This program is made possible through support from the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence.

WVIA Presents Conversations for the Common Good, Civil Discourse, Civic Engagement, Safeguarding Justice through Judicial Independence.

And now moderator Tracy Matysak.

Hello, and welcome to Conversations for the Common Good, Safeguarding Justice through Judicial Independence.

I'm Tracy Matysak.

A healthy democracy requires that judges be able to act independently, to make their rulings impartially, based on the rule of law, and without fear or favor.

And yet, throughout history, judges and their families have been the target of threats and intimidation from those who would want to influence their decisions or protest their decisions.

Threats against judges, particularly those at the federal level, have been on the rise of late.

The U.S.

Marshal Service has logged 513 threats against federal judges in the last 11 months, more than all of the 12 months prior.

The threats come in many forms, physical, online, through disinformation, and other means, which we will talk about.

Over the next hour, we'll discuss why judicial independence is critical to a well-functioning democracy, and how throughout our history, it has made our legal system the envy of the world.

We'll examine not only the increasing threats to the judiciary, but what all of us can do to promote and protect judicial independence.

For that, we turn to our distinguished panel of state and federal judges.

The Honorable Mary Jane Bowes was elected to serve as a judge on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in 2001.

The Superior Court is one of two intermediate appellate courts in Pennsylvania that review civil, criminal, and family cases ruled on by the lower courts.

Judge Bowes has been a fierce advocate for increased transparency in the operation of the court, and she serves as chair of the Pennsylvania Commission on Judicial Independence.

The Honorable Matthew W. Brown was nominated to the U.S.

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania by President Barack Obama in May of 2012.

He was appointed to the bench later that year after confirmation by the U.S.

Senate.

He became chief judge of the District Court in 2021.

Chief Judge Brown sits at the Williamsport Federal Courthouse, where he presides over criminal and civil trials, among other matters.

The Honorable Lisa Gelb was elected judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania's 11th District, located in Luzerne County, in 2012.

In that capacity, Judge Gelb provides over civil trials primarily, and among other responsibilities, Judge Gelb is supervising judge of the Mortgage Foreclosure Diversionary Program, which helps homeowners who have difficulty paying their mortgages.

And the Honorable Joseph F. Saperito was nominated to the U.S.

District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in May of 2024 by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate in July of that year.

Judge Saperito is assigned to the Wilkes-Barre Federal Courthouse.

Welcome and thank you to you all for being part of this very important conversation.

And Judge Gelb, I want to begin with you and ask you to simply explain to us what we mean by the term judicial independence.

It's exactly what you had said earlier.

It's the importance of the judiciary being independent in their opinions and the responsibility of judges is to protect individuals' rights and to and to protect the rule of law.

And we cannot do that unless we are independent, free of political pressure.

And Judge Saperito, we can also talk about what judicial independence is not.

Talk about that.

Yes.

Judicial independence is not where when a judge comes and just signs an order willy-nilly what a judge wants to do rather than what the law requires the judge to do.

And I think the public needs to know from a judge's perspective what goes into the judicial decision-making process.

I like to say that we are in the business of making informed decisions.

And we get our we're informed by case precedent, by statutory law, and most importantly we are guardians of the Constitution.

And so therefore we take our role very seriously and we don't just make decisions off the cuff.

They're well informed before we we issue a decision.

Well, and to that point, Judge Bowes, in an earlier conversation, we talked about the fact that, yes, judges do not make these decisions willy-nilly based on their mood that day.

Tell us a little bit more about how that happens and also the fact that sometimes judges may have to make a ruling that they find personally distasteful.

Yes, thank you for that question.

And again, thank you for inviting us this conversation.

I'm so delighted to be with my esteemed colleagues here.

I think something that contributes to the question of judicial independence and what it really means is that for the most part the citizens really don't understand how we function as a court.

When folks hear something about a judge, they assume we're all the same kind of judges.

I sit on the appellate court, so I review decisions from trial judges.

Judge Galbraith is a trial attorney and my other two colleagues here are on the federal bench.

But people really, for the most part, they don't really understand that.

They don't understand the differences between us and they don't really understand how we function and how we do make the decisions.

Now, I'm on an intermediate appellate court.

So I answer to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

So when the cases come to me, I have to apply the law as articulated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and, of course, by the Supreme Court of the United States.

So I am cabined in what I can do because I have to rely upon the law as articulated by those higher courts and apply it according to how they have articulated the law.

So going back to what Judge Saperito said, when the cases come to us, we're not making a decision.

Oh, this is the way I think the law should be.

I don't like that.

That's not going to be fair if I rule that way.

