Print
E-mail
Pennsylvania Court Race Could Have Critical Impact
By William O’Shea, For The Bulletin
Pennsylvanians will soon elect a new justice to serve a 10-year term on the court that regularly has the final say on matters affecting the daily lives of those who live, work and do business in our state. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s influence on issues involving gun control, same sex relationships and medical malpractice, to name a few, merits voters’ careful attention.
Though most public awareness of gun laws focuses on the national debate, the state supreme court defines the rights of Pennsylvanians in the first instance. In the 1996 case of Ortiz v. Commonwealth, for example, our Court decided that allowing municipalities, like Philadelphia, to enact their own gun control laws contradicted state law. The Court held that because the regulation of firearms affects the entire state, not just Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the General Assembly—not city councils—should set gun regulations.
Since that decision, however, there has been a near-complete changeover of the Court, with only Chief Justice Castille remaining. Continued challenges by Philadelphia have been turned back, most recently this past June, with the Commerce Court upholding the precedent set forth in Ortiz. However, Philadelphia’s arguments appeal to emotions and ignore the clear meaning of both the statute and the Pennsylvania Constitution, hoping to elicit some “lawmaking from the bench,” and should, therefore, give us pause.
Upping the ante is the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent recognition of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an individual right, because it opens the door for further clarification of the right to bear arms. Given that this right as enshrined in Pennsylvania’s Constitution predates the U.S. Constitution, its interpretation could affect gun rights jurisprudence on a national scale.
Another charged topic the Court will inevitably handle is same-sex marriage. Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act requires that marriage “be between one man and one woman” and that same-sex marriages performed in other states would not be recognized here. But in Devlin v. City of Philadelphia, the Court established a confusing dichotomy that still stands, allowing municipalities to recognize same-sex partnerships as a marital status, but not grant them preferential tax treatment. This has essentially made the city exempt from state law.
The Court also addressed the rights of same-sex couples in adoption and visitation when it held that a woman was entitled to custody and visitation of the child she raised and cared for with her former same-sex partner, since the doctrine isn’t limited to biological parents. Further, the Court found that a same-sex parent’s inability to marry or to adopt a child in Pennsylvania is irrelevant where a party “assumed status and discharged parental duties.” More recently, the Court held that there was no language in Pennsylvania’s Adoption Act precluding two unmarried same-sex partners from adopting a child.
Still more contentious debate swirls around whether costs associated with Pennsylvania medical malpractice suits have caused medical professionals and new doctors trained in our acclaimed medical schools to flee the state. A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that Pennsylvania has been especially hard-hit by malpractice insurance problems and that rising legal costs are the greatest factor contributing to their financial burden. As this cycle of rising costs and fleeing physicians continues, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to be at the center of a debate now national in scope.
On several occasions, the Pennsylvania legislature has sought to address the problem, originally passing medical malpractice reform in the late 1970s, but significant portions of the legislation were struck down as violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In 2002, the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act modified several state malpractice liability laws and our Court will play a pivotal role in determining the validity of this legislation.
Not limiting itself to cases, the Court has addressed some of the state’s challenges by implementing several rule changes in response to the most recent medical malpractice crisis. These include physician’s certification of any malpractice suit, in an effort to curb frivolous action, and the requirement that any medical malpractice suit be filed in the county where the alleged malpractice occurred, to avoid forum-shopping for high-verdict jury pools.
With so many issues specific to the state being decided by our Court, it is critical that voters focus on how the Court profoundly impacts our lives and, by extension, demand a meaningful conversation about the proper roles of judges and courts during this election.
William O’Shea is a practicing attorney in Philadelphia.
Though most public awareness of gun laws focuses on the national debate, the state supreme court defines the rights of Pennsylvanians in the first instance. In the 1996 case of Ortiz v. Commonwealth, for example, our Court decided that allowing municipalities, like Philadelphia, to enact their own gun control laws contradicted state law. The Court held that because the regulation of firearms affects the entire state, not just Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the General Assembly—not city councils—should set gun regulations.
Since that decision, however, there has been a near-complete changeover of the Court, with only Chief Justice Castille remaining. Continued challenges by Philadelphia have been turned back, most recently this past June, with the Commerce Court upholding the precedent set forth in Ortiz. However, Philadelphia’s arguments appeal to emotions and ignore the clear meaning of both the statute and the Pennsylvania Constitution, hoping to elicit some “lawmaking from the bench,” and should, therefore, give us pause.
Upping the ante is the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent recognition of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an individual right, because it opens the door for further clarification of the right to bear arms. Given that this right as enshrined in Pennsylvania’s Constitution predates the U.S. Constitution, its interpretation could affect gun rights jurisprudence on a national scale.
Another charged topic the Court will inevitably handle is same-sex marriage. Pennsylvania’s Defense of Marriage Act requires that marriage “be between one man and one woman” and that same-sex marriages performed in other states would not be recognized here. But in Devlin v. City of Philadelphia, the Court established a confusing dichotomy that still stands, allowing municipalities to recognize same-sex partnerships as a marital status, but not grant them preferential tax treatment. This has essentially made the city exempt from state law.
The Court also addressed the rights of same-sex couples in adoption and visitation when it held that a woman was entitled to custody and visitation of the child she raised and cared for with her former same-sex partner, since the doctrine isn’t limited to biological parents. Further, the Court found that a same-sex parent’s inability to marry or to adopt a child in Pennsylvania is irrelevant where a party “assumed status and discharged parental duties.” More recently, the Court held that there was no language in Pennsylvania’s Adoption Act precluding two unmarried same-sex partners from adopting a child.
Still more contentious debate swirls around whether costs associated with Pennsylvania medical malpractice suits have caused medical professionals and new doctors trained in our acclaimed medical schools to flee the state. A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that Pennsylvania has been especially hard-hit by malpractice insurance problems and that rising legal costs are the greatest factor contributing to their financial burden. As this cycle of rising costs and fleeing physicians continues, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to be at the center of a debate now national in scope.
On several occasions, the Pennsylvania legislature has sought to address the problem, originally passing medical malpractice reform in the late 1970s, but significant portions of the legislation were struck down as violations of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In 2002, the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act modified several state malpractice liability laws and our Court will play a pivotal role in determining the validity of this legislation.
Not limiting itself to cases, the Court has addressed some of the state’s challenges by implementing several rule changes in response to the most recent medical malpractice crisis. These include physician’s certification of any malpractice suit, in an effort to curb frivolous action, and the requirement that any medical malpractice suit be filed in the county where the alleged malpractice occurred, to avoid forum-shopping for high-verdict jury pools.
With so many issues specific to the state being decided by our Court, it is critical that voters focus on how the Court profoundly impacts our lives and, by extension, demand a meaningful conversation about the proper roles of judges and courts during this election.
William O’Shea is a practicing attorney in Philadelphia.
 |
 |
|
| Defending The Obama Name-Calling | Pelosi’s Blueprint For Healthcare Leads To Government Takeover |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
macneillock wrote on Nov 1, 2009 4:22 AM: