No agenda for judges

To the Times: Judges should not have an agenda. They should not be motivated by their personal policy preferences, nor should they seek to advance or promote the way they think the law should be written.

Many times during this campaign, I have heard candidates declare that they will fix various legislative issues with their judicial decision-making if they are elected. That is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the Constitution. The Constitution established separate roles for each of the three branches of government and these distinct roles must be upheld in order to maintain a system of checks and balances.

It is for our Legislature, not the courts, to write the law and it is the role of the judiciary to apply the law subject to the protections and boundaries of our state and federal Constitutions. This is not always easy, but it is necessary. As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch has said: “A judge who likes every outcome he reaches, is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.”

As a judge, I have demonstrated a willingness to listen and consider all sides of each matter before me with impartiality and with appropriate reflection and respect for the law and the facts. I do not seek to promote a personal agenda or to rewrite the law. In addition, I understand that a courtroom experience is often a rare and difficult experience for litigants. With this in mind, I apply a high level of courteousness and patience in the courtroom, which I believe can positively affect the level of trust and comfort that a litigant has in our justice system.

I am honored to be the only candidate in the race for Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court that received the top rating of “Highly Recommended” by the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Judicial Evaluation Committee for a seat on this court. The commission noted that I “possess the highest combination of legal ability, experience, integrity and temperament and would be capable of outstanding performance as a judge” on the Commonwealth Court and that my “courtroom demeanor has earned the respect of [my] colleagues as well as that of the attorneys and litigants who appear before” me.

For 23 years, I have served as a trial court judge, an attorney and a special prosecutor, handling matters appealable to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. I have served as a municipal solicitor, a zoning hearing board member, a township commissioner and a county commissioner, giving me another unique foundation for the Commonwealth Court as matters concerning government entities are appealable to this court.

I have worked to promote ethics in the profession as a member of both a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Disciplinary Hearing Committee and the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board. I will continue to work to increase confidence in our judicial system by acting with integrity while treating everyone in my courtroom with the highest degree of courtesy and respect.

The Commonwealth Court is important in that the decisions made there will affect the everyday lives of Pennsylvanians. I recognize that being a judge means that I have been entrusted with a great responsibility. That responsibility includes basing my decisions upon the law and our state and federal Constitutions and it does not allow for judicial activism or legislating from the bench. If elected to the Commonwealth Court, my commitment to voters is that I will continue to make decisions that are fair, impartial and free from bias — without an agenda.

I am asking for your vote, on Nov. 7, for a seat on the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

“My commitment to voters is that I will continue to make decisions that are fair, impartial and free from bias.” — Judge Catherine Fizzano Cannon