* Speaker Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton have filed a response to Gov. Pat Quinn’s motion for direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court of the legislative pay case. The leaders want the court to take the case and then issue a summary judgement against Quinn…
1. The Governor’s constitutional argument in this case is contrived. He asks this Court to find that the drafters of the 1970 Constitution either did not know the meaning of the word “changes,” or intentionally misused that word when they prohibited mid-term “changes” in Article IV, Section I I , which provides that “changes in the salary of a member (of the General Assembly) shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.” Specifically, he claims that when the drafters prohibited mid-term changes in legislative salaries, they did not mean “any change”, they only meant to prohibit an “increase”.
2. His second argument (and perhaps his principal one) is that the case is not “ripe” for review. This argument will be shown to be a transparent attempt to avoid an adverse ruling on his actions, which were in violation of the Constitution.
3. The Plaintiffs are reluctant to impose this appeal on this Court (in denying a stay, the trial court found it “totally meritless” (see Exhibit A to this Response, the circuit court’s ruling denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay, at p.2l)). But, regardless of its lack of merit, because it is a controversy between two branches of State government which has attracted some notoriety, we urge the Court to exercise Rule 302(b) jurisdiction over this appeal.
- Bill White - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:58 am:
=== we urge the Court to exercise Rule 302(b) jurisdiction over this appeal ===
Good.
Hopefully the IL Supreme Court will forcefully nail shut the door Pat Quinn opened.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:05 pm:
===Hopefully the IL Supreme Court will forcefully nail shut the door Pat Quinn opened.===
Agreed.
No Governor should think about this tactic to begin with, so closing this door, nailing it shut, that should deter those in the Executive from trying to find any way to use this again.
Hopefully.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:22 pm:
I’m confident the SC will rule against Quinn. If not, we’re looking at more chaos in Illinois government.
- Andrew Szakmary - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:40 pm:
So apparently, when it comes to legislative salaries, the Illinois Constitution is all-important. But when it comes to pensions, crystal-clear language prohibiting diminishment can be ignored. Am I the only one who sees the hypocricy here?
For the record, I am glad legislators are getting their full salaries, as that was the proper ruling. Hopefully I will get my full pension.
- titan - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:41 pm:
The Gov’s move (and GA battle) may come back to haunt them when the pension cases eventually get to the Supremes.
If “change” actually means “change” then “diminshed” might actually mean “diminshed”.
- downstate commissioner - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
Feel that since Quinn is appealing anyway, this is a good move on their part- get it settled once and for all.
- Shore - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:51 pm:
93 comments on the rauner thread about a woman no one had heard of until today. You weren’t kidding about him generating emotion.
- I'm Strapped - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:09 pm:
We are going to find the real meaning of ‘diminish’ or a new meaning for diminish is about to be declared on high.
- alternatively - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:10 pm:
I think that when Quinn appears in person before the Supreme Court, Madigan will ask them to Execute Order 66.
- Earl Shumaker - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:50 pm:
Andrew Szakmary- Thanks for the comments. I had the same thoughts. Apparently, Madigan and Cullerton think that they can pick and choose those segments of the Illinois Constitution which suites their wishes Hopefully the Illinois Supreme Court will rule that these two political leaders must abide with the Illinois Constitution when it comes to protecting our pensions and COLAs
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 2:23 pm:
The Supreme Court needs to knock down this undemocratic tactic so it can never be used again.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 5:12 pm:
Rich, any links to a copy of the response?
- RNUG - Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 5:29 pm:
All the arguments used by the GA in this case and by the State in the health insurance case about the proteciton of the State Constitution will surely be cited in the forthcoming pension case …