Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Quinn wants to build Rams stadium here
Next Post: Foster up with new ad, Giuliani rips Giannoulias, Schilling doesn’t trust CBO
Posted in:
* The setup…
Thomas Fitzgerald, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois, informed his colleagues Monday that he has Parkinson’s Disease and will leave the court Oct. 25.
On Fitzgerald’s recommendation, the other justices voted to appoint Appellate Justice Mary Jane Theis to replace him for a two-year term beginning Oct. 26.
“I don’t not want to do anything to hurt the court or the people it serves,” Fitzgerald said Monday through a spokesman. “Right now I am fully capable of discharging my duties. I don’t know how long it will be true.”
Fitzgerald, 69, was a former prosecutor and the longtime presiding judge of the Cook County Circuit Court’s Criminal Division at 26th and California before being elected to the state’s high court 10 years ago. As chief justice, he presided over Gov. Blagojevich’s impeachment trial in the state legislature.
Best wishes to Justice Fitzgerald, who served his state well.
* The Question: Should state supreme court justices be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate (like the federal system) rather than elected? Explain.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 12:56 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Quinn wants to build Rams stadium here
Next Post: Foster up with new ad, Giuliani rips Giannoulias, Schilling doesn’t trust CBO
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
No! That would politicize the Court more so than need be. Keep the current system of electing Justices from districts. Can you imagine who Ryan or Blago might have appointed to the Court or how the Senate confirmation hearings would have looked like?
Comment by Stones Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 12:59 pm
Absolutely. It would be best if, like in many states, the governor had to choose from a list provided by a screening panel.
Let’s face it. The Illinois Supreme Court has been a weak, political body for decades. While some excellent justices make it through the process (and new Justice Theis may be one), most are mediocre at best. Some, like a current justice whose husband is chair of the judicial selection committee of a major political organization, were undistinguished lawyers who are elevanted or elected to the Supreme Court solely because of clout. Other justices have been politicians, or creatures of special interest, with no great legal talent.
Over the years, the Court has had justices who don’t always show up prepared at arguments; justices who don’t record their dissents when they disagree with the result, etc. In addition, the court frequently abdicates its important administrative role in supervising the other courts in the state.
The situation, which has always been bad, is now getting worse, given the recognition by business interests, plaintiffs’ lawyers, etc., of the importance of the court, and the increased freedom under U.S. Supreme Court law for special interests to fund Supreme Court races. Given the increased role money will paly in elections, independent candidates of quality will have even less of a chance to get through the election process in most districts.
In the real world, Speaker Madigan, among others, will block the constitutional amendment needed to change the selection process. But the failures of our court system are real, longstanding, and part of the general culture of influence plaguing Illinois.
Should the system be changed? Heck yes. But the only even remotely likely hope for change would be sufficient popular disgust to create support for a constitutional convetnion the next time the opportunity arises. I’m not holding my breath.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 1:08 pm
No because look at what we had with some of the appointments under blago that were rubber stamped by Emil. What we should do to remove politics from the court is to publicly fund court races.
Comment by WOW Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 1:08 pm
No,
Let the people elect them. This is Illinois. while the voters often are duped and make mistakes (Blago) leaving choices like this to the politicians of Illinois is asking for trouble.
JMHO
Comment by downstate hack Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 1:26 pm
As far as I can tell, the judicial districts we elect justices from has never been reapportioned since they were created in 1970. That means the districts have become badly malapportioned, violating the one-person, one vote rule the courts imposed on the legislative branch.
Comment by Reformer Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 1:34 pm
The idea — particularly in Cook County — that judicial choises are left to the educated judgment of “the people” isn’t realistic.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 1:37 pm
Not only know but hell no.
A better question of the day might be how much would the
standard bribecampaign contribution be for such an appointment.Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 1:46 pm
No, just let Anne Burke become Chief Justice and be done with it.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 1:47 pm
Do you believe in democracy or do you believe in having an elite system of folks without democracy. All this anti political talk is hooey. A legal system is to reflect reality not some imaginary nirvana that in reality is unattainable?
A non political branch of government based on an unattainable nirvana is a theocracy. Not a democracy.
