Let’s tone it down a little
Monday, Sep 26, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Belleville News-Democrat…
The Independent Maps initiative seems to be dead and buried, murdered by Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and his four Democratic cohorts on the Illinois Supreme Court. There was an autopsy, but the results were withheld so that no one had a chance to learn anything from the death.
The gang of four that killed the will of 563,974 registered Illinois voters by tossing the Independent Map Amendment off the Nov. 8 ballot also refused to rehear the case. Their additional crime is their silence about why they refused to rehear the case.
A rehearing, or an opinion about why they refused a rehearing, would have been the four justices’ chance to explain themselves. They interpreted the Illinois Constitution very narrowly, saying that the petition for a maps amendment was not constitutional because it created duties for the state comptroller as well as made changes to state legislators’ powers and duties.
Under the justices’ interpretation, there are no conditions under which voters could petition to force lawmakers to give up the power of drawing their own districts. The justices had a duty to explain how a voter initiative ever could pass constitutional muster.
They met their duty with silence.
No hyperbole at all, though, which is nice.
Sheesh.
* Let’s hope this isn’t related…
A suspicious package found Sunday at the Illinois Supreme Court building did not contain explosives, officials said.
The package was found on the steps of the Court building, Second Street and Capitol Avenue. Around 6 p.m., police blocked Second Street in both directions, Capitol Avenue near the Third Street railroad underpass and Jackson Street. People were also not allowed on the grounds in front of the state Capitol along Second Street.
* From the Secretary of State’s office yesterday…
This evening a suspicious package was discovered on the steps of the Illinois State Supreme Court. The Secretary of State Hazardous Device Unit (HDU) responded. They took X-rays of the package, which were inconclusive for the presence of an explosive device. Subsequently, the package was remotely opened with an HDU robot confirming no explosives were inside the package. The area is now clear. The Secretary of State Police worked in conjunction with the Marshall’s Office of the Supreme Court.
* And in other news…
A shooting in the loop, near Millennium Park, left a man in critical condition.
Police say the violent encounter stemmed from an altercation on Michigan Avenue, CBS 2’s Lauren Victory reports, and a witness says it was an argument about politics. […]
One witness said he saw the victim fall and it took a few minutes for him to understand what happened.
“There was a couple ladies, that I guess were with the gentleman that was shot, and they were hysterical. They said some guy on a bike shot him in the head twice and that he rode off. there was a political discussion going on,” Marques Wilson said.
The CBS 2 reporter told me that another witness mentioned a racial slur. The Chicago police initially believed the argument was about a woman.
…Adding… The victim has since died.
- RNUG - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:16 am:
Since it’s obvious they didn’t read the court’s previous guidance, why should the court bother to give the drafters more instructions?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:17 am:
===…563,974 registered Illinois voters by tossing the Independent Map Amendment off the Nov. 8 ballot also refused to rehear the case.===
Signatures are not a legal argument. Please learn.
If your argument is based on the “signatures”, you’re ignorant to the constitution.
- Reality Check - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:22 am:
The Belleville News-Democrat likens Supreme Court justices to Chinese Communist Party bosses.
Of course, the Belleville paper is only imitating the Chicago Tribune, which last week compared the Chicago Teachers Union to dictators in North Korea, Iraw and Liberia.
And of course, both papers were only imitating Bruce Rauner, who called the justices “corrupt”, unions part of a “corrupt bargain”, and - a little red-baiting for good measure - Crain’s Chicago Business a “collectivist” organ.
Thanks, Governor.
Dishonorable and disgusting.
- jim - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:24 am:
face it, you guys defending the partisan court vote are on the wrong side of public opinion. Your thin defenses of a ruling aimed at locking Madigan in place in perpetuity aren’t fooling anyone.
it’s particularly diappointing to see government expert OW shilling for such an obvious power play.
- Demoralized - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:29 am:
==the will of 563,974 registered Illinois voters==
I don’t care if every person in the state signed it. It doesn’t matter.
- Jocko - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:31 am:
The BND sounds like a 13 year old who’s mad at both parents.
I missed their editorial outrage at Bruce for failing to take up the Millionaire Tax amendment.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:32 am:
===…it’s particularly diappointing to see government expert OW shilling for such an obvious power play.===
Make the “legal” argument that I’m reading this wrong.
Signatures are not a legal argument.
- RNUG - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:34 am:
== you guys defending the partisan court vote are on the wrong side of public opinion. ==
The court previously told the drafters what was legal and what wasn’t. The drafters choose to write a bill that went beyond those guidelines … so they lost in court. If the voters are angry over it, their anger should be directed at the people that drafted the proposed amendment.
