With only freshman Sen. Jim Ferlo of Pittsburgh voting "no" on parochial grounds, the state Senate last week confirmed the nomination of William H. Lamb, a respected lawyer from Chester County, for the vacancy on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court left by the mandatory retirement of Pittsburgh's Stephen A. Zappala Sr. at age 70.
At first glance, the confirmation of Mr. Lamb might seem a textbook case of how to choose a member of the state's highest court. A distinguished lawyer with a varied practice, Mr. Lamb was tapped by former Gov. Mark Schweiker, a Republican, but obviously impressed Democrats in the state Senate with his credentials and temperament.
If you didn't know better, you might think Justice Lamb was being named to the Supreme Court of New Jersey or Delaware, neighboring states with a tradition of nonpartisan, high-quality judicial appointments.
The reality is more complicated -- and more depressing. The price of Justice Lamb's elevation to the court was that he promise to stay only a year. Next January a new justice elected in November to a 10-year term will take office.
Merit selection is fine with senators from both parties so long as it isn't pushed too far. If Gov. Schweiker -- or Gov. Ed Rendell for that matter -- had dared to nominate someone who aspired to a full term on the court, one party or the other in the Senate would have prevented the candidate from receiving the two-thirds vote required for confirmation.
This situation is bad for continuity on the state's highest court but inevitable so long as the state chooses appellate judges in partisan elections in which irrelevancies like ballot position, ethnicity or a famous political name can count for more than credentials.
The Post-Gazette long has supported a constitutional amendment to provide for the appointment of appellate judges, and Gov. Rendell has endorsed the idea. If he would lend the prestige of his office to such a reform, the game of musical chairs on the high court could finally be called to an end.
E-mail this story 