We have to set aside what we personally think and we have to look at the statutes as handed down by the legislature and the precedent of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and apply the law as they have articulated.

So oftentimes, you know, I might look and say, yeah, I'm not really happy with that.

But really that tells you that the judge is probably doing something correctly if they are in good faith applying the law as they see it.

Judge Brown, I'm coming to you in a moment, but I want to go back to Judge Gelb to talk about, first of all, the Court of Common Pleas and ask you to explain to us a little bit about what happens there and the kinds of cases that you preside over.

But also, has there been a case where you have had to make a ruling that you found unpleasant, distasteful?

Can you give us an example?

Not off the cuff, but it is part of our job to look at, I mean, I see everyday people.

That's who comes before me.

And we are divided into family court, civil court, and criminal court.

And I do primarily civil.

And when people look at me, they say, what is civil?

And I say it's everything else.

So we deal with contract matters, real estate matters, tort matters, everything else, landlord-tenant, mortgages.

So we deal with the stuff of everyday life.

And we see, while Judge Bowes hears argument, I see people in front of me every day.

And, you know, when I ran, I said, look, there's going to be a loser and a winner because that's how the system is.

But as long as you're courteous and civil and, you know, hear people out, then that's how I think the system works the best.

Judge Brand, there are strict ethical rules that judges have to live by.

Most of us have no idea the kinds of considerations that a judge has to make in order to do his or her job well.

Can you explain what some of those rules and regulations are or some of the things that a judge has to think about before taking on a case?

Well, Judge Saperator and I, as you said, are federal judges.

We're federal trial judges, district judges.

And we are governed, as all federal judges are, by a code of conduct, which is lengthy, detailed.

It's sort of what you would expect to read, I think.

We are required to recuse from cases in which we have any personal involvement.

We are required, there's a code of conduct that speaks as to how we are to treat attorneys, litigants, other judges.

Those are obvious things.

I mean, I think that the judge is basically abiding by those things as a matter of course.

But that is, that's something I think that you think about, you should think about, before you ask for appointment as a judge.

If you are, if you're sort of flying loosely as a lawyer, and some lawyers do, this is not the job for you.

It's a job that is kind of buttoned up in a way.

Some would consider that something they simply don't want to do.

Judges, I think, by the very nature of it, have to be a little removed from the system.

Some of us would find, some of us would probably be accused of being a little aloof.

The aloofness is, I think, part of the job description.

And aloofness doesn't mean, you know, condescension toward anyone.

It's just, you're taking a step back, I think, from being involved in some of the affairs of the community that you might have been involved with on a regular basis as an attorney.

So we're governed by a strict code of conduct, a code of conduct that has been spelled out, I think, since the 1940s in some detail.

It is revised regularly by the Judicial Council, reviewed by the Supreme Court.

And I think we just take it as a matter of course that that's what you're going to do.

And I would hope that the public would understand and sort of appreciate that.

And I think my state court colleagues can speak to the code of conduct that they have, but it's going to be somewhat similar, I think, to Pennsylvania.

And Judge Saperito, one of the things that we all talked about earlier was just about the recusal process, that, you know, judges have to be very careful about the cases they take on.

And I think viewers and listeners might be surprised about some of the things that a judge has to think about in deciding whether they can take on a case.

Absolutely.

We're required to disclose any financial interests that we have.

We're also required to recuse ourselves if we have a relationship with a lawyer or a former client, perhaps, or if we own stock in a corporation.

Even one share of stock requires a recusal.

And so we have to be very careful to make sure that we monitor that on a regular basis.

And most importantly, our cases come to us randomly, and anyway, they're randomly assigned.

So if we get a case that we know that I may have an interest in by one share of stock in X corporation, I immediately recuse and make sure that that case doesn't come before me.

And it's a requirement, it's a good requirement, because it should instill confidence in the public that we are doing what we're supposed to be doing and that it's fair play and the level playing field is presented to all litigants.

And that we're neutral, that we are truly neutral players.

Judge Gelb, can you speak from an historical perspective about the role of judicial independence throughout our history that has made the American legal system a model, quite frankly, for the rest of the world?

So I don't want to get too scholarly, but everyone has heard of Alexander Hamilton, and he was really the person who put together Federalist Papers, number 78, and they talked about, and in that, that's as far back as we go, he talked about the checks and balances, and that the executive had the power of the sword, and Congress had the power of the budget, and all that really the judiciary has is their independence.

And that has to be supported by both Congress and the executive.

So that's where we start.

Well, and speaking of that support, it makes me think of an article that I was reading, Judge Bowes, about Brown versus Board of Education as an example of, you know, obeying a court order, regardless of how you might feel about it.

And in the case of Brown, which of course the Supreme Court outlawed segregation in public schools.

