Q&A: Superior Court Candidate Megan Sullivan Discusses Importance of the Separation of Powers
By MAX MITCHELL
The Legal Intelligencer
On Nov. 2, Pennsylvanians are set to decide which candidates will join the ranks of the state Superior Court. To get a better understanding of each candidate’s background and judicial philosophy, The Legal has asked each to respond to a questionnaire touching on a variety of topics important to the legal community.
Responses to the questionnaires are set to be published in the weeks leading up to the general election. The second installment comes from attorney Megan Sullivan of Chester County. A former deputy attorney general, Sullivan has been practicing since 2001 and earned her law degree from Temple University’s Beasley School of Law. She received a recommended rating from the Philadelphia Bar Association.
The following has been lightly edited for style.
How would you describe your judicial philosophy?
I am hesitant to assign a label to myself, as different people define terms related to judicial philosophy—such as originalist, pragmatist and textualist—in vastly different ways. Instead, I would say that I would interpret the law as written. I believe in the separation of powers that establishes separate and distinct roles for the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of our government so as to create a system of checks and balances. As such, I do not support the trend of judicial activism, legislating from the bench or judges who allow their decisions to be guided by their political beliefs and personal policy preferences. I believe judges should make decisions based upon the law and our state and federal constitutions, as well as the specific set of facts that have been presented to them in a given case.
