Timing questioned *** Updated x3 ***
Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 - Posted by Rich Miller
[Updated and bumped up. See “Update 2″ below]
What a coinkidink.
Robert Thomas, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Illinois, called in to a Christian radio program in suburban Chicago last week to tell them he hoped to revive an abortion case the court had stalled action on 11 years earlier.
Late Monday, the court declared it would issue rules about how minor girls could appeal a judge’s decision denying them the right to get an abortion without their families being notified. That will clear the way for a law passed by the Legislature in 1995 to take effect, requiring abortion providers to notify an adult relative of a pregnant teen before giving her an abortion.
Republican DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett has been campaigning for lieutenant governor on a platform of reviving the law, and he wrote a letter to the state high court in June asking it to finally write the rules that will let the law take effect.
Thomas, who won his seat on the court with support from anti-abortion groups six years ago, had already asked his clerks to research the issue before Birkett and the anti-abortion groups filed their briefs, said Joe Tybor, court spokesman.
And I’m not the only one who noticed.
Critics of parental notification laws called the timing “highly suspicious†and accused the high court of playing politics and the chief justice in particular of trying to help fellow Republicans.
“They’re trying to exploit the parental notification law for political gain,†said Terry Cosgrove, president of Personal PAC, an abortion rights group.
A spokesman for the state’s high court denied politics was a factor. He said Thomas, a Wheaton Republican and former Bears kicker, wanted to bring the issue before his colleagues during their September term well before Birkett, the DuPage County state’s attorney, and others sent letters urging action.
“I don’t think politics had anything to do with this decision,†said Joseph Tybor, the court’s press secretary. “This would have gone before the Supreme Court whether Birkett had written him a letter or not.â€
I’m sure.
More here.
*** UPDATE *** Former state Rep. Cal Skinner has been pro-life at least since his Reagan Republican conversion. Skinner voted against the parental notification bill because he believed it to be a sham.
He has posted his floor speech from 1996, entitled “Ten Ways to Avoid Telling Your Parents You’re Pregnant Under House Bill 955″ on his blog. Here’s his conclusion:
It does not deserve to be called “parental notice.â€
It is a “parental avoidance billâ€
Skinner also notes that the bill’s proponents did not dispute the “loopholes” he uncovered.
*** UPDATE 2*** Well, that was fast.
The Illinois Supreme Court issued rules Wednesday that could lead to enforcement of a long-ignored law requiring parents to be notified before their minor daughters get an abortion. […]
The law allows minors seeking abortions to avoid the notification requirement by going to court and asking for a waiver. The new rules say the judge should try to rule on the request at the end of the hearing, but if that’s not possible then the judge should rule within 48 hours.
If the waiver is rejected, the decision can be appealed to an appellate court and ultimately the Illinois Supreme Court. The rules say there would be no oral arguments on appeals and decisions would have to be issued within two days by the appellate court and five days by the Supreme Court.
The waiver request and all legal proceedings would be confidential under the new rules.
According to the AP, this was a unanimous decision.
I couldn’t find the new rules on the Internet yet, but if they are posted they should be here. [It’s there now.]
*** UPDATE 3 *** This was at the very bottom of Thursday’s Sun-Times story.
Thomas, the Illinois Supreme Court’s chief justice, last week called a Christian radio show after hearing that a guest was criticizing the Supreme Court for not issuing the rules. Thomas told the host off the air that the new members of the court were taking up the issue, the host said.
Not as blatant as the original story suggested.
- scoot - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 9:51 am:
JBT should just go to the scheduled date, and point out that there is an empty chair next to her. She should do this and accept as many debates as possible.
- scoot - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 9:52 am:
oops i posted on the wrong the story.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 10:24 am:
Its nonsense. There is no political gain for Republicans on this issue. The pro-infantcide group is just over reacting.
- the Other Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 10:41 am:
There is actually a huge risk here for pro-lifers. The trend in more liberal states, such as Illinois, is to find that state constitutions provide civil liberties above and beyond the federal Constitution.
Writing the rules for parental notification may well set up the possibility for the Illinois Supreme Court to find a state constitutional basis for Roe v Wade.