There was lots of resistance to that, particularly coming out of the South.

The National Guard was called into Arkansas to keep black students from entering schools.

President Eisenhower then sent in troops to enforce the law that the Supreme Court laid down, even though President Eisenhower himself was lukewarm about that decision, and I wonder if you would speak to that, the importance of following a court's ruling, regardless of your personal feelings about that particular decision.

Well, of course, that is the basis of our democratic form of government.

We are, we follow the rule of law, which means that everyone is treated fairly and equally under the law.

And when you have sufficient confidence in the populace that they are being treated fairly, then they're more inclined to follow and adhere to a decision that they might not be satisfied with or that they dislike.

So the idea is that we have sufficient confidence in how we are doing our jobs as judges, and that the system is being fairly applied to everyone.

And so that's the reason why we want to have judicial independence, in order that we have a firm foundation in the rule of law.

But that means that really the judges need a little bit of breathing space when they're making their decisions.

As we spoke about before, sometimes the cases are very difficult.

Sometimes the judge has to hand down a decision that they don't like, and the question then is, are people going to follow it and adhere to it?

Alex de Tocqueville said, the American judiciary really relies on public opinion to sustain it.

And when you have unfair and unjust criticism, that serves to undermine the confidence that the citizens have in the rule of law.

Now going back to the example that you said, in Brown v. Board of Education, the last time there was widespread disregard of a legal decision from the Supreme Court of the United States.

And it was wonderful that President Eisenhower said, I may not agree with it, but the Supreme Court has spoken, and I will obey.

And that's, of course, what we want to see and hear from our political leaders.

There's always a concern if they do not follow a legal precedent.

And I'll give you a perfect example.

Abraham Lincoln, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, which means you have to have a legal basis for to arrest somebody.

He suspended that.

Folks were being arrested, and they went right into court.

And the local Court of Appeals said, this is unconstitutional.

Nothing happened for three years until they passed a law retroactively sanctioning President Lincoln.

Now, it was obviously during the Civil War, but the court said Congress has the authority to suspend the writ of habeas.

Nobody else.

That's an example where the decision was not followed.

And my point is, we have a long and storied history, 250 years as a country.

It is an experiment for a reason, because we have all these variations, all these challenges, and sometimes the courts really have probably been subject to threats and challenges during that entire 250 years.

So, I think we can't be too upset or worried or concerned about the current challenges that the court is facing, because I think we're going to prevail.

Judge Brand, I think we can't overstate the importance of public trust in the judiciary.

And we are living in a time when trust is hard to come by.

There's a lot of bad information floating around.

I wonder if you could underscore that, and you can talk about why it is so vitally important to have public confidence in the judiciary.

Well, I'll just add to what Judge Bose has just spoken about.

The whole country is undergirded by the concept of liberty.

So, we live in a country where liberty is really sort of paramount.

But building that up, of course, is having an independent judiciary.

Ultimately, the judges are paid.

We hope that the judges that are put on the bench are ethical.

You hope that they're also at least reasonably intelligent.

But most importantly, that they exercise judgment.

I mean, the bottom line is we're paid to use judgment, and good judgment.

We're not making these decisions in a cavalier fashion.

As the others have said, we are interpreting statutes.

We're looking at case law.

Judge Saperito and I in the federal system, of course, are bound by the Supreme Court of the United States President, also by the President of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

So, if you don't like a decision that I've made, and there's a final appeal, that's where that appeal is taken.

And that is a federal court of appeals that would handle all federal appeals for Delaware, New Jersey, the three federal courts that make up Pennsylvania.

And for reasons that are unknown to me, someone can explain, perhaps in the audience, the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands, which is a federal territorial court, has been glued into the Third Circuit.

So, the circuit occasionally goes and sits in the Virgin Islands to hear those cases.

But we're not making the decisions in a cavalier fashion at all.

We're very careful about that.

I try to be.

And so, the public should have some confidence in that.

We make decisions every day that are very significant to the litigants that appear before us.

And they should know that those decisions, all the cases, it's said that all the cases are important.

I think that's basically right.

They are important.

And when we issue a decision, at least Judge Saperito and I do, our late colleague here in Luzerne County was Judge Richard Caputo.

Judge Caputo said to me once, you know, when we issue a decision, it is like taking a hand grenade, pulling the pin, he'd been a military officer, and rolling the hand grenade down the hallway of some law firm.

And that's basically what it is.

The bomb goes off.

It has, in some cases, a huge impact on the case, on the parties involved in the case.

And if you don't agree with it, and it's a final order, as I said, the route that you take, of course, is a route of appeal.

You know your route of appeal.

You don't agree with what I've done.

