Court Opinion

ID: 9760514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:58:38.414194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:13.180856
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I write only to state that the position of the petitioners was presented with what legal authority could be mustered in support of it, and, after intense judicial consideration, was deemed totally without merit and frivolous by a majority of the court, including the chief justice who joined the adjudication of denial. Oral argument before this court is not by right and most matters are resolved without it. In fact a matter on the miscellaneous docket is seldom afforded oral argument; thus the statement that somehow the court has circumvented the “customary procedure” is inaccurate. A “hearing” is not necessary to establish a factual basis for reform since the data is available to the court in *463the course of its administrative function and is widely known and publicized.
Every effort to reform the court system in Philadelphia has met with resistance, and it appears this effort is no exception.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins in this concurring opinion.