- Scott Fawell's Cellmate - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 1:29 pm:
Question: Is Chief Justice Thomas positioning himself to move from the judicial branch to the executive branch ? His 10-year term is up 2010, so presuming Topinka loses and he wants to leave the Court, Thomas could make a good IL GOP candidate for Governor or AG, i.e. clean, legitimate resume; no ties to George Ryan or scandal; experience running statewide; Chicago Bears history is fun twist and plays good with male, blue-collar voters. And calling into Christian radio shows and reminding Tom Roeser and company that he’s one of them. Am I just speculating here ?
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 3:46 pm:
SFC:
It looks like you are right and that is a shame.
Our judiciary needs to be above politics. The example was John Paul Stevens when he talked about making a decision that he felt was wrong based on public policy but right based on the law.
I don’t expect Justice Thomas to be making those kinds of rulings in the next few years. Every ruling will be analyzed for the political impact and not on whether it is a correct legal decision.
- huh? - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 4:38 pm:
I heard on NPR, something along the lines of, that this law cannot be enforced until a 1996 federal case is resolved.
- NW burbs - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 5:01 pm:
Justice Thomas just cut the amount of time a woman has to make her private medical decision by 9 days. (2 days for the first court, 2 more days if it goes to appeal, and 5 additional days if it goes up to the Supreme Court.)
What happens if one or more of those courts is not in session and unable to meet for an emergency session?
–
Scott Fawell’s Cellmate, interesting theory. For a judge he certainly is politically active.
There are also a round of US Senate campaigns coming up in 2008 and 2010. (And, very esoteric here, if Obama makes the jump to run for the White House in 2008 and wins, the then-incumbent junior Senator running in 2010 would only have two years rather than the full six and, in theory, be a bit weaker than a full-termer for it.)
- anon - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 5:15 pm:
In an attempt to clarify for “Huh?”
The Illinos law was passed in 1995 but, I believe, the federal unjunction blockin it was in 1996. So, no matter what the Illinois justices do now, there’s no parental notification until that federal injunction is lifted.
- Reddbyrd - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 5:33 pm:
Looks like Bootin’ Bob just signed his exit visa from politics — at least in Illinois. Not only was this a bonehead move if he hoped for a career in electoral politics, but it appears likely these rules will get tossed pronto in the courts.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 8:35 pm:
Reddybird,
Parnetal notification is not a unique to Illinois concept. So there is a set of rules that can pass court muster, are the rules set forth the right set, I have no idea.
I think you would be surprised the number of pro-choice ’soccer moms’ who would not be pleased at all with the idea of their 14 year old getting a abortion without their knowledge or consent.
If the pro-choicers push too hard to this, it may end up re-enforcing (right or wrong) the image that some pro-lifers not only think that abortion should be legal but that it is in fact a good thing.
Fighting too hard on this now (before the election) does Democrats no favors and I think it will hurt them in some areas downstate.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 9:31 pm:
Correction:
Everybody but “left wing loons” and “people who don’t think children raped by parents should need to ask that parent’s permission to do seek medical attention.”
So there are at least two anti-notification groups out there.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 9:46 pm:
Skeeter,
So using that logic if my kid breaks their arm, they should be able to get medical attention without me being told because I might be the one who broke it?
B) That logic falls down in part because there is a remedy for that.
C) Most states have laws for notification, consent now
http://www.positive.org/Resources/consent.html
D) It’s a notification law, not a concent law there is a real difference.
E) If you belive poll numbers 80% support notification.
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 9:48 pm:
But I digress.
The real issue presented is of politics.
Every action of Kicker Thomas is now going to be examined for the political impact.
The Kicker has effectively declared his candidacy, and the only question that remains is the office that he will seek.
You heard it hear first: Kicker Thomas is running for the United States Senate in 2008. That is the only way to interpret the timing of the call and the decision.
Let’s just hope his personal injury (defamation — some people said some mean things about the Kicker) lawsuit is settled by that time. If not, his pal Roskam may be able to help him out.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 9:51 pm:
Now on the political line Skeeter, I think you may have a point. But since we elect the Supream’s in this state anyway in some ways their actions should already be looked at with an eye on the politcal.