You think that I've interpreted this incorrectly.

That's fine.

Take it up.

There are three other federal judges who will sit and have an oral argument in Philadelphia some months, perhaps a year later, and they can make a determination as to whether that decision was made correctly or not under the law.

Again, they're not, you know, they're not, I'm sure that some of the judges look at decisions that I've made.

They don't agree, probably, with the way I've interpreted some of the facts.

But if I follow proper legal precedent, I'm going to be affirmed.

And sometimes the decisions are made in a very technical way.

I think as a judge, and Saperito and I have talked about this any number of times, it's important for us, we're intellectually engaged.

It's a fascinating job.

It's a great honor to have been appointed.

So we like the intellectual engagement, the cases that we have.

But it's also important for us as federal trial judges to be practical.

There's a pragmatic end of it that sometimes is lost.

It's important that the ordinary people understand the decision, understand why the decision's made, and that it makes sense to them because, my goodness, if you start making decisions that are based on a lot of technical reasons, I think the public loses confidence in the judiciary.

They lose confidence in us, and that level of trust is diminished, which we would want to avoid.

Judge Geld, can you say a bit more about how judges are assigned?

I know Judge Saperito mentioned random assignment.

But I'm just thinking of someone who has to appear before a judge and wants to be sure that this judge is, in fact, going to be impartial.

What does that sort of random assignment process look like?

In Luzerne County, we had just been assigned randomly.

However, in May of 2024, we went to a computer random assignment.

And I love it because it's transparent.

I love it because our people who come before us don't have to think that somebody's put their thumb on the scale to get a case.

So that's how we do it in Luzerne County on the civil side.

And our criminal judges each take certain magistrates, and they have a voluminous amount of cases.

Judge Saperito, I'd like for you to talk a bit more about the federal judiciary.

I'd like to drill down on that a little bit and the role of federal judges.

I know you've touched on it, but to just give us kind of a deeper understanding of the role of the federal judge.

Well, at least from my perspective, I like to give the litigants an opportunity to resolve their own disputes.

So many times when I speak with their lawyers, usually in a telephonic conference, initially a case management conference, I will ask the lawyers if this is a case that is ripe for mediation or some other settlement conference.

And I will encourage it, actually.

And recently in one case that I recently had, I sensed that there may be some movement in the case because the defendant in the case, recently had two other matters that they resolved the case.

So I set a telephone conference, asked the lawyers if they were interested in mediation, and they indicated that they were.

However, unfortunately, from the plaintiff's perspective, the settlement demand was too high.

And so that diminished the prospects of settlement.

But nonetheless, from our perspective, I think the best quality that any judge, be it federal or state, could have is to be a good listener.

Listen to the lawyers when they come before you.

Listen to the litigants.

Let them have their say.

If they're having their say, they feel that they're getting their day in court.

They're having that day in court.

It's so important to give the confidence to the litigants, especially, that they've been heard.

My mantra is, whether they win or lose, I hope that litigants say, he at least treated me fairly, regardless of the consequences.

That's a goal that I've always, you know, as a magistrate judge in the federal court for nine and a half years, and now as a district judge for a little over a year, that's my goal, is that people walk out of there saying, at least I was treated fairly.

That's the goal.

Judge Brand, there have been so many threats to judges and their families, and there's been quite an uptick, as we mentioned early on.

Is this unique to the United States, or is this a global phenomenon?

It seems to be a global phenomenon.

There's more and more of it.

There's been a real breakdown in how, I think, we treat one another in general, and that's now extended to the judiciary.

I spoke to a recently retired Deputy United States Marshal, so someone roughly of my vintage, late 50s, and he said, 25 years ago, you know, you just never heard of these things.

Very, very rare that you're responding, and you gave me the citation of 500 plus cases.

It's got to be at least that, because I've received it.

A judge separate has received it.

In some cases, just ordinary cases, so there's kind of a breakdown in society, I think, that people feel they can call up and say, you know, really terrible things.

Usually not so much to me.

It's usually to my staff.

People send letters.

I've received letters from people in Canada who are unhappy with my decisions.

One lady in Nova Scotia.

Yes, absolutely irate.

She did, if you're a high court judge in Canada, you're addressed as my lord, and she began the letter, my lord, but then after that, it was just scatological language as to what I, and I was, I was, no, I was very curious that my decision had affected some lady up in Nova Scotia.

Of course, it had not.

So you have to assume, I mean, some of it is simply, it's mental health issues.

You'll have some people, we had someone a couple of weeks ago who called the clerk's office 21 times, just repeated, repeated calls, screaming epithets at the, we have no idea why.

