PHILADELPHIA—The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was poised to hear oral argument from lawyers in a pair of cases that could alter the state's system for disciplining wayward judges.

The Legal Intelligencer reported (http://bit.ly/1cZNUfO) that oral argument during the court's session Tuesday in Philadelphia will include cases that involve a district judge and a Philadelphia Traffic Court judge who came under scrutiny during the ticket-fixing scandal that surrounds the city's traffic court.

The paper said the cases of District Judge Mark Bruno and Judge Christine Solomon concern the relationship between the Supreme Court's discipline authority and the power of the Court of Judicial Discipline.

The justices are to decide whether they or the Court of Judicial Discipline can suspend judges on an interim basis, and which order takes effect if they have produced conflicting orders.

In June, the Legislature passed and Gov. Tom Corbett signed a law to begin the process of dismantling the Philadelphia Traffic Court, where federal authorities earlier this year charged nine current or former judges with fixing tickets as political favors.

The law canceled the November election for three vacancies, as well as retention elections for two other judges that had been suspended. The remaining two judges were to be transferred to Philadelphia Municipal Court.


Advertisement

Bruno had sought to have his suspension without pay vacated, and the court on July 12 reinstated his pay when they issued the order setting oral argument in the matter.

Also on July 12, the court suspended all proceedings involving Solomon, who was the only sitting traffic court judge not to be indicted in the federal investigation. At issue is whether she should be suspended for 90 days for allegedly not cooperating with the court's internal traffic court investigation.

On Wednesday, the state Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a challenge to a law passed earlier this year that lets counties eliminate the position of jury commissioner.