OneMan
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 9:54 pm:
Why do the lefties keep bringing up the rape canard. That is what the bypass provision is for — a way for someone in that situation to bypass their parents. Are these people just ignorant or demogogues?
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 9:57 pm:
One Man,
They are elected to ten year terms to insulate them from politics to some degree.
It goes back to my comments about Justice Stevens.
You will not see any Stevens-like rulings from Kicker Thomas in tne next year. I am willing to bet that Kicker does not vote to overturn a single conviction, no matter what the appellate court rules and no matter what happened at the trial court.
It will also be fascinating to see what cases the court decides to hear. We will see if the Dems on the Court try and limit him in. Should make for bad law but good sport. The interesting reading will be any non-majority opinions.
- OneMan - Wednesday, Sep 20, 06 @ 10:22 pm:
Skeeter,
and senators are elected to 6 year terms with the same logic and we see how well that works.
Screaming politics to some extent on this is a bit problematic for a few reasons.
You could argue the original call not to issue the rules was politics.
The set of rules was aproved by the dems and republicans on the court.
As for the timing, I have nothing I don’t think the timing was a happy co-inci-dence. Much like I don’t buy that the timing of the $1,500 (you tossed the Roskam reference so I can toss the $1,500) was a co-ince-i-dence.
If the democrats think it is bad law, there is a veto session coming up and a new session after that. Heck there was nothing is stoping them for the last several years from revoking that law, they had to know there was a risk of this occouring. They would have done Lisa a political favor if they did.
OneMan
- Skeeter - Thursday, Sep 21, 06 @ 6:05 am:
One Man:
It goes back to the Justice Stevens remark. Do we expect that Kicker Thomas will uphold laws that he does not like politically, or reject laws that he does? The radio station call is a bad sign. It makes it look like the Illinois Chief Justice is going political.
Judges are supposed to interpret and apply the law whether or not they agree with it.
Senators are supposed to use their judgment to create laws that they believe are in the best interest of the people.
The six year term for senators is an attempt to insulate senators from the winds of every moment, but was not put in place for the purpose of having the senator to be blinded from politics.
- OneMan - Thursday, Sep 21, 06 @ 7:15 am:
Skeeter,
Show me one example of where Justice Thomas has given into political winds.
In this case, the court made a decision not to implement the rules, not baised off of any court case. They could have struck down the law, but they didn’t do that they esentally performed a pocket veto.
Courts re-visit (usually due to a case before them I will grant you) previous actions all the time and modify them at least in part due to political considerations.
Also I ask you a simple question. Show me a single ruling that he has made that did not come as part of a unified court that shows that he is reviewing the law baised off of political considerations.
Again if this ruling violates any tenant of law, why in the heck was the court in full agreement.
- Bill Baar - Thursday, Sep 21, 06 @ 7:37 am:
If this is politics, it seems more of a kick in JBT’s face then the Gov. It’s got to be the last thing she’d want to take about unless she’s seeking some recon with the pro-life side of her party I’m unaware of.
- Skeeter - Thursday, Sep 21, 06 @ 9:29 am:
One Man:
I haven’t reviewed in detail yet the rulings of Kicker Thomas. I will. We have time.
I will say that it is extremely unusual for a judge to speak in the media on a case actually pending before that judge’s court. Off the top of my head I cannot think of another time when that has been done.
- OneMan - Thursday, Sep 21, 06 @ 10:33 am:
Skeeter,
You have a point there.
- Scott Fawell's Cellmate - Thursday, Sep 21, 06 @ 11:11 am:
Just to put into perspective Thomas’s questionable conduct of calling into a political radio show to announce future judicial action: if earlier this year Judge Pallmayer had called into a radio show when a death penalty opponent was the guest on the air to announce Pallmayer was going to rule soon on particular pending motions in her trial of George Ryan, then people would have justifiably questioned why she called the radio show and the larger issue of the judge’s judicial temperment and bias.
If the Illinois Supreme Court is going to take action, then the Court’s spokesperson - here, Joseph Tybor - announces the action and fields inquiries.
