Dueling endorsements
Wednesday, Oct 10, 2018 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The Daily Herald endorsed Sen. Kwame Raoul today…
There’s a strong argument to be made on behalf of Erika Harold, an attorney from Urbana who would make fighting corruption one of her priorities. A state like Illinois could use more corruption fighters, of course, and the likelihood of a Democratic governor being elected with a legislature controlled by Democrats increases the value of having a Republican check on its power in the attorney general’s office.
But there’s a better argument to be made on behalf of Kwame Raoul, a state senator from Chicago with a great depth of understanding of the law and the passion and experience to use it actively on behalf of the citizenry in keeping with the traditions of the attorney general’s office.
Whereas Raoul could be expected to confront federal infringement on vital Illinois interests such as clean water, the reality is that Harold would be unlikely to resist those challenges.
She argues that the job of the office is to uphold the law and thus personal views don’t enter into it. But so much of the office’s priorities are determined by the attorney general’s priorities that it’s simply inescapable that personal views would matter.
So, her standard answer backfired on her there.
* The Champaign News-Gazette recently endorsed Erika Harold…
Raoul’s attacks, while perhaps politically effective, are bizarre.
The right to get an abortion and participate in a same-sex marriage are federally guaranteed constitutional rights that are not subject to either a popular vote or veto by any public official.
Raoul appears to recognize that reality. But he insists he should be elected attorney general to protect those rights in the event they might come under legal assault sometime in the future. That’s a pretty weak argument to make.
Indeed, it smacks of obsessing about the past.
Legal abortion has been a fact of life for more than 40 years.
Same-sex marriage is relatively new, but there’ll be no turning back there either.
Society has rendered its judgment on that dramatic social change, and it’s in place to stay.
Illinoisans would be best served by a candidate who’ll address current problems and issues. That candidate is, unquestionably, Harold.
- @misterjayem - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:38 pm:
How many impossible political outcomes must one witness before one stops declaring political outcomes impossible?
– MrJM
- Former Downstater - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:40 pm:
Exactly, MrJM. Court rulings can be overturned, precedent discarded.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:42 pm:
===The right to get an abortion and participate in a same-sex marriage are federally guaranteed constitutional rights that are not subject to either a popular vote or veto by any public official.===
Citation needed.
- TKMH - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:43 pm:
For reference, the Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty nationwide for four years until reversing itself in 1976.
- Jibba - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:45 pm:
A while ago, Rich asked whether Illinois would ever be able to come back (paraphrase). If the Supremes gut abortion, worker’s rights, gay rights, environmental protection, etc., throwing them back to the states for regulation, I predict a renaissance in Illinois and other blue states if we are able to preserve our life and environment. An AG who works toward this goal will be needed it that happens, and while Erika Harold is obscuring her personal beliefs and priorities, I’m glad the DH sees through that nonsense. The NG is following the conservative playbook…downplay the problem until the conditions exist to strike everything down. I’d almost rather have no hometown paper than the NG.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:45 pm:
–Legal abortion has been a fact of life for more than 40 years.–
That statement is willfully ignorant as to how state laws have made abortion services virtually non-existent in many states.
What’s the next fairy tale? That the Illinois AG has nothing to do with drafting laws?
- Anonymous - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:46 pm:
So she gets her hometown paper’s endorsement and he gets an endorsement from the paper serving suburban moderate GOP and independent voters…..I’ll make that tradeoff if I were him.
- LakeviewJ - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:50 pm:
“That the Illinois AG has nothing to do with drafting laws?”
AKA the Bruce Rauner approach to executive office.
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:51 pm:
By your logic, I’m voting for the AG who’ll fight the British.
Judicial activism at the SC is gone, as of Monday.
- Moe Berg - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:54 pm:
What else would we expect from a newspaper that also endorsed Rauner - despite the massive harm he has done to the single most important institution, the U of I, in the paper’s circulation area and to the economic fortunes of the people/businesses located there and presumably buy that paper (or did).
- Jibba - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:55 pm:
VM…I giggle a little at your comment. What you mean is that liberal opinions are gone. Conservative judicial activism is alive and well. Precedent will be honored, but only for conservative decisions. How convenient to define the opposing point of view as “activism”, and your own point of view as correct.
