Some people don't think Pennsylvania voters have grounds for voting "no" on retaining state Supreme Court Justices Russell Nigro and Sandra Newman in the Nov. 8 general election. Those who favor giving Nigro and Newman another 10-year term on the high court point out that the two justices have not taken a stand for or against the pay raise lawmakers approved for themselves, judges and other state officials in the middle of the night on July 7. Those who favor keeping Nigro and Newman remind others that the two justices weren't serving on the Supreme Court in 1986, when high court justices gave lawmakers the green light to use "unvouchered expenses" as a means for circumventing the state constitution's prohibition against mid-term pay raises.

But the state's voters shouldn't "buy" those arguments when they go to their polling place next month. There are good reasons for not voting for Newman and Nigro.

As Timothy Potts, a co-founder of Democracy Rising PA, pointed out in an editorial page article in the Butler Eagle on Oct. 14, Newman and Nigro are part of a high court judiciary that has failed to halt questionable practices by the state's legislators — including the legislature's ignoring of the single-subject, original-purpose and three-day rules governing consideration of proposed legislation. The General Assembly ignored the spirit of those rules when lawmakers introduced and approved controversial measures such as the pay raise and slot-machine gambling.

The attitude and demonstrated perception of today's Pennsylvania high court members — Democrats Nigro, Ralph Cappy and Max Baer and Republicans Newman, Ron Castille, Mike Eakin and Tom Saylor — seems to be that the legislature should have virtually no roadblocks in terms of doing whatever it wants, regardless of how the action stacks up against the state constitution's provisions.

That is both troubling and potentially costly for the state's taxpayers, as the pay-raise action has shown.

As Potts noted, "In virtually all cases, they (justices) have ruled unanimously that the constitution's directives for how the General Assembly should work are to be interpreted broadly out of 'deference' to a co-equal branch of government" — in other words, allowing the legislature to do virtually whatever it wants to do.

Later in the article, Potts says, "When the court decides that the constitution means what it plainly says, that people are entitled to participate in government again, all of the sleazy behavior of the General Assembly and governor will stop. It's reasonable to assume, on the basis of their records, that Newman and Nigro will not be the justices to put a stop to stealth legislation."

The Butler Eagle usually does not editorialize in terms of candidate endorsements or on the question of whether appellate court judges should be retained for new terms.

For the upcoming election an exception is justified. The retention efforts of Nigro and Newman should be resoundingly rejected, as a stern message to other members of the high court that the court's responsibility is to ensure that the constitution is obeyed.

The court has been doing a terrible job in that respect, and it's time for justices to suffer the consequences at retention time.

In Pennsylvania, no justice has ever been rejected for a second term. This is the election for that to change.