- Scott Fawell's Cellmate - Thursday, Sep 21, 06 @ 1:36 pm:
Almost forgot - Thomas already admitted he is thinking and planning for life after leaving the Supreme Court in 2010, see the following news article. Specifically, Thomas stated he has spoken with Speaker Hastert about becoming a federal judge, but Thomas also calcualted he could make more than $500K/year if he cashed in and joined up with a downtown law firm. All in all, though, it shows Thomas is trying to position himself for something, and by calling into radio shows to discuss official court business, Thomas looks like he’s willing to use his robe to get what he wants.
Justice’s libel suit figures his losses
July 10, 2006
BY ERIC HERMAN Staff Reporter
Illinois’ highest-ranking judge is seeking as much as $7.7 million in his lawsuit against a suburban newspaper — and has considered pursuing other jobs when his term ends in 2010, legal documents show.
Chief Justice Robert Thomas sued the Kane County Chronicle in 2004, alleging the paper libeled him in a series of columns by Bill Page. To show the harm allegedly caused, Thomas’ lawyer hired an economist to estimate what he could earn as a federal judge and as a partner at a major Chicago law firm.
Working at a big law firm is “one of the primary things I’ve thought about doing,” Thomas said in a May 25 deposition, recently obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times.
He has also discussed the possibility of a federal judgeship with House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, according to his deposition.
“I’m enjoying being a chief justice,” Thomas said last week. “But, yeah, those are options that I believe I would have explored — or would explore.
“There could be some diminished earning capacity.”
Thomas’ lawyer Joseph Power hired University of Illinois finance Professor Charles Linke to examine Thomas’ career possibilities. Linke calculated Thomas’ potential future earnings.
‘Not actively considering anything’
At a minimum, the defamation could cost Thomas $1.5 million in lost earnings, according to Linke’s report. Assuming Page’s columns prevent Thomas from winning retention for two additional terms, his lost earnings would range from $3.6 million to $4.1 million.
If the columns were to keep Thomas from becoming a federal judge, his lost earnings would also be $3.6 million to $4.1 million.
Linke also examined a scenario in which Thomas left the bench in 2010 to become a partner at a Chicago law firm, at $563,057 a year. In that instance, his losses would range from $4.3 million to $4.7 million.
If the jury believes Thomas could have become one of the top-earning lawyers in the city, making $919,471 a year, his lost earnings would reach $7.1 million to $7.7 million, Linke found.
“He is not actively considering anything at this point. . . . These are potential avenues that could have been taken away from him,” said Power.
Thomas does not have to prove he suffered financially in order to win. But it makes sense to do so, said media lawyer Ken Kraus of Schopf & Weiss, “because you can sustain a greater award by the jury.”
Lost earnings in libel cases are known as “special damages,” said Kraus, who is not involved in this case. Thomas could also seek punitive damages.
‘Nightmare of bad publicity’
The Page columns dealt with the case of Meg Gorecki, a former Kane County state’s attorney who faced discipline by the Supreme Court. According to Page, Thomas had a bias against Gorecki and wanted to suspend her law license for a year.
But Thomas agreed to a four-month suspension, Page wrote, after Gorecki supporters backed a judicial candidate he favored.
At one point, Page sent the Supreme Court an e-mail promising a “nightmare of bad publicity” if Thomas didn’t withdraw from the Gorecki case.
In Thomas’ view, the columns injured his reputation, and the lawsuit is necessary. The allegations are “a blatant falsehood,” he said — but they have the power to hurt his future earning potential.
Page said he stands by his columns. “I’m not backing down from this,” he said.
If he were to seek a law firm job, Thomas said, “I don’t go with a book of business. I’ve been a judge for 18 years. The only thing you have to bring to somebody like that is your good name.”
In his deposition, Thomas cites Benjamin Miller as an example of a former Illinois Supreme Court justice who now works at a major Chicago law firm. Miller is of counsel at Jenner & Block, where the average partner earned $630,000 in 2004, according to American Lawyer magazine.
As an Illinois Supreme Court justice, Thomas earns $177,073 a year. He also gets health and pension benefits that make the package worth $205,000 a year, according to Linke.
In his May 25 deposition, Thomas also said he had only been a lead trial lawyer in “one or two” cases before becoming a judge in 1988.
Lawyers involved expect the case to go to trial this fall.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-thomas10.html#