Earlier this year, independent candidate Paul Panepinto submitted a petition to be on the November 3, 2015 ballot for Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice, a statewide partisan office. August 11 was the deadline for anyone to challenge his petition, but no one did so, so he is on the ballot. He is the first candidate to run outside the two major parties for that office since 1993.
Chances are, since he is a former Republican local judge, the Republican Party would have challenged his petition if it had not been for last month’s court decision invalidating Pennsylvania’s challenge system.
And in another story about that same decision at BAN:
The August 10 edition of Lancaster’s daily newspaper has this editorial, asking the state not to appeal the U.S. District Court decision of last month that struck down Pennsylvania’s ballot access procedures for minor parties. Although the newspaper had previously carried an op-ed making the same point, this is the first editorial on the subject.
The daily newspaper in Lancaster was formerly called the Intelligencer Journal, but now it is “LNP”. The editorial says the state still hasn’t decided whether or not to appeal. It must decide by the end of August.
PS…The prior logic also applies to judges and prosecutors, and anyone who supports them.
I wonder if he’s also a sociopath (“also” in addition to being a candidate; + “also” in addition to all of the other judges, most of whom are sociopaths). Now, I know the whimpering serviles will object that I’m not being scientific here, so I’d like to introduce a little bit of the science of philosophy here, in the form of Robert Higgs’s logic: