Montco President Judge Carolyn Carluccio Seeks Seat on Pa. Supreme Court

Candidate: Carolyn Carluccio.

Court: Supreme Court.

Party: Republican.

Pennsylvania Bar Association Rating: Highly recommended.

The following has been edited lightly for style.

The Legal Intelligencer: How would you describe your judicial philosophy?

Carolyn Carluccio: My judicial philosophy is rooted in upholding, applying and defending the Constitution. I staunchly believe in the separation of powers and stand against legislating from the bench. I reject judicial activism, always striving to respect the judiciary’s boundaries and ensure justice according to established legal principles.

The Legal: What makes you the best candidate for the role?

Carolyn Carluccio: I possess a unique blend of experience, from federal prosecutor to chief public defender and president judge. My commitment to upholding the law is unwavering. Notably, I am the only candidate for the Supreme Court who firmly rejects judicial activism, ensuring a judiciary that respects its boundaries and the Constitution.

The Legal: What is the greatest threat to the practice of law or problem the profession faces?

Carolyn Carluccio: The greatest threat to the practice of law is judicial activism, where judges overstep their authority, subverting the Constitution. Instead of interpreting the law, they impose personal beliefs, undermining the judiciary’s integrity and eroding public trust. This activism disrupts the delicate balance of power in government, compromising the very foundation of our legal system.

The Legal: What does your party membership say about you and your legal outlook?

Carolyn Carluccio: The beliefs of my political party are diverse and, while I may not share the same perspective on every issue, they know that I will defend the Constitution and uphold the law above all else. When a judge’s guiding principle is following the law, political beliefs become secondary, because we all love and believe in our Commonwealth and country and the system of government created to protect our individual freedoms.

The Legal: Do you think courts in Pennsylvania have a perception problem when it comes to appearing partisan or polarized? If so, what would you do to combat this?

Carolyn Carluccio: First and foremost, we need to keep partisan politics out of our courts. It’s vital that we elect judges whose only priority to upholding the law and defending the Constitution. When we elect judges based on their personal beliefs on particular issues, we lose sight of the judiciary’s role in government. Judges call balls and strikes. Judges are the firewall that protects individual freedoms and democracy.

The Legal: Several CLEs and bench-bar panels have recently addressed the growing phenomenon of distrust in the courts. In your view, how has distrust in the judiciary created challenges for the bench, and how should judges respond?

Carolyn Carluccio: Judges must hold themselves to the highest standard of personal ethics. Scandals in the judiciary, some of which have occurred in our own Pennsylvania Supreme Court, erode confidence in our judiciary. I would be remiss if I didn’t note that one recent scandal involved my opponent and his brother, who had to step down as a Supreme Court justice as a result.

The Legal: What factors matter in deciding when recusal is necessary, and would you recuse yourself if a campaign contributor were involved in litigation as a party or attorney before you?

Carolyn Carluccio: Personal bias, prior involvement with a case as an attorney, financial interests, familial relationships with a party involved and prior public statements are all factors that must be weighed when determining recusal. Certainly, a major campaign supporter, whether direct or indirect, could raise a claim of bias. When it comes down to it, we want the public to trust each matter that comes before us is determined fairly and based on the law. Each situation must be weighed individually but, yes, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to say that recusal may be warranted.

The Legal: What two decisions or cases are you most proud of, and why? Conversely, what two opinions or cases would you like to take back or revise if you could and why?

Carolyn Carluccio: I’ve handled significant malpractice and criminal cases, but I’m proudest of my work in the Family Court Division. This area is emotionally charged, with every judicial decision having profound effects. In one case, two girls were estranged from their father due to their mother’s long-standing emotional abuse. Over two years, I facilitated their reunion, helping them rebuild trust. Five years later, the father sent a heartfelt letter, crediting me for reestablishing their bond.

Regarding regrets, there are instances where the law dictated outcomes I didn’t personally agree with. In one case, a woman lost her hand at her workplace. Although her situation was tragic, having already received workman’s compensation, the law prevented her from further claims against her employer. I sympathized with her but had to uphold the law.

The Legal: The relationship between the General Assembly and the Supreme Court appears to have become strained in recent years. Is that a concern, and, if elected to the high court, what would you do about that?

Carolyn Carluccio: I feel like a broken record. The Legislature is elected to make law. The judiciary serves to uphold the law and protect the Constitution. I would reject judicial activism.

The Legal: How important is stare decisis, and when should a court depart from it?

Carolyn Carluccio: Judicial precedent is important as it brings consistency and predictability to our legal system. It also increases efficiency in our courts and can even limit judicial power. However, if a past decision is clearly erroneous, it’s entirely in the power of the Judiciary to overrule it. This power must be exercised judiciously as it has broader implications for our legal system.

The Legal: How important is consensus—particularly unanimous consensus—in appellate court opinions? Are there limits when a judge should only concur?

Carolyn Carluccio: While a unified stance in appellate court decisions reinforces the judiciary’s authority, public confidence and offers unambiguous direction, concurring opinions are vital for underscoring subtle distinctions and presenting varied viewpoints. Nonetheless, they should be employed with discretion to preserve the court’s decisiveness and credibility.

The Legal: Who are your role models and mentors?

Carolyn Carluccio: My family’s influence has been paramount in my life and career. My father, a first-generation Italian American, imparted strong ethics. My Irish Catholic mother emphasized confidence and discipline. Most notably, my uncle Joe, as Montgomery County’s District Attorney, kindled my passion for law. Their combined guidance has shaped my values, character, and the judge I’ve become, driving me to serve with integrity and dedication.