Brady's big day (The Next Mayor)

Forgive me a couple of musings. Like everyone else, I'll be waiting for word of the Brady challenge hearing today.

And in the meantime, I am thinking about these things, which I imagine you are, too, so I'll share them.

1) Just how far does the Philadelphia Democratic machine reach? Does it reach into this hearing? (That's no knock on Patrick J. Toole Jr., the 73-year old Luzerne County judge who will rule today on whether Brady should be thrown off the ballot for failing to disclose his city pension on his nominating papers. I certainly have no reason to doubt his fairness.) Does it reach to the state Supreme Court?

Most important: Will we be able to tell during today's hearing, or will there just be that quiet understanding of Brady's position and experience as leader of the Democratic City Committee? And if so, do people with that level of power and experience get a pass on a "technicality?"

Or is Brady's power one of those Philadelphia phenomena that doesn't exist outside of the SE PA bubble?

2) What's the right balance between letting voters decide who the best guy for the job is and requiring candidates to fill out what is really a non-challenging form accurately? Should paperwork technicalities be forgiven? Should they be forgiven when they are committed by a representative of the machine that has used them punatively in the past? (And a related question: Does Judge Toole have a forgiving philosophy when it comes to these slips, or does he see the rules as the rules?)

Feel free to discuss. Or share your own musings.

In the meantime, check out Dwight Evans and Tom Knox joining forces to defend their position in a letter to the editor of the Inquirer; and check out the motion that those two filed in the case yesterday (scroll down to the part about Paul Rosen).

We'll keep you posted all day!

Comments (14)

Anonymous:

So let me get this straight. If Judge Toole rules in Mr. Brady's behalf, that means that he was "influenced" by the Congressman somehow? It couldn't possibly be that he agrees with their side of the case? He seems to lose either way the Judge rules according to you...

Posted by Anonymous | March 20, 2007 10:40 AM

Dave

Well, we have the author of the amendment to the state ethics rules regarding "governmentally mandated payments" saying that the original intent of the language to was apply only to things like... well... welfare.

http://www.youngphillypolitics.com/welcome_world_governmental_ethics

Furthermore, as Dan U-A points out in the comments section of that post, and I quote:

"1)we have the person who introduced the language saying it is things like welfare and UC
2)we have dicta saying pensions are not govt. mandated benefits
3)we have a SC case saying that they are UC benefits, welfare, "and the like," and not things coming out of an employer-employee relationship
4)we have a disclosure/sunshine statute, which, if given the interpretation of Brady, would have a special carve out specifically for government workers, which seems pretty goofy
5)we have pensions mentioned in the next paragraph, which would strongly indicate that the first paragraph would not include them, or else it would be redundant, which is a no-no in statutory interpretation."

There's no way of knowing why the judge would rule in any particular way, but people would certainly have reason to be suspicious of a ruling in Brady's favor.

Posted by Dave | March 20, 2007 11:09 AM

NE JOE:

That is rediculous - Knox's judge is making the decision - the judge can simply use his judgement that Brady's mistake is not fatal - and his 24,000 signatures are more meaningful.

Posted by NE JOE | March 20, 2007 11:15 AM

The judge can certainly make a decision about Brady's mistake. I fail to see where the 24k signatures come into the picture, though.

Posted by Dave | March 20, 2007 11:54 AM

BTW, why is the judge "Knox's judge"? That has to be, by far, the most biased statement I've seen in this entire discussion.

Posted by Dave | March 20, 2007 11:56 AM

DC:

This coming from someone who based his legal argument against Brady on a YPP post from a recent law school grad?

Having a law degree does not a petition challenge expert make.

Posted by DC | March 20, 2007 12:16 PM

The guy who drafted the law started that YPP thread. Are you going to refute the arguments?

Posted by Dave | March 20, 2007 12:20 PM

Knox's lawyers requested a non philadelphia judge - and the request was granted - therefore. . .Knox's Judge.

Posted by NE JOE | March 20, 2007 12:31 PM

Yes i would, since the "person who introduced the language" also admitted that "No one raised the question as to whether a pension was a 'governmentally mandated benefit,' and I did not address that issue in debate. Nor did I give any thought to that issue at the time I introduced the Ethics Code amendment."

They did not address the issue, i.e. they did a bad job drafting the law and left the paperwork vague and difficult to assess.

Posted by DC | March 20, 2007 12:32 PM

Wendy:

Hey anonymous - actually, I'm not expressing an opinion here, so don't try to invent one between the lines. I am just watching this closely to see if we can tell any different treatment of a powerful Congressman and city party leader. And that's our job. I don't care if Brady "wins" or "loses" - except that I stand by to tell you about it.

Posted by Wendy | March 20, 2007 12:32 PM

kms:

I just read the editorial Dwight and Tom wrote - what a bunch of santimonious b.s. - they are challenging Brady because they made a cold hard calculation that they if Brady is not on the ballet - they benefit - pure and simple - no one should pat them on the back.

Posted by kms | March 20, 2007 12:33 PM

So Brady's taking advantage of vague, badly drafted legislation to try to get out of a bind that has gotten people thrown off the ballot in the past. Brilliant.

Posted by Dave | March 20, 2007 1:57 PM

FTP:

The other fact that remains is that even if the wording about govt mandated payments/pensions is poorly done and vague, others were kicked off in the past and I will assume they attempted to interpret what was expected of them as Congressman Brady had before the 6th...before his team said it was an "oversight" then they said it was "intentional." The piece about the carpenter's union, however will be a wild card in this as well. Brady is not paid, per se, by the union (I'm sure he gets lots of donations,though) but they do contribute to a vested pension that he will be eligible for when he does retire. It would be foolish to assume Mr. Knox and Rep. Evans were out solely to follow the rules, but there are clear benefits to each campaign if Congressman Brady were off the ballot: Knox is the only caucasian Democrat (for those who are stuck in that archaic value) and Evans gains open support from Ward leaders who were torn between loyalties. Having heard all of these men speak, Brady boasts about his "machine" and the relationships he has fostered in the past. I keep thinking of that scene in the Godfather when the Mortician asks Don Corleone to protect his daughter's honor. You all recall his response to that! (Disclaimer: I am not hinting that BB is a criminal, just entangled in old fashioned, "I did one for you now you do one for me" cronyism)

Posted by FTP | March 20, 2007 2:55 PM

Eddie:

Knox cannot win! Dwight cannot win! This is their collective effort to get attention to their failing campaigns. Read the polls and save the numbers...they are not accurate. Brady wins because the voting citizens of this City will be heard!

Posted by Eddie | March 20, 2007 11:30 PM

Comments (14)

Post a comment