I am tiring of all this ridiculous pie in the sky elitism. Get real.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 1:53 pm
More politicized? How do you think people get on the bench now?
Please remember that Justice Freeman reportedly appointed judges to vacancies on the recommendation of Ed Vrdolyak. And that in order to get slating in Cook County you need Ed Burke’s approval. The bench couldn’t possibly be more politicized than it is now.
States that use screening panels to recommend names to the governor for appointment generally have much higher quality benches, diversity that is at least as great as Illinois’, and less politicization of the bench.
When’s the last time you’ve heard the Illinois Supreme Court being praised as a leader in scholarship, judicial administration, fidelity to law, etc.? Or had its opinions cited in law books?
If I remember correctly, Adlai Stevenson put Walter V. Schaefer on the bench (at a time when governors could appoint Justices to fill vacancies). Illinois hasn’t had a lot of Justice Schaefers since. And, sadly, it won’t, as long as our judges are elected.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 2:00 pm
Only in Illinois would some political hack think that the way to solve a politicized bench is to take away the right of VOTERS to vote and leave it solely to politicians.
Genius.
Why don’t we go back to using titles of nobility while we’re at it?
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 2:05 pm
==When’s the last time you’ve heard the Illinois Supreme Court being praised as a leader in scholarship, judicial administration, fidelity to law, etc.? Or had its opinions cited in law books?==
Actually, the Illinois Supreme Court is held in high regard in judicial circles. Many IL opinions have been cited as caselaw in law school text books. The court hasn’t been criticized for overstepping or violating federal law, unlike other states. If you consider the size of its budget and the number of cases filed in IL, you might realize that our court system is one of the most efficient under the circumstances.
Comment by you might not know Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 2:18 pm
Sorry, John, but it’s not an “only-in-Illinois idea for reformers to want appointed judges.”
The federal bench, while politicized, is much less politicized, has a much lesser history of corruption, and much higher quality than the Illinois bench. And it’s appointed, on the advice and consent of the Senate.
States like NY and Mass., for example, have much better highest courts, with appointed benches.
But, if you want to know the history in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln called for the appointment instead of election of judges, when he was in the state legislature. Blue ribbon panels have been calling for appointment for well over 50 years.
As I said, I’m not holding my breath. But I can tell you which side the political hacks are on.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 2:18 pm
In Illinois, most of the “reformers” are political hacks. The rest are naive.
You think Ald. Burke will suddenly have no say with appointed judges? Last I read, “slated” judges are down to about a 50% win rate.
The problem isn’t the voters, it’s the insiders. And appointed judges ONLY let the insiders play.
Sure, other states may have better benches with appointed judges, but none of them can boast the centralized control of our state and our history of Chicago corruption.
Appointed judges may look good on paper, but in this state, it’s got bad idea written all over it.
Comment by John Bambenek Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 2:34 pm
A qualified “yes.” I support merit appointment of judges, and that includes the Supreme Court. However, I think that there should be additional protection against hack appointments in Illinois. The federal system involves the Attorney General, who is part of the Cabinet. I would like to see the AG (whoever that may be in the future, btw) involved in the process somehow. Regardless, I don’t think switching to merit selection for the Supreme Court should be a priority.
The real problem, however, is with the election of lower court judges. For Supreme Court justices, the stakes are high enough that voters get some information about the candidates. But very few voters have any information about candidates for circuit and district court, particularly in Cook and the collar counties. The quality of our state judicial system suffers as a result.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 2:41 pm
Believe in democracy. Then do it. There has never been a time when an elitist group knew more than the combined wisdom of everyone else.
Democracy works.
Oliver Wendell Holmes reminds us that the law is based on wisdom and experience. Not an abstraction found in textbooks or in a professors head.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 3:07 pm
===Oliver Wendell Holmes reminds us===
Appointed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court, appointed Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, appointed to the US Supreme Court.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 3:10 pm
@the other anonymous:
There is plenty of information out there about the lower court judges’ elections, if one cares to look. For example, a dozen or so bar associations rate the candidates based on questionnaires and automatically give a “not qualified” to those who don’t participate. This past February, the Trib was more aggressive than usual in informing the voters about judicial races, including creating user-friendly tables showing how each was ranked by the bar ass’ns. I suppose the rankings are only as good as one perceives each bar ass’n to be. (And if you are skeptical about the opinions of the bar, then arguing for merit selection panels doesn’t seem too credible. Likely to be the same group under a different name). But anyway, it ain’t nothin’.
