Judge not, if you’re going to be this stupid
I generally don’t comment or try to pass judgment on what appears on the editorial pages of other newspapers. They buy the ink and paper; they can say what they want. But an editorial in Sunday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette contained an idiotic editorial endorsing Republican Joan Orie Melvin of Pittsburgh, shown at left, for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over Democratic candidate Jack Panella of Easton. The editorial spent seven or eight paragraphs outlining the backgrounds of the two well-qualified candidates. Then the paper got to the crux of the matter: announcing who it was endorsing, and why. The endorsement went to Melvin. Why? I kid you not, the two reasons cited by the paper for picking a candidate for the Supreme Court were: 1. Because she lives around here, and, 2. Because she's a woman. Really. I'm not making this up. The editorial said that “all things being equal, we tend to favor a candidate from the west over one from the east.” Does a Supreme Court justice’s zip code really matter in terms of the decisions they make on the court? And all things are NOT equal. There are always substantive differences between the candidates, and it's the newspaper’s job to determine what those are and to suggest which candidate would best serve ALL the people of Pennsylvania. The other reason was even more ridiculous. Because a female justice is stepping down, the P-G believes she should be replaced by another woman. So, what we can take from this is that the Post-Gazette believes Melvin is the better choice for the Supreme Court not because she would do a better job than Panella, but because she has the preferred reproductive organs. It's ludicrous. I'm not in any way suggesting that Melvin is or is not the better choice for the high court. But surely there's a better way to make that determination.