That's something 25 years ago just didn't happen, and we would sort of think, at least federal judges, we'd be somewhat removed from that.

There's less, there's less of that, and then some, of course, people act.

They act on these threats.

There's a case, Judge Bowes may be referencing this, but it's not federal, but there was a state trial judge in South Carolina who was apparently the victim of an arson, I think yesterday or the day before, who had made a ruling in an election law case in South Carolina, and someone apparently burned a house down with people in it.

I mean, it's just shocking, shocking behavior.

So there's a breakdown in society, I think, and that's now extended judiciary.

We don't like what you've done.

Even if they don't really understand what we've done, there's gonna be a threat made against you, there's a threat made against your family, and so the United States Marshals, who do a number of things for the federal judiciary, but at the top of their list is providing protective services for judges, are really on high alert because this is accelerated.

There's more of it, and do I think it's worldwide?

My observation is yes, there's more of this worldwide.

And just to add to what Judge Brown said, I really think it's the role of social media that has exacerbated the problem because back when Thomas Jefferson was lambasting John Adams and calling him all kinds of ugly names, it was in a little newspaper and how many of those were printed and they probably ended up using them to wrap fish the next day.

But now we have social media and so you can have someone possibly with mental health issues spin this whole big conspiracy theory or picking up on some horrible complaint that was made against a judge and next thing you know, it's got 10 million views.

So it's really easy for cases to become a national flashpoint that it would not have been before the advent of social media.

I think that's exactly right.

And I think that's what you've seen in the development of the last 20 or 25 years is it's just a constant use of social media.

And of course, social media allows these people to remain to some degree kind of anonymous.

So we've gotten threats from people in Nova Scotia, Portland, Oregon.

Not in Williamsport where I sit or in Wilkes-Barre or in Scranton or in Harrisburg where the federal court sits in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, well beyond Pennsylvania.

Why on earth are you commenting on this?

This has no effect on you.

They just don't like the decision you've made and their view is I'm gonna give voice to this in an unhinged way.

And Judge Bose is right.

I think somebody puts it out there and you've got all these people agreeing with it.

They don't understand what we do.

They don't understand what the case is about and they feel free to sort of vent their frustrations and sometimes escalate to the point of threat and then sometimes act on the threat.

Well, and to that point, Judge Separito, it's not just trashing a judge online.

There are other ways that people can issue these threats.

Talk about what some of these threats look like.

I can give you from a personal standpoint, I was engaged in this case where the plaintiff was a pro se litigant, someone who represented himself.

And I issued a decision that perhaps the person didn't care for.

And so the person put on the docket the next day a series of tirades that he went off on, including some things that related to me personally.

So I took that to the U.S.

Marshal Service and I'm immensely grateful to the United States Marshal Service and the protection that they provide to us.

I met with one of the deputy marshals.

He gave me a plan and with that plan, it included the local police in the community in which I live.

And I worry about my wife and my children and my grandchildren.

And so from that perspective, I felt that they approached it correctly.

Whatever it was, it went away.

And for a period of two weeks, the local police patrolled my home regularly.

They still do to this day.

And I'm so grateful to them for doing that because that's so important that we know that we have the protection that we look for and that we may need.

You just never know where it will come from.

So that communication landed on the docket.

So it's another way that someone might issue a veiled threat.

It was somewhat of a veiled threat.

I was a little bit rattled by it and I didn't want to just fluff it off.

I gave it where I put it, where it belonged in the U.S.

Marshal Service's hands.

When I ruled against someone and it goes before the appellate court and the one of the questions is, what law are you relying on?

And she said the Second Amendment.

So that was a bit off-putting.

So immediately, as Judge Saprito said, we call the police where she lives.

I call the other lawyer because I thought there was consequences for him, of her situation.

We let our sheriffs know.

And that's the kind of things that we have to do.

So I guess that would be considered a veiled threat.

But well, and one thing that has happened recently is that, and I believe this was again, the federal judges, they were being doxxed and people were sending pizzas to the homes of the judges that obviously were not ordered.

And that was an indication, we know where you live.

So there's just, people are very creative in how they are seeking to threaten judges.

And the problem with that is when you are threatening a judge and you're threatening the judiciary, you don't want the judges to pull back.

You don't want the judges to be rattled.

You don't want the judge, the next time a case comes up for the judge to think, if I rule this way, am I going to get that reaction?

I mean, it's almost subconscious now.

I think all judges are thinking more and more about physical threats that can happen to them.

And that really takes away from their ability to rule without fear or favor.

We want them to be able to hand down a decision, even if they don't like it, even if it's going to be a difficult and unpopular decision.

You don't want them to be pulling back intellectually thinking, what's going to happen to me?

So it really is more of a problem now than it has been in the past.