- a drop in - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:56 pm:
“The right to get an abortion and participate in a same-sex marriage are federally guaranteed constitutional rights…”
Susan Collins made the same argument. I don’t believe her either.
- DarkHorse - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:59 pm:
The Daily Herald was being too nice to Harold. If her best argument is “I’ll be a check on the dominant party”, couldn’t just about any GOP make that case? It makes me think that McMahon, who considered running for AG as a Republican, but ended up securing a guilty verdict in the Van Dyke trial, would have been a far superior candidate than Harold.
- Former Downstater - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 2:00 pm:
It’s somewhat scary to see a news organization so ignorant of our laws and the reality of how they can be changed.
- Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 2:08 pm:
Democrats won the culture war on Abortion 40 years ago and on same sex marriage much more recently.
The Supreme Court has upheld both precedents multiple times.
Obergefell v Hodges the 2015 Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage was upheld again in 2017
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/06/26/supreme_court_orders_states_to_list_same_sex_couples_on_birth_certificates.html
- VanillaMan - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 2:14 pm:
==Jibba - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 1:55 pm:
VM…I giggle a little at your comment. What you mean is that liberal opinions are gone. Conservative judicial activism is alive and well. ==
You’re assuming that how Democrats have treated the SC will be how conservatives will treat the SC.
Activism, is gone. Expect a SC sending laws back to the states. The decades of forcing a federal law into existence via the SC ended. You get to decide. Ginsburg is no longer 1 of 9 royal rulers. In the future, few will care about a SC ruling because the action will be at a state level.
Conservatives won’t legislate from the SC.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 2:17 pm:
===In the future, few will care about a SC ruling because the action will be at a state level.===
Setting aside for the moment that nearly everything you just wrote is, at best, historical revisionism, you just made Raoul’s point about why Harold should be allowed no where near the Attorney General’s office.
Great work. Top notch. Have a Fresca.
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 2:35 pm:
–Judicial activism at the SC is gone, as of Monday.–
So, stare decisis?
LOL, the Federalist Society is going to be really, really angry to hear that.
- Jibba - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 2:38 pm:
I so look forward to your state-by-state patchwork quilt of rights. My friend and his husband married here but not there, not able to share a B and B in Mississippi or buy a cake anywhere in Colorado. A crazy quilt of all sorts of limitations on human rights.
I bet guns somehow stay fully legal and available everywhere and state restrictions are somehow found unconstitutional. Pot will somehow stay illegal, and precedent on unions will be overturned using twisted logic. Money will continue to equal speech, and corporations will be people. And a conservative Supreme Court will overrules a state court on who the winner of their own state election is. Not activism at all!
- Veil of Ignorance - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 3:20 pm:
When it comes to SCOTUS and what’s a constitutional right, I don’t think we can take anything as guaranteed anymore. Corporations are people, travel ban isn’t a Muslim ban despite POTUS and team publicly saying it was a Muslim ban, etc. Champaign News-Gazette’s arguments seem as disingenuous and they seem to be the ones unhinged to reality. Wake up please.
- Lester Holt’s Mustache - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 3:35 pm:
==Conservatives won’t legislate from the SC==
Hahahahaha, that’s pretty funny how you type that at the end like it’s a true statement
- walker - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 3:48 pm:
The most interventionist judicial activist in my lifetime was Justice Scalia. He had his personal floating definition of “originalism.”
- Demoralized - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 4:09 pm:
==Conservatives won’t legislate from the SC.==
I love how it’s “activism” . . . unless of course you agree with it. Then it’s not.
lol. Your argument is ridiculous.
- Pundent - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 5:15 pm:
We have witnessed some of the most contentious confirmation hearings and blatant attempts to stack the court in modern times. All motivated by one specific purpose - changing settled law.
- 5th Floor - Wednesday, Oct 10, 18 @ 5:34 pm:
I predict this election will be closer than people think. This was an imminently winnable seat for the GOP and they put up a head scratcher of a candidate. A better candidate could have won this.
- anon2 - Thursday, Oct 11, 18 @ 11:06 am:
So Kavanaugh and his four GOP colleagues can be counted on to uphold Roe v. Wade?