# Zemprelli v. Thornburgh

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · October 29, 1979 · 47 Pa. Commw. 43

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694721

## Case

- **Full name:** Edward P. Zemprelli, State Senator, Petitioner v. Richard L. Thornburgh, Governor, Respondent
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 29, 1979
- **Citations:** 47 Pa. Commw. 43; 407 A.2d 102; 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2163
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Bowman
- **Judges:** Bowman, Wilkinson, Rogers, Blatt, Disalle, Craig, MacPhail, Crttmlish, Mencer
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694721

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that governor's constitutional duty to name appointee "confers a legal interest" on state senator seeking to compel governor to fulfill his or her constitutional duty

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
President Judge Bowman :
As I perceive no fundamental private constitutional right raised in this proceeding which is brought by one member of the Senate of Pennsylvania in his capacity as a Senator against the Governor of the Commonwealth and which I believe to essentially involve a political question, I believe it is one in which the judiciary should not interfere. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962); Sweeney v. Tucker, 473 Pa. 493 , 375 A.2d 698 (1977).
The majority well analyzes Baker and Sweeney as applied to this case with respect to their articulated standards for determining if a political question should be judicially resolved. However, in my view, before reaching that issue one must first determine if the person bringing the cause asserts a violation *62 of a fundamental constitutional right. If not, a political question should not be judicially resolved even if the articulated standards for judicial interference into a political question would otherwise be met. The right granted to the body of the Senate of Pennsylvania to confirm gubernatorial appointments, Pa. Const. art. IV, §8(b), is not, in my opinion, a fundamental right of an individual Senator.
Consideration of the cause asserted, the relief sought, briefs filed and the oral argument advanced by the parties leaves no doubt in my mind that the issue raised is a political one which the judiciary someday may have to resolve in a proper posture and context. This case is not the one to do so.
I respectfully dissent and would dismiss the petition for review.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694721. Public record. Not legal advice.