And I think because of social media and the echo chamber, where the threats just continue to move around so quickly and develop exponentially.

Yeah.

Well, and Judge Salas, right?

Her son was... Well, that's the worst example.

I mean, in a way, we're a very sophisticated society, but to some degree, it's kind of retrograde.

So our colleague, Esther Salas, who's a federal district judge, a friend of mine, I think a genuine friend of Judge Saperator.

She sits in the Newark, New Jersey courthouse.

Her son was a victim of a murder.

The lunatic was a lawyer.

It was an unhinged lawyer who was unhappy with the decision she'd made, unhappy with her personally, for whatever reason, came to her house on a Sunday afternoon after, I think, a birthday party for the son with the intent to clearly shoot and kill her.

And instead, the door was opened by the son, who was a college student, and he shot and killed him and then shot her husband, who was gravely wounded.

And that was just a couple of years ago.

Just five years ago in New Jersey.

And, I mean, it's just shocking behavior.

So we've become a sophisticated society in so many ways, but to some degree, we're moving backward.

The interesting thing is, I think, that I have dealt with some of the most dangerous federal prisoners in the country in criminal cases, in part because my division of the court, where I sit in Williamsport, takes the United States prison at Lewisburg and FCI, Federal Correctional Institute, and Allenwood, which are just south of Williamsport.

So I've dealt with some really frightening people on a regular basis.

The threats aren't coming from them.

The threats are not coming from the most dangerous federal prisoners, but they could, and some of them occasionally do.

It's coming from the pro se litigants that the others have described, individuals who are proceeding on their own in federal court over some grievance that no one can hide their hair of.

They're pro se litigants usually for a reason.

They've gone to attorneys, and the attorneys have said, you know, you don't have a case, you're not a very good case.

They've gone to another attorney, another... People will simply not take the cases.

They won't take the cases because what they're talking about is untenable legally.

It's unhinged, and they go forward with it anyway.

So we deal with that more and more and more, and those are the people who will act sometimes on their desire to do injury to the judge or to the judge's staff.

Always no, but that's often, if you trace it back through, that's where the threats are coming from, and when there are actions taken against the judges, it's coming from frequently enough those individuals, and that was true in Judge Salas' case.

And the problem is we don't want excellent attorneys to say to themselves, you know, I'd like to serve as a judge, but I don't want to put my family at risk.

I have small children.

I'm just not going to go there.

You know, that's another real threat to judicial independence when good people aren't stepping forward, and it's all the more tribute to my esteemed colleagues and all the other judges who have really put service over self when they're willing to really put themselves in harm's way in order to serve the public in this noble task.

If you look at the countries that don't have judicial independence, we're looking at Russia, China, North Korea, Cambodia.

There's a theme here, and that's the other reason why for a democracy that functions, you have to have an independent judiciary.

Well, and to that point, Judge Gelb, I was reading that the World Justice Project Index of 142 countries says that the U.S.

is not even in the top 10 when it comes to judicial independence.

We are in the top 26.

How concerning is that to you?

I think it's very concerning that our democracy should be a beacon to the whole world, and for us not to be in the top 10 is dismaying.

Judge Bell, you said in an earlier conversation that we had that respect for the rule of law is the endgame as it relates to judicial independence.

Can you talk about due process, what it is, how it relates to judicial independence?

This sounds like a law school exam, but I'm going to answer it.

In layman's terms, please.

In layman's terms, due process is the ability for everyone to be treated fairly according to the same procedures.

So if one person is going to have a hearing and they get 30 days notice and the other person gets no notice and you lost your hearing, you didn't show up.

Well, I didn't get notice.

So due process is everyone being treated the same procedurally and also that they have a fair hearing and an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.

And so when everyone is subject to the same process, that also serves to enhance judicial independence because the folks are going to come away saying, well, I went through the same process that my neighbor did, and he's really wealthy, but that's OK.

He was subject to the same rules and procedures that I was.

So it supports the idea that the judges are handling these decisions in the same way across the board.

And it also protects the judges from saying, oh, you treated somebody else better than I did.

I was not treated as fairly or in the same way.

So it protects the judges also.

Speaking of fairness, Judge Saperito, because federal judges are appointed by sitting presidents, how can the public be sure that that judge was not appointed precisely because perhaps his or her writings or ideologies resemble those of the president who nominated them?

The process is quite lengthy.

It's you first appear before a panel that's usually appointed by the senators of the state in which you reside.

They undertake the process of vetting the potential candidates.

If you make it through that process, then you go on to a potential, one of the senators may interview you through their staff.

And then if you make it through that process, then the senator himself, along with some staff members, may interview you next.

