Madame Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, the first woman elected to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court, confers with Victor Stabile, of Dilworth Paxson LLP, who moderated the Legal Symposium on March 26.

Nine women clothed in judges’ robes sit at a long, cafeteria-style table, perusing papers, jotting down notes and chatting with each other.

The visual posed the question, “what if the U.S. Supreme Court looked like this; comprised of all women. Would the decisions the Court writes read any differently?”

The answer, according to these female judges, is that the results would not differ.

The legal symposium took place in a packed gymnasium last Thursday evening at Clarion University’s Venango Campus.

Planned by Maria Battista Kerle, a Venango professor of speech communication and former prosecutor, the forum was designed to give the audience of both students and community members a unique look at hypothetical situation: “What if the Supreme Court looked like this? – What if it were all women?”

Topping the panel lineup was Madame Justice Sandra Schultz Newman, who retired in 2006 after serving as the first woman appointed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Madame Justice Newman says that she does not advocate for an all-female bench, noting having a diverse bench as being the goal.

“I would not like to see a Supreme Court as all women – that would be as bad as having it all men,” she said. “I think we need a variety of sexes on the court.”

Newman described how being a woman judge can sometimes be a challenge.

“Women are harder on women. It’s not so great to necessarily have a female judge,” she said. “A woman brings a certain sensitivity that deserves to be heard and certainly all women need a seat on every commission.”

The women discussed six cases and hypothetically pondered if the cases would have concluded differently had the bench consisted only of women. Judge Christine Donohue described the method of deciding cases through the view point of a woman judge.

“All cases are decided on the rule of law,” said Donohue. “We generally say the end decision is the same as man, it’s just that a man would get there in a different way.”

Venango Professor and symposium planner, Maria Battista Kerle lights a candle with Judge Newman to signify how women must support and mentor each others, particularly in fields where women remain under-represented.

Judge Maureen Lally-Green agreed with Donohue’s statement, indicating that being a woman only puts a minor spin on how judges do their job.

“The voice of a female plays a little different tune in terms of how we do our job,” she said. “You can’t, as a woman, let it get in your way that you are a woman.”

Via a Web cast, State Supreme Court Justice Michael Eakin described the women as pioneers for one generation.

“These are women who have not risen by sitting on the bench, but because of their accomplishments in the court,” said Eakin.

The women discussed how times have changed, indicating that many of the legal courtesies available to women today were not around when they were working on achieving the success they have today.

Judge Cheryl Allen says she was the only African-American woman to graduate in her law class. She worked for the Allegheny County Law Department when she became pregnant. The concept of maternity leave was novel to the department.

“They never had anyone take maternity leave and come back. And I wanted to leave and come back. Do you know I had to write the maternity leave policy for the department,” she said. “I was very generous with myself.”

The panel included Madame Justice Schultz Newman, Maureen Lally Green, Christine Donohue, Jaqueline Shogan, Cheryl Allen, Joan Orie-Melvin, all of the Pennsylvania Superior Court; Renee Cohn Jubelirer, judge of the Commonwealth Court; Stephanie A. Domitrovich, of Erie and Judge Maureen A. Skerda of Warren Common Pleas Court.

Courtesy photos The jurists discussed six specific cases : Kennedy vs. Louisiana, whether the death penalty should be given to those convicted of child rape; Gonzales vs. Carhart, considering a ban on partial birth abortions; U.S. vs. Virginia, determining whether women received an equal education at Virginia Militry Institute; Roper vs. Simmons, whether juvenile offenders should get the death penalty; Board of Education vs. Earls, whether urine tests are reasonable; and Lindh vs. Surman, whether a broken engagement requires a woman to return the ring.