tend to show greater difference to the state Legislature AND the State Supreme Court has gone though its own problems
In October 2014 one Justice resigned after being suspended for "sending pornographic emails and attempting to blackmail a fellow justice,"
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2014/10/27/Sources-Justice-McCaffery-to-step-down-from-Pennsylvania-Supreme-Court/stories/201410270154
In 2013 Justice Joan Oeie Melvin was convicted of using state staff and money for campaigning, a felony in Pennsylvania. She subsequently resigned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Orie_Melvin
Of the five remaining justices (PA has seven Supreme Court Justices), one is an interim justice whose replacement will be picked this fall (along with the two vacancies on the Court). One reaches mandatory retirement when he reaches age 70 in 2016, another in 2017 and a third in 2018. Thus this fall you will have three new Justices on the court, three out of seven. Given a new Justice was last elected in 2007, you have four justices who were NOT sitting on the court when the Court decided to "enforce" Article III of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.
Of the Seven Justice that tighten the rule in 2002, only two are still on the court, both good Republicans.
The previous decision the Commonwealth court relied on:
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2399017/city-of-philadelphia-v-com/
In that opinion the Court notice that in a case in 1927 the court has struck down a law regarding two professions, on the ground the title of the law did not cover both professions. The court noted that since that time period the State courts had adopted a more deferral attitude to what the State Legislature did. In the above case the court rejected that greater deferral. My problem is will the present court go with the above decision OR go with the older rulings? Time will tell.
= new reply since forum marked as read