And then if you're fortunate enough to make it through that next level, then it's the White House counsel's office that vets you.

And, you know, the people that have devoted their time and efforts to this process know this area inside and out.

And when I went through the process, I was amazed at how much they knew about me that I didn't know about myself, honestly.

And when I tell you that, you know, they would give you a question about something that maybe you didn't remember, and then they would then tell you, well, we got this from this newspaper article or that newspaper article.

And it was quite eye-opening and revealing.

And I felt that when individuals put themselves through this process, you're vetted.

It's not just a stamp because the president wants it or a specific senator may want.

You're vetted through various agencies that includes the Department of Justice, the Office of Legal Policy, and there's a variety of others.

The American Bar Association weighs in as well.

And it's a whole vetting process that is foreign to the public because they don't see that part of it.

They don't see the vetting process.

And so as a result of that, having gone through it, it's a process that, it's eye-opening.

Let me put it to you that way.

And it's reassurance that the individuals that are being nominated aren't just, you know, doing this from the seat of their pants.

They've had experience and things of that nature.

So I think that should give the public some confidence in what happens.

Well, let me just add to that, if I could, that the media, you know, when I am described as this is a judge who's appointed by Barack Obama, well, that's right.

I suspect I probably don't share Mr.

Obama's judicial philosophy at all.

I'm a Republican, so an old-fashioned Republican, and kind of a compromise candidate.

So I was nominated by a Democratic president with the support of a Republican senator and a Democratic senator and confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent, as was my colleague, Judge Malachy Mannion, who was nominated at the same time I was.

So I think that labeling simply someone, this is a person who was appointed at the federal level by a certain president, is misleading.

Judge Saperito would give you the same answer because he is also, I think, a Republican and was nominated by President Biden with support of two Democratic senators.

So again, you can say Joseph Saperito, appointed by Biden, really give you an understanding of the kind of person he is.

Yes, indeed, some federal judges do bear and share ideological interests of the person who appointed them.

Some of them do not.

And two examples are right here in the studio tonight.

And that's true across the country.

The media should know better before I think they simply say, this is who was appointed.

They should look at the judge, look at the judge's judicial philosophy.

It's all available.

I mean, every sentencing I have can be rounded up in the Sentencing Commission.

Every decision I have is a matter of public record.

And it's not hard to discern, I've been on the bench 13 years, what kind of judge I am.

It's all there.

It takes a little bit of work to dig through that.

It takes a little bit of work to dig through what Judge Saperino has done.

But it's not impossible.

It's all a matter of public record.

And again, the public should sort of be, I think, reassured by that.

I approach the cases, I think, the same way he does, same way our colleagues in Scranton and Harrisburg do, with true independence and with regard for the law.

And I think, really, the ideological considerations that might have governed to some degree our appointments really have nothing to do with the cases that we deal with or how we approach those cases or try to resolve them.

Judge Saperino, one other question regarding the federal judiciary, and then we'll talk about what we all can do to help remedy this.

But a federal judicial appointment, as you well know, is for life pursuant to good behavior, as the Constitution says.

But what happens if a judge goes rogue and commits a crime or in some capacity violates the rules of his or her position?

Well, in our case, the Third Circuit has a procedure that they would appoint a Third Circuit judge to at least make an investigation.

And that would be a determination as to whether or not it moves to the next level, which obviously would be whether or not there would be an impeachment through the House of Representatives and a full hearing before the United States Senate.

So there are safeguards for judges going rogue and not doing what they're supposed to be doing.

And it hasn't happened frequently in our country, fortunately.

And I say that's because we take the job seriously.

And there's going to be a group of people that aren't going to like my decisions or Judge Brand's decisions or any of Judge Gelb's or Judge Bowe's decisions.

But there's a process.

If you don't like those decisions, appeal it.

You'll be heard.

You have a right of appeal.

But it's not because it was done, like we said earlier, whimsically.

It was done, you know, I have a process where I meet with my clerks and I go over the matters and we kind of do a little, you know, back and forth and we analyze it and come up with different arguments supporting it, defending it, and so on and so forth.

And it's a good vetting process in our chambers that we do to help us make the decision.

It's not something that we just say, oh, yeah, sure, that's when you sign off on it.

No, it requires a lot of thought, study, and that's why I say it's the business of making informed decisions.

And it's a process.

The public should be aware of the process because it's significant.

Judge Gelb, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Before we leave this election process, Judge Gelb and I had the high honor and privilege of campaigning for our office because we were elected by the citizens.

Judge Gelb was elected by her county and I ran statewide and was elected and I always thought that someone running a county race would probably be more challenging than statewide because if you were in one neighborhood, the folks in the next neighborhood knew you weren't there.

