Oral arguments given over Lackawanna County commissioner vacancy
SCRANTON, LACKAWANNA COUNTY (WBRE/WYOU) — In February, Lackawanna County Commissioner Bill Gaughan filed a petition arguing the county should follow a Supreme Court ruling that allows anyone interested in Matt McGloin's vacant commissioner's position to apply.
The Lackawanna County Democratic Committee argues that the home rule charter should apply, which would give the power of choosing three candidates out of a pool of applicants to the committee, before being handed off to county judges for final selection.
On Tuesday, both sides argued in front of a panel of three judges.
The legal teams for both the Lackawanna County Democratic Committee and the county argued for what they believe to be the correct way to choose the next commissioner that will fill former Commissioner Matt McGloin's seat.
The county's team said that there are inconsistencies between both the Supreme Court ruling, Rule 1908, and the county's home rule charter, arguing that when an inconsistency occurs in a process such as this, the Supreme Court automatically trumps the other side.
Pittston police uses social media to fight drug dealers
However, the Democratic Committee's team does admit there are inconsistencies.
This case is legislative, not judicial, so the home rule charter, which was adopted by county voters in 1979, still stands.
The Democratic Committee questioned that, if Rule 1908 is chosen, does that mean anyone, not just Democrats, can apply to this position?
The county argued that Rule 1908 specifically says candidates, not party, and that candidate is a specific term that should narrow it down to Democratic candidates only.
The Democratic Committee also noted to judges that Rule 1908 simply says the court of common pleas will receive applications, but does not say it will consider them.
Commissioner Chermak also filed to remove the county from this case, arguing that if Commissioner Gaughan wants to proceed with this, he should do so on his own as an individual, not a commissioner, utilizing taxpayer dollars.
Arguments closed around 11:30 a.m. Tuesday, and there is no word on when a decision from the judges will be made.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
19 minutes ago
- Axios
Republicans worry DOGE cuts will sink them in Virginia governor's race
Republicans are increasingly worried that budget cuts by Elon Musk 's DOGE could cost them dearly in November's vote for Virginia governor — an early electoral test of President Trump 's policies. Why it matters: Virginia has one of the highest percentages of federal employees in the country — more than 5% of the state's workforce by some estimates — and Republicans' internal polls are starting to show the damage from tens of thousands of federal layoffs. Zoom in: The University of Virginia's Weldon Cooper Center has projected that 32,000 jobs could be lost in the state this year, many of them federal positions. "Northern Virginia is filled with people who suffered the consequences of the DOGE cuts, and it's hard to see them being sympathetic to a Republican candidate who supports the DOGE cuts," said Whit Ayers, a veteran Republican pollster. "I suspect this will be an albatross around the neck of every Republican candidate this year," said Virginia Republican Bill Bolling, a former lieutenant governor. By the numbers: A private poll done for the campaign of a statewide Republican candidate suggested that just 39% of voters had a favorable view of DOGE. Nearly half of voters surveyed said they knew of someone impacted by the DOGE cuts, according to results shared with Axios. The poll showed Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears trailing former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D) by single digits, outside the margin of error. Between the lines: DOGE could especially hurt Earle-Sears' campaign for governor in Northern Virginia and Norfolk, sections of the state where huge segments of the population are federal workers or have jobs tied to the government. Those areas played a role in Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin's win in 2021, when he cut into Democratic margins and improved on the GOP's performance in 2017. (Virginia governors can't succeed themselves, so Youngkin isn't allowed to run again.) The D.C. suburbs of Northern Virginia are home to upper- and middle-income voters, many of whom have ties to the government and are particularly likely to vote. Even non-federal workers in those areas could be impacted by DOGE, given the role federal funding plays in driving the local economy. Flashback: Republicans already are comparing DOGE's potential impact on Virginia's 2025 election to that of the GOP-led government shutdown of 2013, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of government workers being placed on unpaid leave. Democrats swept the state's highest offices that year — an outcome many GOP strategists blamed on the shutdown. "Washington, D.C., politics have long shaped the outcome of Virginia off-year elections," Virginia-based GOP strategist Jimmy Keady said in a text to Axios. "With over 230,000 Virginians working in or around the federal government, especially in Northern Virginia and Norfolk, any proposal that threatens those jobs — like DOGE — turns into a high-stakes issue," he added. The other side: Democrats are making DOGE a centerpiece of their election playbook. Virginia's Democratic Party has been running ads highlighting Earle-Sears' comments accusing the media of overhyping the impact of DOGE cuts. Other Democratic commercials are linking Republican state legislative candidates to Musk. Behind the scenes: Youngkin has taken steps to try to soften the blow to the state's federal workers, launching a " Virginia Has Jobs" initiative aimed at helping laid-off workers find new positions. Reality check: Republicans say Earle-Sears has an uphill climb, even without DOGE. In every election since 1977 besides one, the state has elected a governor from the opposition party to the sitting president. Top GOP officials — including some close to Trump — have criticized Earle-Sears and her campaign. Chris LaCivita, Trump's 2024 co-campaign manager and a longtime player in Virginia politics, has called her team " amateurs." What they're saying: Peyton Vogel, a spokesperson for Earle-Sears, rejected the notion that federal cutbacks could hurt the GOP candidate.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California shifts from Musk glee to Trump dread
