Court Opinion

ID: 9700615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:37:45.920923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:12.334953
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge MaoPhail :
I respectfully dissent.
While there is much that can and perhaps should be said about the present confirmation process which has interfered with and even endangered the normal functions of our state government, the .sole legal issue presented here is whether a state senator who has cast his vote in the confirmation process may now attack *110the validity of those proceeding's to oust those officeholders who have been confirmed on the .sole basis that the appointment was untimely made, hence, unconstitutional.
The majority opinion says (slip opinion, page 6) that in determining standing, it must be determined that the complaining party has a special interest as distinguished from the interest of the public generally. Our Supreme Court in William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 192, 346 A.2d 269, (1975) said, ‘ ‘ [I]i is not sufficient for the person claiming to be ‘aggrieved’ to assert the common interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law.” (Footnote omitted.) Yet, that is precisely the position of the Petitioners here. They may have a “grave stake in .assuring that nominations submitted to the Senate will pass constitutional muster” as the majority says (slip opinion, page 6), but that interest is no “graver” or any .different from that of all of the citizens of the Commonwealth in procuring obedience to the law.
Nor do I perceive that petitioners have suffered any injury by reason of the confirmation of .these office-holders. The Petitioner’s sole allegation in that respect is that they have a duty to advise and consent which has been somehow impaired. I submit that that duty was not impaired — .they voted and .the appointments were confirmed. The process was complete.
I find the argument that the Petitioners were compelled to vote for if they failed to do so they would be cited for contempt, lacking substantial merit. If the appointments were clearly unconstitutional, the Senate could have refused to vote at all. If the Senate chose to vote, the Petitioners could have refused to vote. I can think of no better defense to a contempt citation than that the subject matter upon which a vote is to be taken, is unconstitutional. A maxim of the law *111is that one is not ordinarily required to do a futile thing.
Finally, if the instan! ,snit is successful, the very harm predicted iu the -concurring and dissenting opinion in Zemprelli II, will result. The vacancies cannot he filled and the -citizens will he without the services of office-holders who, at least according to the Governor and a majority of the Senate, were found to he qualified. I make no judgment as to who is primarily or even indirectly responsible fo-r such a situation. As I have said, we are to determine here whether the Petitioners have standing to bring this action, nothing more.
I would sustain the preliminary objection.