In the past, few people in Pennsylvania paid attention to — or cared about — the state Supreme Court. But that began to change in the summer of 2005, when news coverage of the legislative pay-raise scandal revealed that the state's highest court had looked the other way when faced with some of the legislature's abuses associated with the raise.

Following the infamous 2 a.m. pay-raise vote, newly informed Pennsylvanians became vocal critics of the General Assembly. Many people expressed outrage at the use of falsified expense reports (officially known as unvouchered expenses) — and disbelief in the fact that the state Supreme Court had allowed the practice to continue in previous court challenges.

Months later, voters were encouraged when the court ruled that the pay-raise vote was unconstitutional, allowing the repeal of the pay raise to stand. But the same court provoked disbelief and anger when it preserved the pay raise for all judges in the state, including those on the Supreme Court.

That ruling appeared to be clearly self-serving and there was an obvious conflict of interest. The judges essentially voted themselves a pay raise, even though the legislature, responding to public pressure, had voted to repeal the entire package.

Criticism of the court in the past year and a half has been vocal and widespread. One justice was rejected in his retention election, a highly unusual event. Another justice on the Supreme Court barely survived her retention election.

Criticism of the court has continued, and many voters have not forgotten that Chief Justice Ralph Cappy defended (and also admitted to being highly involved with) the ill-fated pay-raise legislation.

The state Supreme Court has been criticized for its failures to act as a check against legislative abuses and misconduct. And, the criticism has been from newspaper editorial pages, good-government groups, talk radio and average citizens.

One outspoken critic, Bruce Ledewitz, a professor at Duquesne Law School, apparently has gone too far, at least according to one member of the court. Justice Ronald D. Castille, who happens to have written the court's opinion restoring the judicial pay raise, wrote a letter recently indirectly threatening Ledewitz with legal action for his comments about the court.

Castille had been invited to attend a function at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, but he said that he would not attend the event so long as Ledewitz is employed by Duquesne. It also was learned that Castille wrote a letter to another Duquesne law professor suggesting that Ledewitz could be punished for professional misconduct for his criticism about the court's actions. Castille wrote that Ledewitz could be prosecuted by the Judicial Disciplinary Board for his criticism of the court.

To his credit, Duquesne Law School's dean, Donald Guter, supports Ledewitz's right to express his opinion. And Ledewitz, to

his credit, stands by his criticism of the court.As the media and the public grappled with questionable actions by both the legislature and the state Supreme Court, Ledewitz offered his expertise and insight, often being quoted in newspaper articles. Through his observations and remarks, the Duquesne professor has played an important role in helping many people understand the apparent failings of not only state lawmakers but also the judges on the state's highest court.Ledewitz did not charge the justices on the Supreme Court with crimes, as Castille alleges. He did, however, suggest that the justices interpreted the law in a way more aligned with their own self-interests than the broader interests of the public. It's hard to see how Castille — or anyone — can dispute that.Castille's attempt to muzzle or punish Ledewitz is wrong — just as wrong as some of the decisions made by the court.Ledewitz has served an important role in advancing public understanding of the failings of some government officials in Harrisburg. He deserves public support and praise, not threats and criticism.Castille's actions remind voters that the legislature is not the only Harrisburg institution in need of change.