The dissolution of the Donald Trump-Elon Musk marriage was enough, for a brief moment, to lift beleaguered California Democrats' spirits. But within 24 hours, the gleeful mood in this heavily Democratic state darkened amid sweeping immigration raids and reports the Trump administration was planning to yank funding from California. The swift reversal was a reminder that, for all the delight Democrats took in a public feud between the president and the world's richest man, a war of words on X is far less consequential than a hostile White House. Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders on Friday quickly returned to a familiar defensive crouch, condemning the White House's reported plan and escalating the standoff by threatening to withhold the money California sends to Washington. 'We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back,' Newsom said in a post on X. 'Maybe it's time to cut that off, @realDonaldTrump.' It was unclear on Friday what money the White House might rescind. A spokesperson said no decision had been made. Many Democrats had spent the previous day reveling in the extraordinary break between Trump and his former patron Musk, piling on in a cascade of snarky tweets, triumphant news hits and floor speeches. The joy was especially palpable in California, where Democrats watched Musk transform from a source of pride to a conservative nemesis eager to attack the state that helped make him. The dunking contest seemed to open new political possibilities, as Musk amplified Democrats' case against tariffs and the GOP 'megabill' being debated in Congress — two central features of the president's agenda. But the respite from unforgiving news cycles proved short-lived. And it vindicated warnings from some Democrats that the Trump-Musk feud was distracting from the more serious threats emanating from Washington. For Rep. Dave Min, who is preparing to defend a frontline Orange County seat that could help determine control of the House, Thursday was all about Musk: He excoriated the Tesla executive in a preplanned floor speech, and joined the mockery on X. On Friday, Min was scrambling to confront what he called a 'blatantly lawless' push to claw back funds. 'These cuts appear to be clearly and on their face illegal and motivated by vengeance and political retribution aimed at our state,' Min wrote in a letter to the White House. Rep. Jimmy Gomez went from tweaking Trump with a Taylor Swift meme to sounding the alarm about immigration arrests throughout Los Angeles, a resolutely Democratic county, that followed Trump's vow to target 'sanctuary' jurisdictions that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal authorities. Union officials said SEIU California President David Huerta was detained and injured during a protest of immigration raids, drawing condemnations from a broad swathe of elected officials (ICE did not respond to a request for comment). Californians were simultaneously rallying in San Francisco against federal plans to rename a naval ship named after the late gay-rights icon Harvey Milk. Against the backdrop of that multifront defensive, the feuding between Trump and Musk became a secondary concern, at best. Newsom passed on a chance to swipe at Musk, with whom he has a long and complicated relationship, telling reporters during an unrelated news conference on Thursday that he hoped people mesmerized by 'what Elon Musk tweeted today and what Trump said tomorrow can focus on what matters' — although Newsom's press office still used a Trump-Musk breakup reference to tease the news conference, Similarly, Rep. Laura Friedman called the Trump-Musk meltdown a distraction from the White House's agenda to remake the federal government. 'They are cutting health care from Americans, they are destroying people's ability to go to the doctor and get health care coverage, they are making life more expensive for everyday people through tariffs,' Friedman said. 'I hope people see through the entertainment value of this — it is funny, but this is harmful to our country in so many ways.' Few were laughing by Friday afternoon. Instead, leading California Democrats were once again girding for battle with an administration that has made a habit of threatening to block money for areas like wildfire recovery, education and law enforcement if California does not change its policies. 'We must look at every option, including withholding federal taxes,' Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said in a BlueSky post.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Religion cases spark both unanimity and division at Supreme Court