- Honeybear - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:38 am:
Listening to the “Divided nation” segment of NPR this morning on the way into work gave me the chills. It’s getting “real” as they say here. I am very thankful that Rich maintains this blog and environment carefully. I’ll try harder to not cross the line and punch above the belt .
- Henry Francis - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:40 am:
I’m sure I could get 563,974 registered voters to sign a petition requiring Rauner to resign. Just as legal.
- anon - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:43 am:
=== anger should be directed at the people who drafted the proposed amendment. ===
Partisans would rather blame the other party than to admit their own mistakes. It’s ironic that conservatives are lambasting the justices for strictly interpreting the constitution.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:43 am:
===If the voters are angry over it, their anger should be directed at the people that drafted the proposed amendment.===
This. All day.
I’m also of the belief that spending $500K to resuscitate a stale talking point versus writing an actual legal amendment wasn’t an “accident”
It was about fooling the masses, not passing the amendment.
The blame is for the failure is on the Fair Map “people” and if they were unwittingly helping Rauner politics.
Failing to see where the blame is… that’s another of Rauner win.
- Wordslinger - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:49 am:
The term “gerrymander” dates from 1812. The GOP enjoyed a great deal of succees in Illinois under that system from about 1860 until recent years.
In the 20th Century, Illinois regularly went GOP for president. From 1968 until 2002, Illinois elected a GOP governor in every cycle but one.
Now, according to Gallup, ranks sixth among the 50 states with the lowest percentage of self-identified Republicans.
Because…… Madigan? The Original Reagan Democrat?
I’d suggest the national GOP brand has drifted so far to the right, particularly on social issues, that it has turned many formerly solid GOP voters into Independents, especially among suburban women.
But Illinois GOP candidates still have to kowtow to the far right to protect themselves in primaries. And that stings among Independents in general elections.
Jim Edgar has said many times he doubts that he could win a GOP primary today. Do you think Jim Thmpson could?
Consider the GOP presidential nominee: our Illinois GOP governor is afraid to say his name; our Illinois GOP Senator babbles nonsensically about “Petraeus, Powell, Petraeus”; and a suburban GOP Congressman relies on a ludicrously incoherent formula in which he wants to “beat Hillary but won’t support Trump.”
That reveals an Illinois GOP identity crisis that goes beyond any map.
- Norseman - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:51 am:
=== It’s ironic that conservatives are lambasting the justices for strictly interpreting the constitution. ===
Anon, great point. Of course, we know that strict interpretation is only desired by them when they think it helps their causes.
- Federalist - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:57 am:
- RNUG - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:34 am:
== you guys defending the partisan court vote are on the wrong side of public opinion. ==
The court previously told the drafters what was legal and what wasn’t. The drafters choose to write a bill that went beyond those guidelines … so they lost in court. If the voters are angry over it, their anger should be directed at the people that drafted the proposed amendment.”
I strongly support the map overhaul but you are right RNUG. They should have had enough sense to determine what cards to hold and what to fold. They screwed up and now we all pay the price
- Bluegrass Boy - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 10:58 am:
Are each of those 563,974 signees voting for non-incumbent representatives and senators?
Or are they part of the “my guy’s good. your guy’s bad.” crowd?
- phocion - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 11:01 am:
Hey RNUG,
Please provide a cite of an Illinois Supreme Court opinion that provided guidance to those who would seek to reform the way legislative districts. Oh, I’ll save you the trouble - there isn’t one. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
And Norseman, what’s ironic is that you don’t see the irony in what you’re saying. If liberals hate strict construction of constitutional interpretation, why aren’t they bemoaning this decision?
- wordslinger - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 11:08 am:
phocion, if you’re not going to make an effort, don’t expect others to do your homework.
- Chicagonk - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 11:12 am:
RNUG - It was Mikva and not the supreme court that outlined a path to the ballot for the map amendment. I don’t think we can assume that even if the amendment that Mikva held as unconstitutional was revised to be constitutional, that the supreme court would have similarly upheld it.
- phocion - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 11:45 am:
Wordslinger, provide the Illinois Supreme Court cite. If you’re referring to a decision made by a Judge of the Circuit Court of the County of Cook, I’ll grant you she had an opinion. But that aint the Supreme Court, folks. I tend defend my position with facts. I see that isn’t the case with a lot of folks on this blog.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 11:49 am:
===I’ll grant you she had an opinion.===
“Granting” a fact isn’t a give.
===You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.===
It is a fact, there was a legal opinion.
You’re entitled to accept actual facts like everyone else.
- @MisterJayEm - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 11:51 am:
“Let’s tone it down a little…”
Advice that Justice Thomas should have heeded prior to publishing his dissent’s reckless and inflammatory first sentence.
– MrJM
- Annonin' - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 12:40 pm:
We know the BND has some limited resources ( ie they think Lloyd The Kink Karmier is a BigBrain) but the Constitution say only Article 4 can be amended via petition drive. This one changes 3.
