Nov 03 2009
Covered in Mud
We’ve been reporting (see, e.g, this post, and this one, and this one) about the increasingly nasty tone of the Supreme Court contest between Joan Orie Melvin and Jack Panella. A highlight has been the negative ads aired by each candidate. Some have charged the candidates with airing misleading ads. In fact, the candidates have pointed fingers themselves, accusing each other of crossing the line when it comes to these ads. Now, FactCheck.org highlights this campaign in a report entitled “Court Watch: Pennsylvania Slime.” Just another reason for Pennsylvania to give some more thought to whether electing judges in these expensive, partisan, divisive contests is the right way to go.
Tags: FactCheck.org, Jack Panella, Joan Orie Melvin
Entries RSS
[...] judgesonmerit.org » Covered in Mud judgesonmerit.org/2009/11/03/covered-in-mud – view page – cached We’ve been reporting (see, e.g, this post, and this one, and this one) about the increasingly nasty tone of the Supreme Court contest between Joan Orie Melvin and Jack Panella. A highlight has been… Read moreWe’ve been reporting (see, e.g, this post, and this one, and this one) about the increasingly nasty tone of the Supreme Court contest between Joan Orie Melvin and Jack Panella. A highlight has been the negative ads aired by each candidate. Some have charged the candidates with airing misleading ads. In fact, the candidates have pointed fingers themselves, accusing each other of crossing the line when it comes to these ads. Now, FactCheck.org highlights this campaign in a report entitled “Court Watch: Pennsylvania Slime.” Just another reason for Pennsylvania to give some more thought to whether electing judges in these expensive, partisan, divisive contests is the right way to go. Read less [...]
[...] not. Even in states such as our own, where candidates for appellate judgeships sometimes engage in nasty partisan campaigns, and where factors other than qualifications (such as ballot position, name recognition, and party [...]