Comment by Pembleton Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 3:56 pm
Neither method is perfect, but the general election is better.
The bar associations do a good job of sorting prospective judicial candidates in my opinion.
Comment by Jake from Elwood Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 4:11 pm
I can hear Blago now.
“This thing is bleeping golden.”
What is the going rate on a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court?
Comment by Aldyth Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 4:19 pm
@Pembleton
I was very careful (I thought) in my wording not to suggest that the information was not available, but rather that the voters do not have the information when they enter the voting booth. That’s understandable, though, when you look at the size of the ballot in Cook County. Even a political junkie like myself finds it hard to make the time to get adequate information on all the candidates. It’s not that judicial are hiding anything — most of them would kill (metaphorically, they are running for judge after all!) to have better informed voters. But it’s impossible to break through the media clutter, and it’s really unfair to expect voters to research 96 different offices (that’s the number of offices on my sample ballot this year: 28 elected + 68 retention ballot).
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 4:29 pm
VM, 2 points (in addition to Rich’s). First, we don’t have a democracy, we have “a republic, if [we] can keep it.”
Second, an aspect of keeping that republic, on the federal level, is an appointed judiciary, not responsible to the political branches, to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, and act as a check on the political branches. See The Federalist Papers #78.
Pembleton: While it’s true that information about the qualifications of judicial candidates is available to voters, as you point out, few look at it. Most elections are decided either by the palm cards of the machine, or solely by the name of the candidate. A bar association or newspaper endorsement rarely moves more than 5% of the vote. Merit selection wouldn’t totally depoliticize the selection process (thank you, I’m not that naive), but it would increase quality and give judges greater assurance of independence.
Aldyth: That’s why merit selection proposals provide that a selection panel screens the applicants and gives a list of names to the appointing authority. There’s no foolproof solution. But it’s better than trusting the governor — or overwhelmed voters — alone.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 4:50 pm
Anonymous is exactly right. All judges should be appointed. A nonpartisan panel of lawyers, judges, law professors should give the governor a list of possible appointees. The governor picks one and it goes to the senate for confirmation.
I consider myself to be an intelligent well informed voter and I cannot know enough about all of the judicial candidates to cast an informed vote. Plus what do you do when the various bar associations disagree on whether someone is qualified or not? The ballot is way too long with all the judges on it and, as I mentioned, it is virtually impossible to cast informed votes for judges. Better to have the judges appointed.
Comment by LouisXIV Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 5:12 pm
No, because the system seems to work OK. No crazy wacko’s seem to get slated. Even the Cook County D’s seem to take pause before picking candidates. And I don’t see a lot of partisanship on the Court. They seem to get along just fine.
I just can’t see a Blago or Pat Quinn picking a qualified candidate. Blago would have done something completely thoughtless just to satisfy that day’s mania. PQ would have either picked a 25 year old kid, or made a completely political appointment in hope of actually getting elected governor.
Leave it be.
Comment by Park Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 6:29 pm
This state elected Rod Blagojevich twice and we had actual campaigns telling us about him. God knows who we elect as judges since people vote for the D or the R behind their names.
Comment by ourMagician Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 10:18 pm
electing judges is idiotic. that’s how we get women with three
names, the last one being Irish, elected with very little experience. someone please design a system which uses
the law schools and the bar associations to screen, and screening would be mandatory.
In fact, I dare some legislator to put in a bill which says that
screening by the bar associations is mandatory. at least
that way, now, we would have ratings by groups even if
we have campaigning for judges. some of those campaigns
are the most down and dirty there are. read the Leyhane
blog on the law for the 2008 campaign in the burbs and
it should push you into thinking that merit selection is the
only route.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Sep 14, 10 @ 11:38 pm