Wednesday, August 5

Lawyer Rebuts Baldwin's Racism Allegations

Lawyer dismantled Baldwin's argument by using her own record as a Supreme Court Justice 

Ray Blehar
August 5, 2020, 2:25 PM

Attorney Shohin Vance,  a former law clerk for PA Supreme Court Justice Thomas G. Saylor, rebutted former PSU General Counsel's Cynthia Baldwin's claim that Saylor and the PA Supreme Court punished her only because of a purported "racial agenda" when she sat as a Justice.

Racial claims unsupported by Baldwin's record
After being reprimanded by the court for her "incompetence" in representing former PSU officials Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Graham Spanier, Baldwin went on the offensive by attacking Saylor and the PA Supreme Court. 

She amazingly claimed that Justice Saylor -- who recused himself from ruling on her case -- had a grudge against her because of a purported "racial agenda."   She doubled down on the allegation in a KDKA interview, inferring that entire court was racist.

Vance, in an op-ed for the Legal Intelligencer, destroyed Baldwin's argument by showing that Baldwin's record didn't reflect a "racial agenda" and that Saylor's had over 3 times more dissenting opinions than Baldwin when they served on the court. 

From the column:

Nothing in her short jurisprudential history shows an overriding concern for issues uniquely relevant to minority communities; nor is there any evidence that she routinely disagreed with the majority view of the court on any issue—let alone those pertinent to minorities. Tellingly, while on the court, Baldwin authored a grand total of 16 opinions and statements dissenting in whole or in part from the majority’s perspective; by contrast, Saylor authored 52 such opinions and statements during the same period.

Vance also attacked disgraced former Supervisory Grand Jury Judge Barry Feudale, who backed up Baldwin's claims about Saylor.   From the column:

According to a story first published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on July 24, Baldwin, who is Black, believes that the “unfair ordeal” that ultimately resulted in her public reprimand was the result of Saylor’s “bigotry.” In support of this grave allegation, Baldwin relies on an affidavit signed by former Judge Barry Feudale—the very same judge who oversaw the grand jury proceedings where Baldwin’s unethical conduct was permitted to continue unabated. The affidavit claims that during a 2012 conversation between the two men, Saylor demanded Feudale’s cooperation in the forthcoming investigation into Baldwin and allegedly insisted that disciplinary measures were necessary because “she caused … a lot of trouble when she was on the Supreme Court with her minority agenda.”

Vance closed the column as follows (my emphasis added):

Finally, Baldwin's allegations are predicated on a false premise -- namely, that she was treated unfairly.  The fulll extent of Baldwin's multiple transgressions, which include conflict of interest and breach of confidentiality, are too lengthy to set forth in detail here;  suffice it to say, however, that a public reprimand was, if anything, a more lenient punishment that the circumstances of her case would ordinarily require.

With this backdrop in mind, the accusations leveled by the discredited duo of Baldwin and Feudale should be given the exactly the weight they deserve -- none.

Next: Baldwin Undermined Clients From Start


  1. When the truth fails, play the race card

    1. Today, if you disagree with anyone on anything, you are called a racist.