Description of office: The Commonwealth Court is one of Pennsylvania’s two statewide intermediate appellate courts. This court, established in 1968, is unlike any other state court in the nation. Its jurisdiction generally is limited to legal matters involving state and local government and regulatory agencies. Litigation typically focuses on subjects such as banking, insurance, utility regulation, and laws affecting taxation, land use, elections, labor practices, and workers compensation. The Commonwealth Court also acts as a court of original jurisdiction, or a trial court, when lawsuits are filed by or against the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Court is made up of nine judges. The president judge is elected to a five-year term by his/her colleagues. Generally, appeals are heard by panels of three judges sitting in Philadelphia, Harrisburg, or Pittsburgh. Term: 10 yearsSalary: $247,188Vote for ONE.For more nonpartisan information on appellate court candidates, view the PA Bar Association’s ratings and questionnaires here: www.pabar.org/site/For-Lawyers/Committees-Commissions/Judicial-Evaluation/Resources/JEC-Ratings/2025
County
Philadelphia
Occupation
Judge, Court of Common Pleas
Education
B.A. - Pennsylvania State University J.D. - University of Pennsylvania
Qualifications
My 35 plus years of experience in law and the judiciary have equipped me with the skills and insights necessary to address the complex social, economic, and governmental issues facing our Commonwealth.
It has been my great honor to serve as judge of the Court of Common Pleas for the last eight years. I decided to run for the vacant seat on the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania because the judges on this Court weigh in on many of the important issues of our day that will affect citizens across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, such as public education, the environment, voting rights, workers’ rights, and the right to free and fair elections. The Commonwealth Court is often the last resort for these litigants because the Supreme Court only hears a select number of cases.
I understand the responsibilities which come with serving as a judge and have an established record which demonstrates my commitment to ethics, integrity, and fairness.
My job requires me to act impartially and to treat all parties with respect. I want all parties to feel that they are on a level playing field. I do my best to put the parties at ease and allow them to have a free and fair opportunity to present their case, including language access, and that parties receive what they recognize to be due process under the law.
If I were to consider a case that might affect long-standing precedent, I would apply the guidelines articulated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which recognized that a decision to overrule a past decision requires special consideration and depends on a number of factors, including: the age and lineage of the decision, the quality of reasoning, the workability of the rule it established, and its consistency with other related decisions
reliance on the decision.’”See Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. PA Department of Human Services, 309 A.3d 808 (Pa. 2024).
Stare decisis is “afforded ‘special force in the area of statutory interpretation” In contest to constitutional law” and “does not demand unseeing allegiance to things. Id.
County
Erie
Occupation
Attorney
Education
Undergraduate degree: Penn State; Juris Doctorate degree: Temple University School of Law
Qualifications
38 years of relevant experience in government and private sectors, including Commonwealth Court hearings and appeals; ranked "Highly Recommended" by the PA Bar Association; see website for additional details
I seek to serve on the Commonwealth Court specifically due to its critical importance to the fundamental rights of “We the People.” The Commonwealth Court – which acts mostly as an appellate court but can also act as a trial court for certain matters – is limited to cases involving State and local governments. As a result, Commonwealth Court judges are often gatekeepers in striking an appropriate balance between the necessity for government on the one hand versus unreasonable government interference with personal freedoms and private property rights on the other. I believe the Court needs common sense, constitutional conservative judges who are willing to push back on government overregulation and overreach and not legislate from the Bench.
For this response, I assume that the Commonwealth Court is acting in its capacity as an appellate court. In my view, appellate courts should be “hot” courts, meaning that prior to oral argument, judges should become versed in the legal arguments presented. This requires reading the opening, response, and reply briefs; and, to the extent indicated by the arguments, reviewing portions of the reproduced record. Timely preparation allows judges to take advantage of the opportunity to ask unbiased, intelligent questions at oral argument. During oral argument, judges should treat all counsel with dignity and respect; and should be mindful of the extraordinary expenditure of time, effort, and resources required to appear before the Court.
This question suggests the existence of a legal issue in a case that implicates revisiting well-settled precedent. Such cases are necessarily rare (and should be) under the principle of stare decisis; otherwise, society cannot rely on the certainty and security the law is intended to provide. Nevertheless, there are occasions when precedent is legally infirm or ongoing injustice must be remedied. Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind as clearly bad precedent on legal and moral grounds. In deciding such cases, in addition to the two above-referenced criteria, fairness to the parties and the likely practical consequences of a change in the law should be carefully considered. The facts of the case are also obviously relevant.
