The statue of Lady Justice, whether displayed as the Greek goddess Themis or the Roman goddess Justitia, is often depicted holding the balanced scales of justice and wearing a blindfold. This depiction of Lady Justice embodies the ideal that justice must be rendered without reference to money, power, fear, favor, identity or political party. As a sitting justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, I am confident that Lady Justice is neither a card-carrying Republican -- nor a Democrat.

This is why I was deeply disappointed and offended when I read certain media coverage of this month's Pennsylvania Supreme Court election results. For example, one newspaper properly heralded Judge Joan Orie Melvin as the winner of the election for Supreme Court justice with the headline "Orie Melvin Wins." But the subheadline continued, "The GOP will control state's Supreme Court after bitter race." The piece goes on to assert that the election ended "a bitter battle for political control of the high court."

While I warmly welcome to the Supreme Court our newly elected justice, a highly qualified judge with whom I proudly served on the Superior Court for eight years, the assertion of political control of the court by the GOP because Judge Orie Melvin is a Republican reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the judicial branch of government in Pennsylvania. It also paints a false picture of one of our most cherished institutions.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, at 325 years of age, is the oldest court in North America. It is a judicial body steeped in centuries of history and tradition, not political acrimony. Our court's seven justices sit as final arbiters of disputes that arise from all corners of our commonwealth. These issues span a wide spectrum of legal topics, from civil and criminal law and constitutional matters, to administrative and municipal law. The work is rigorous and intellectually challenging. Virtually every issue addressed by our court -- the court of last resort in our state -- may have a profound impact upon the lives of all Pennsylvanians.

In resolving these weighty issues, including decisions of life and death, our court draws its strength not from any party line, but from adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law, as applied to the discrete legal issue before it. In rendering opinions, the current seven justices draw from a collective 114 years of judicial experience and 108 years of prior experience as practicing attorneys. They are former district attorneys, deputy attorneys general, Common Pleas Court judges and Superior Court judges. All are educated in the law and two of the justices have post-doctoral law degrees. Three justices are military veterans and our chief justice, Ronald Castille, is a decorated Vietnam War hero.

Rather than political cronyism, timeless notions of fairness, equity and impartiality guide the Supreme Court members in our decision-making. As Chief Justice Castille has eloquently stated, "The individual justices who sit on ... the highest court of this state, are not elected to serve the parties under whose banner they ran. We who sit on this court are simply elected to serve a higher calling, and that is to dispense fair and impartial justice." Thus, to suggest that the Republicans will wrest control of the Supreme Court insults the justices who serve on the court and the citizens of the commonwealth who come before us.

Furthermore, the boast of party control of the court conflates the election of justices -- a political affair -- with the role of service as a justice.

In our commonwealth, as in 39 other states, vacancies on the courts are filled by judicial elections. In Pennsylvania, this election process is accomplished through the party system. The merits of this process have been debated for years, but it is the system through which we fill judicial vacancies.

Unlike our commonwealth's legislators, who run for re-election at the expiration of their term of office, once a justice is elected to the Supreme Court and has served a 10-year term, the justice stands for retention -- an apolitical vote by the electorate to retain or not retain that individual member of the judiciary. Thus, while a candidate running for an opening on the Supreme Court does so as a Republican or a Democrat, a justice is not beholden to any party and the assertion of political control of the court is simply incongruous.

Likewise, while a state senator or representative is elected to represent the views of his or her constituents, a judge is elected to interpret and apply the law of the commonwealth in accordance with the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions. While the casual observer may believe that because we elect judges in our commonwealth politics control our judiciary, nothing could be further from the truth. Just as Lady Justice does not permit a voter registration card to tip her scales, it should be clearly understood that no political party controls the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Cartoonist Rob Rogers does "Rob's Rough," an early look at his work and his creative process, exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.