- phocion - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 12:48 pm:
Willy,
You can try to act clever as if you didn’t know what was going on. Some dishonest commenters here want the reader to believe that the Illinois Supreme Court previously provided a roadmap, and that the drafters of the proposed amendment ignored it. That is false. The Supreme Court is not bound to follow some friendly advice from a Circuit Court judge. That’s a fact. Smug distortions of the truth are unbecoming. Just sayin’…
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 1:02 pm:
- phocion -
A roadmap was provided… and ignored… possibly on purpose to keep the issue fresh.
“You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.”
Rauner ignores the fact that the constitutionality isn’t important just the politics.
I dunno why you’re gaining the Fair Maps people a pass. That makes no sense.
Then again, spending $500K promoting an unconstitutional amendment, that seems to be the sole goal.
- lake county democrat - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 1:42 pm:
Keep waiting for these lovers of the state constitution to explain why they are so certain 1)the Republican Justices’ legal arguments were wrong, 2) the Democrat Justices were justified in twice refusing to use their discretion to answer the broader questions about Constitutionality (saving volunteers countless hours out of their lives working for a potentially futile cause) and 3) why they give the supermajority power a pass for their kabuki in failing to end gerrymandering on their own.
Until you explain why Justice Thomas was wrong (and I don’t know a single legal scholar who has publicly said he was), his rhetoric was justified. A fifth grader could see how the majority was acting as partisans (otherwise they would have addressed the remaining issues in the appeal and truly provided a “road map,” or alternatively announced that all roads led to nowhere.)
- West Side The Best Side - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 1:59 pm:
The first remap amendment got tossed out by the Circuit Court of Cook County and it wasn’t appealed. Judge Mikva’s opinion was not precedential, but it provided some suggestions as to what would be constitutional. The second remap amendment didn’t follow those suggestions, that also got tossed on the circuit court level and the majority on the Supreme Court affirmed. We will never know how the SC would have ruled if the second attempt had followed the Mikva ruling roadmap because the Fair Maps people didn’t go that way. If they had followed those suggestions and then lost I might have more sympathy for their complaints. That just shows there is something more than a desire to get a constitutionally valid proposition on the ballot. Wonder what that could be?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 2:02 pm:
- lake county democrat -
I read your comment. You have no legal comment where the majority opinion was wrong.
Good luck.
- walker - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 2:16 pm:
Phocian: You’re correct that the guidance provided by the Circuit Court opinion might not have worked with the Supremes — but would you at least concede that to ignore it was an unnecessarily risky choice by the proponents, handing their opponents a club to beat them with?
I don’t think that proponents deliberately caused it to fail in order to keep the political issue alive for I also don’t believe this was a purely partisan opinion by the justices. That have previously stung Madigan and other Dems with strict constructionist decisions. Both those ideas undervalue the parties and institutions involved.
Another thing we should tamp down is cynicism and suspicion within ourselves.
- Demoralized - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 2:44 pm:
==to explain why they are so certain 1)the Republican Justices’ legal arguments were wrong==
Nobody has to explain anything. They are wrong because the 4 other justices said they are wrong. That’s the way it works.
==the Democrat Justices were justified in twice refusing to use their discretion ==
You answered your own question. Look up the definition discretion.
==why they give the supermajority power a pass for their kabuki in failing to end gerrymandering on their own==
That’s just silly whining.
==A fifth grader could see how the majority was acting as partisans ==
You mean like the partisan argument you’re making?
- Demoralized - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 2:45 pm:
test.
i don’t know why my comments don’t always post.
- West Side The Best Side - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 3:15 pm:
In appellate court (that is both the Supreme and Appellate Courts - opinions, once the court has addressed an issue that will resolve a case they will not deal with other issues. For example in a criminal case if they determine that a jury was improperly selected the matter will be reversed and remanded for a new trial without going into other issues raised on appeal like leading questions, suggestive IDs, etc. Appellate level courts also don’t issue advisory opinions. I mentioned this in a previous post regarding the Aguilar case with dealt with gun laws. The SC ruled only on one section of the Agg.UUW statute and left many other gun related issues for other cases. It can be frustrating to trial judges and attorneys, but its the way the system works. Going above and beyond the issues raised on appeal would leave the courts open to the complaint that they are attempting to legislate from the bench. Just imagine the complaints over that.
- RNUG - Monday, Sep 26, 16 @ 4:22 pm:
Been busy. I’ll re-read it tonight.
I may be reading more between the lines than is there, but to me it was pretty clear … change what the Constitution says you can and only that; don’t get fancy trying to modify other duties or branches of government like they did in the latest attempt.
We know you can legally change the General Assembly; Quinn and company managed to do it.