Superior Court Judge and Supreme Court Candidate Cheryl Allen received a letter of endorsement from the Firearm Owner Against Crime (FOAC) today.
“Their endorsement is very meaningful to me,” Allen said. “It’s validation of my firm commitment and dedication to the strict interpretation of our Constitution.”
In a statement, President and Chairman of FOAC, Kim Stolfer said, “We have followed Judge Allen’s career on the bench and her decision making skills and temperament are unsurpassed.”
“Her devotion to the Constitution, justice and the law is beyond reproach and she is a sorely needed addition to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court,” he concluded.
Allen announced in December that she would run in the Republican primary.
Last month, Allen was rated “highly recommended” for the Supreme Court by the Pennsylvania Bar Association.
She has presided as a Superior Court Judge since 2008.
Loading ...
8 Responses
FOAC lost credibility years ago when it gave blanket endorsements to career incumbents with some anti-gun skeletons in their closet. No one knows or cares who they are, and that’s not a bad thing.
Good luck pretending that this is not a very big deal in a Republican primary, especially if she is the only one to win that endorsement.
Firearm Owners Against Crime makes a recommendation/Endorsement for every PA race — judicial or otherwise. No one asks them to — they just do. It’s expected. They don’t give money, but they do have quite a bit of street credibility within pro-second amendment folks. Their endorsement is very high praise if you fall in those circles — you know, the ones where you actually know “who the hell” FOAC is.
Did Judge Allen make any promises or present any specific positions to the FOAC to win its endorsement and if so, is that appropriate for a Supreme Court Candidate?
Who the hell are Firearm Owners Against Crime? Presumably aren’t *all* people ‘against crime’ aside from, you know, actually criminals?
I’m theoretically in favor of elected judges, just because I think appointing judges doesn’t solve the problems we think it does. But things like endorsements of judges just make it seem… off. Justice should be blind, and if we’re supporting judicial candidates based on their views on issues rather than their qualifications, then justice is anything *but* blind.
This article is vague. Which constitution is being referred to, the state or the federal one? That in turn, helps determine another unclear aspect of this article, namely, where strict interpretation would fall, and what state or federal constitutions rights would be promoted or not.
They are well known in conservative circles, specifically in the pro-gun community.
I have never heard of this group before. Reaching for straws.