Pennsylvania Supreme Court Weighs Impeachment Trial Against Philadelphia Prosecutor
State’s highest court debates the future of District Attorney Larry Krasner’s impeachment trial
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments to determine whether the state Legislature can proceed with an impeachment trial against Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner. The court also deliberated on whether it should define what qualifies as misbehavior in office or leave it to the lawmakers. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the future of Krasner’s position and the power dynamics between the judiciary and the legislature.
The Role of the Supreme Court and Impeachment Proceedings
Justice Kevin Brobson, one of the two Republicans on the bench, expressed skepticism about the court’s involvement in the impeachment process, questioning whether it was constitutionally appropriate at this stage. He also raised doubts about the likelihood of the Senate reaching the required two-thirds majority to convict and remove Krasner from office. Brobson emphasized the need to respect the separation of powers between the branches of government.
On the other hand, Justice Christine Donohue, among the four Democratic justices, argued that the Supreme Court should define misbehavior in office, which would provide clarity and prevent future disputes. She suggested that once the court establishes a definition, the matter would not need to return to the court, as there would be a clear standard for determining misbehavior.
Defining Misbehavior in Office: A Contentious Issue
Justice David Wecht, another Democratic justice, expressed concerns about leaving the determination of misbehavior solely to the lawmakers. He criticized the idea that impeachment proceedings could be influenced by political whims, comparing it to indicting a “ham sandwich.” Wecht emphasized the need for a consistent and objective standard to ensure fairness and avoid arbitrary decision-making.
Krasner, a Democrat, has consistently maintained that the impeachment charges against him are politically motivated, targeting his policies rather than any genuine misconduct. A lower court previously issued a split ruling, rejecting some of Krasner’s challenges but agreeing that the impeachment articles did not meet the state constitution’s definition of misbehavior in office. Krasner’s appeal seeks a reconsideration of this decision.
Conclusion: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision on whether the Legislature can proceed with the impeachment trial against District Attorney Larry Krasner and who should define misbehavior in office will shape the future of this case and potentially set a precedent for future impeachment proceedings. The court’s ruling will determine the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature and have far-reaching implications for the accountability of elected officials. As the case unfolds, the outcome will be closely watched by legal experts and politicians alike, as it has the potential to shape the future of governance in Pennsylvania.