Is it age discrimination or a proper exercise of the will of the people?
That's just one question the state Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether to overturn or let stand a 45-year-old amendment to the state constitution that requires Pennsylvania judges to retire at age 70.
"The route to change the constitution is the amendment process, is it not?" he asked. "It's awfully dangerous for the court to make assumptions that things have changed and the constitution is invalid."
The judges could push for an amendment, Hangley said, "but ultimately the burden of (deciding) what the constitution will bear is left to the courts."
Delone contended that the amendment route, not the lawsuit route, is the course the judges should have taken in the first place.
It would "upend the basic principles of democracy" for the Supreme Court to overturn a properly approved constitutional amendment, he said.
"This court has never held that one provision of the constitution violates another provision of the constitution," Delone said.
The Supreme Court's ultimate decision will echo beyond the two cases it is to decide.
Two other judges are challenging the retirement law in Commonwealth Court.
U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III is handling another such case. Last month, Jones called a 90-day hiatus in his case to give the state Supreme Court the first crack at addressing the retirement issue.