Canon rule in Pennsylvania

2002It is no less within the jurisdiction of this Court to impose discipline for the conduct of a district justice which occurs during a political campaign if warranted under the Constitution, i.e., if the conduct qualifies as any of the enumer ated proscriptions, including conduct which is “prohibited by law” or “conduct in violation of a canon or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court.” See, e.g., In re Cicchetti, supra. Respondent suggests there is an additional obstruction to this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction in this case over an unsuccessful “candidate,” and points out that the conduct of a

2002It is no less within the jurisdiction of this Court to impose discipline for the conduct of a district justice which occurs during a political campaign if warranted under the Constitution, i.e., if the conduct qualifies as any of the enumerated *458 proscriptions, including conduct which is "prohibited by law" or "conduct in violation of a canon or rule prescribed by the Supreme Court." See, e.g., In re Cicchetti, supra .

2013This Court has been called upon frequently to decide whether particular conduct is such that — in the words of our Constitution — “brings the judicial office into disrepute.” The conduct in these cases has been very different — it has ranged from public drunkenness (In re McCarthy, 828 A.2d 25 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2003)), to sexual harassment of a courthouse employee (In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1997)), aff'd, 560 Pa. 183 , 743 A.2d 431 -(2000), to being repeatedly late for court (In re Lokuta, 964 A.2d 988 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2008)).

2013This Court has been called upon frequently to decide whether particular conduct is such that — in the words of our Constitution — “brings the judicial office into disrepute.” The conduct in these cases has been very different — it has ranged from public drunkenness (In re McCarthy, 828 A.2d 25 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2003)), to sexual harassment of a courthouse employee (In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1997)), aff'd, 560 Pa. 183 , 743 A.2d 431 -(2000), to being repeatedly late for court (In re Lokuta, 964 A.2d 988 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2008)).

2013This Court has been called upon frequently to decide whether particular conduct is such that — in the words of our Constitution — “brings the judicial office into disrepute.” The conduct in these cases has been very different — it has ranged from public drunkenness (In re McCarthy, 828 A.2d 25 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2003)), to sexual harassment of a courthouse employee (In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1997)), aff'd, 560 Pa. 183 , 743 A.2d 431 -(2000), to being repeatedly late for court (In re Lokuta, 964 A.2d 988 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2008)).

2013This Court has been called upon frequently to decide whether particular conduct is such that — in the words of our Constitution — “brings the judicial office into disrepute.” The conduct in these cases has been very different — it has ranged from public drunkenness (In re McCarthy, 828 A.2d 25 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2003)), to sexual harassment of a courthouse employee (In re Cicchetti, 697 A.2d 297 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1997)), aff'd, 560 Pa. 183 , 743 A.2d 431 -(2000), to being repeatedly late for court (In re Lokuta, 964 A.2d 988 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.2008)).

1940If the two properties of different origins but over both of which she had sole testamentary power were intended by her as she made her will to be “blended” for all testamentary purposes, there would be absolutely no point to an inclusion by her of all the property over which she had the power of appointment, in what she termed “all the rest, residue and remainder of my property and estate.” It Is a canon in the interpretation of wills which do not unmistakably disclose a testator’s intention that “the law will impute to a testator’s words such a meaning as, under all the circumstances, will co