Absolutely.

But a lot of study has been made about whether or not it's a good idea to elect judges because it's a political process and once we go through that political process, we want the judges to dissociate from politics after that so they're not seen as partisan players.

So it's a little challenging.

But I can say, and then I'd love to hear what Judge Gelb says, running a campaign forced me to campaign all across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is a rather large state.

I put a lot of miles on my car.

But it really gave me an opportunity to get out and meet the wonderful citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to go into their communities and learn what was important to them and really gain an understanding of what their concerns and issues were.

And at the end of the day, I was so honored to be elected.

I really felt like a Pennsylvanian because I had been across the whole state.

And so I think that is a wonderful way to have a judge serve in this office by being elected.

And I'd love to hear what Judge Gelb has to say.

Well, I feel the same way too.

If you look at the history, we had appointment by governor before 1968.

And if you recall, so that seemed not too egalitarian to have one person make the call.

Or maybe.

But in 1968, if we recall what was happening throughout the country, big changes.

A turbulent year.

Right.

And so that's at the time that they moved to the election of judges.

And I think part of that was, well, first of all, there was not that many women on the bench, right?

So now we have over a third on the bench.

The majority of my court is women.

Right.

And we have 10 judges in Luzerne County.

And we'll have another one.

So that'll change the balance.

But right now it's five, five.

Judge Bowes, in our remaining few minutes, I want to talk about what judges and the public can do to help preserve judicial independence.

So let's start with judges themselves.

What can judges do?

Well, this is a perfect example of what judges can do to encourage the citizens to gain a greater understanding of how the court operates.

I think when the citizens understand the technicalities of the judicial office and how the decisions are made, as we spoke so eloquently of here this evening, that changes the conversation.

Then when judges are unfairly criticized, they can say, well, wait a minute.

I know a little bit about this.

And I think that is an unfair criticism.

So, and I know Judge Brand said he pulled back a little bit from the community involvement, but actually the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Deborah Todd, has encouraged the state judges to get out into the community, to speak to community groups, and to go into the classroom and bring the students into the court, bring the public into the courthouse so that they can see how the judges are operating, how the cases are being handled, the respect that is accorded to the litigants when they come before the judges.

And that's going to encourage a greater understanding, not only of the operation of the judiciary, but also how the judges act independently.

Judge Gelb, what can the public do to help preserve and protect judicial independence?

And they have to become educated, which is, I think, what we're all saying.

And we have to be worthy of their respect, but they can only do that by knowing a little bit about what we do.

I know that we said that we had King's College Pre-Law Society here, and I've made it a point just in terms of letting the public know what we do is always taking an intern every semester, so spring, winter, fall, often more than one, so that the college students can know what we do.

A lot of them want to be lawyers, but some of them don't know what civil does versus criminal.

And then now they can be our ambassadors.

And I think it's important also to stress that judicial independence doesn't mean that the judges are above the law.

The judges are also subject to the rule of law themselves.

You know, we spoke about how the judge has to apply the law, and we have on the state side, as opposed to the federal side, we have the Court of Judicial Discipline.

So if there is a rogue judge, disciplinary charges can be brought against the judge, and it's a pretty aggressive process to make sure that the judge is properly applying the law and is not engaging in behavioral consequences that would imperil judicial independence.

So there are a lot of guardrails and safeguards within the judge's job in order to ensure that he or she is being subject to the rule of law.

Judge Saperito, in our last minute, civics education has been on the decline in the United States.

Do we need to get back to that?

Your thoughts about civic education and the way we're doing it in the United States or not doing it?

Yes.

I sit on a committee from the Third Circuit known as the Courts, Community, and Rule of Law Committee.

And that committee is charged with engaging with students, having students write essays and come to court and present them to the court, in a sense.

We've also, this year, started a civics adult education program through cooperation with Marywood University.

And our judges have participated in that.

Members of the legal profession have also participated.

And I think that gives, I think there's at least 100 adults that participate in this adult civics education program.

I think it's important for adults to take advantage of that and participate, ask questions, be involved.

And that's what this committee encourages.

So through the Third Circuit, which encourages all of this, it's for all of the Third Circuit, not just the middle district of Pennsylvania, but specifically in our district, it's this adult civics education program through the cooperation with Marywood University.

Well, I think that's an appropriate note for us to wrap up our conversation on.

There is a role for all of us to play as it relates to judicial independence.

And that is all the time we have.

Many, many thanks to our distinguished panel for helping us to better understand the importance of judicial independence and what all of us can do to help preserve and protect it.

For all of us at WVIA, I'm Tracey Matysak.

Thanks for joining us for Conversations for the Common Good.