Religious rights are sparking both unanimity and deep divisions on the Supreme Court this term, with one major decision still to come. On Thursday, all nine justices sided with Catholic Charities Bureau in its tax fight with Wisconsin. But weeks earlier, the court's 4-4 deadlock handed those same religious interests a loss by refusing to greenlight the nation's first religious charter school. Now, advocates are turning their attention to the other major religion case still pending this term, which concerns whether parents have the First Amendment right to opt-out their children from instruction including books with LGBTQ themes. 'The court has been using its Religion Clause cases over the past few years to send the message that everything doesn't have to be quite so polarized and quite so everybody at each other's throats,' said Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of Becket, a religious legal group that represents both the parents and Catholic Charities. The trio of cases reflect a new burst of activity on the Supreme Court's religion docket, a major legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure. Research by Lee Epstein, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, found the Roberts Court has ruled in favor of religious organizations over 83 percent of the time, a significant jump from previous eras. The decisions have oftentimes protected Christian traditions, a development that critics view as a rightward shift away from a focus on protecting non-mainstream religions. But on Thursday, the court emerged unanimous. The nine justices all agreed that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment in denying Catholic Charities a religious exemption from paying state unemployment taxes. Wisconsin's top court denied the exemption by finding the charity wasn't primarily religious, saying it could only qualify if it was trying to proselytize people. Catholic Charities stressed that the Catholic faith forbids misusing works of charity for proselytism. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored Thursday's majority opinion finding Wisconsin unconstitutionally established a government preference for some religious denominations over others. 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Sotomayor wrote. The fact that Sotomayor, one of the court's three Democratic-appointed justices, wrote the opinion heightened the sense of unity. 'She's voted with us in several other cases, too, and I think it just shows that it is not the partisan issue that people sometimes try to make it out to be,' said Rienzi. However, Sotomayor's opinion notably did not address Catholic Charities' other arguments, including those related to church autonomy that Justice Clarence Thomas, one the court's leading conservatives, endorsed in a solo, separate opinion. Ryan Gardner, senior counsel at First Liberty Institute, which filed a brief backing Catholic Charities, similarly called the unanimity an 'encouraging' sign. 'If they can find a way to do that, they want to do that. And that's why I think you have the opinion written the way that it was. It was written that way so that every justice could feel comfortable signing off on it,' said Gardner. Supporters and critics of the court's decision agree it still poses repercussions on cases well beyond the tax context — and even into the culture wars. Perhaps most immediately, the battle at the Supreme Court will shift from unemployment taxes to abortion. The justices have a pending request from religious groups, also represented by Becket, to review New York's mandate that employers' health care plans cover abortions. The regulation exempts religious organizations only if they inculcate religious values, meaning many faith-based charities must still follow the mandate. And for the First Liberty Institute, it believes Thursday's decision bolsters its legal fights in the lower courts. It represents an Ohio church that serves the homeless and an Arizona church that provides food distribution, both embroiled in legal battles with local municipalities that implicate whether the ministries are religious enough. Thursday's decision is not the first time the Supreme Court has unanimously handed a win to religious rights advocates. In 2023, the First Liberty Institute successfully represented a Christian U.S. Postal Service worker who requested a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays. And two years earlier, the court in a unanimous judgment ruled Philadelphia violated the Free Exercise Clause by refusing to refer children to a Catholic adoption agency because it would not certify same-sex couples to be foster parents. 'People thought that was a very narrow decision at the time, but the way it has sort of been applied since then, it has really reshaped a lot of the way that we think about Free Exercise cases,' said Gardner. It's not always kumbaya, however. Last month, the Supreme Court split evenly on a highly anticipated religious case that concerned whether Oklahoma could establish the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school. The 4-4 deadlock meant the effort fizzled. Released just three weeks after the justices' initial vote behind closed doors, the decision spanned one sentence. 'The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,' it reads. Though the deadlock means supporters of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School are left without a green light, they are hoping they will prevail soon enough. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's third appointee to the court, recused from the St. Isidore case, which many court watchers believe stemmed from her friendship with a professor at Notre Dame, whose religious liberty clinic represented St. Isidore. But Barrett could participate in a future case — providing the crucial fifth vote — that presents the same legal question, which poses consequential implications for public education. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court still has one major religion case left this term. The justices are reviewing whether Montgomery County, Md., must provide parents an option to opt-out their elementary-aged children from instruction with books that include LGBTQ themes. The group of Muslim, Roman Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents suing say it substantially burdens their First Amendment rights under the Free Exercise Clause. At oral arguments, the conservative majority appeared sympathetic with the parent's plea as the court's three liberal justices raised concerns about where to draw the line. 'Probably, it will be a split decision,' said Gardner, whose group has filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of parents in California. But he cautioned, 'you never know where some of the justices will line up.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
