewing the testimony I can conclude and do, under a standard of clear and convincing evidence, Judge Snyder must be disciplined. I am, however, not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that removal, the capital penalty, is justified without a finding of personal dishonesty or conviction of an infamous crime.
There is no doubt that Judge Snyder gave serious cause for the “appearance” of impropriety. We may discipline for the “appearance”, but without the substance of dishonest impropriety, “appearance” should not of itself be grounds for removal. That is not to say that willful, intentional “appearances”, or refusal to correct “appearances” may not suffice; it is to say that our law does not convict for appearance or mere presence alone.
It may well be that the evidence offered in this grim spectacle would meet any standard, but that standard should be stated with clarity and be the canon under which all the evidence is scrutinized.
Accordingly, I would enter an order of suspension as the appropriate discipline.

. If we are not willing to exercise this power in imposing the most serious sanction possible we are effectively denigrating the constitutional grant of such power to such an extent as to render it nugatory.