Court Opinion

ID: 9755154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:28:20.40241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:03.764399
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Eagen :
I unhesitatingly agree with the conclusion of Mr. Justice Manderino that the failure of the Governor to seek or obtain the consent of the Senate while the Senate is in session does not affect his power to make a temporary appointment after the Senate adjourns. This conclusion is compelled by this Court’s ruling in Commonwealth ex rel. Lafean v. Snyder, 261 Pa. 57, 104 A. 494 (1918), and by the opinion in support of affirmance in Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, 443 Pa. 484, 281 A. 2d 57 (1971).
I also reiterate and subscribe to the view expressed in the opinion in support of affirmance in Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, supra, namely, that the vacancy in a governor-appointed office is continually happening and that the important date, as far as both Art. IV, Section 8(b) and Art. V, Section 13(b) are concerned is the date when the vacancy is sought to be filled by an appointment and not when the vacancy first arises.
*185It is true that in Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, supra, the Court was concerned only with the construction of Art. V, Section 13(b) ; however, as the opinion in support of affirmance pointed out, the differences between Art. IY, Section 8(b) and Art. Y, Section 13(b) “are basically editorial changes, not changes in substance. . . .” 443 Pa. at 493, 281 A. 2d at 61.
In my view, the result reached by Mr. Justice Mandekino is eminently correct.
I concur.
Mr. Chief Justice Jones joins in this concurring opinion.