The Bench Is Not Above Consequence

The Bench Is Not Above Consequence In Pennsylvania, we are asked to vote on whether Supreme Court justices should be retained. This year, I will vote no. Not out of spite, but out of principle. The judiciary is not a cloistered priesthood. It is a public institution, and when its members abandon restraint, distort precedent, or enable executive overreach, they must be held accountable. The three justices up for retention—Donohue, Dougherty, and Wecht—have presided over a series of decisions that defy constitutional clarity and undermine public trust. During the COVID-19 emergency, they upheld sweeping executive orders that shuttered businesses, restricted religious gatherings, and suspended basic liberties. These were not temporary measures. They were precedents. And they were justified not by law, but by fear. In election law, the court rewrote deadlines, dismissed legislative authority, and allowed ballots without postmarks to be counted. That is not interpretation. That is legislation from the bench. It erodes the separation of powers and invites chaos under the guise of compassion. In redistricting, the court discarded the legislature’s map and imposed its own. The result was a partisan gerrymander masquerading as reform. The court claimed neutrality. The outcome said otherwise. These justices have embraced a legal philosophy that is reactive, ideological, and untethered from constitutional text. They have ruled in favor of progressive doctrines that stretch the meaning of law beyond recognition—allowing local gun control ordinances in defiance of state preemption, and expanding rights not through deliberation, but decree. This is not about party. It is about principle. The judiciary must be restrained, not radical. It must interpret, not invent. And when it fails to do so, the people must respond. Retention is not a rubber stamp. It is a referendum. And this year, it is a reckoning. I will vote no.