Breaking: State Rep. Darren Bailey (R-Xenia) says he has asked an appellate court to *vacate* the restraining order he won against Illinois' stay-at-home order. (Full news release below.) #twillpic.twitter.com/UviyZ5HGjW
State Rep. Darren Bailey's lawyer has told the appellate court he consents to the lifting of the temporary restraining order entered earlier this week freeing him from Gov. Pritzker's stay-at-home restrictions. pic.twitter.com/r7ockGf84p
Gonna go back and get it to apply to everyone so he gets another friendly press pop. Gotta keep the less friendly courts from getting the case as long as possible.
Bailey: “Oh, now I got to actually -go- to church services? With the lepers? And mingle with the unwashed at Walmart? I didn’t think this through, did I?”
Someone read the State’s brief and realized they were sadly outclassed. Having the Supremes give him a spanking would be a downer for his stunt. He’s hoping mooting the action would let him play longer.
I’m not sure some of the commenters here understand this in context. Bailey isn’t retreating - on the contrary, he’s withdrawing this complaint to file a NEW one with more “evidence”/information. He wants that new content to be included so the Supreme Court of IL can refer to said information if/when the case reaches them.
1) Mr. Bailey, by saying “new evidence”, left-handedly concedes the weakness of the evidentiary aspects when facing an appeal.
You can’t withdraw and not let the ruling on its face be judged, AND claim new evidence too… it’s a tell.
2) The case served its immediate “microwave attention span” purpose, and ruining that with real legal discussions to the ruling, its meaning, the law… “the right to fish” can’t diminish the immediate gratification or tarnish the stand alone ruling.
If, and in the legal sense of this issue, Mr. Bailey refiles… I know I’m interested what was so compellingly different that was found for this new tact.
Wondering if I can file against these downstate legislators for endangering my life, health and safety? ? /s
On a more serious note, still considering requesting formal censuring for that whole illegally entering a closed state park business.
This is most likely a tactical withdrawal rather than a full scale retreat. Mr. Bailey now has the advantage of having seen the AG’s appeal to the ILSCt, which seems plenty strong enough to carry the day against the Fishing Judge’s haphazard decision. If the ILSCt accepts the AG’s appeal and then rules against Mr. Bailey, it sets precedent Mr. Bailey and his ilk don’t want to live with. Withdrawing the TRO not only avoids that immediate prospect but may also allow other cases with better prospects to move forward. All of this may well appear fairly clownish, but that doesn’t mean there’s no tactics behind it.
Learning as they go. The TRO appeared to be based mostly on the judge’s own perceptions and experience, as he openly expressed them, beyond anything brought to the hearing by Bailey and his attorney. They’re shoring it all up for a new audience.
Cabello’s needs work too, if it proceeds. Same attorney.
efudd at 11:20 was being being as old as I am — my apologies
- Don't Bloc Me In - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:30 am:
Copied from thexradio.com interview this morning:
—During the phone conversation this morning Rep. Bailey said the State is planning to appeal the filing of the temporary restraining order for technical reasons, so he asks for the dismissal of the TRO so that is not a distraction in the course of getting a hearing on whether the Governor has overstepped his authority in issuing the Stay-At-Home orders.
Bailey said there are state laws already on the books that should be guiding how Illinois deals with COVID-19.—
- Friend of the Family - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 1:16 pm:
The amount of uncertainty, anxiety and anger this stunt caused should be grounds to throw him out of office next election. These stunts have consequences for real people and society. This is not leadership but trolling all of us.
- Random Name Generator - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 1:54 pm:
Why is he doing this? He saw Mike Bost act ridiculous, and Bost keeps going to Congress. Why not act like a fool and get promoted?
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 2:21 pm:
==Bailey said there are state laws already on the books that should be guiding how Illinois deals with COVID-19.==
Like the law that allows the Governor to issue EOs?
God I wish I had paid more attention during that section on mootness. Am hoping that there is a public interest exception which would allow the appellate/supreme courts to retain and decide the appeal of this strictly legal question of gubernatorial power to issue successive declarations regarding a continuing disaster. Time is wasting and the Cabello suit is waiting in the wings but weeks behind the timeline.
- The Dude Abides - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:38 am:
Well he’s already gotten the publicity, which is all he wanted anyway.
- Ron Burgundy - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:41 am:
Gonna go back and get it to apply to everyone so he gets another friendly press pop. Gotta keep the less friendly courts from getting the case as long as possible.
- Give Us Barabbas - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:41 am:
Bailey: “Oh, now I got to actually -go- to church services? With the lepers? And mingle with the unwashed at Walmart? I didn’t think this through, did I?”
- Soccermom - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:43 am:
Darren Bailey, will you please go home?
- Precinct Captain - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:44 am:
Laura Ingraham isn’t good enough, he wants Hannity
- Norseman - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:48 am:
Someone read the State’s brief and realized they were sadly outclassed. Having the Supremes give him a spanking would be a downer for his stunt. He’s hoping mooting the action would let him play longer.
- estubborn - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:52 am:
Bailey is the Jim Lahey of the GA
- Amalia - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:59 am:
taking his ball and going home. coward.
- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:59 am:
This is not a good look for the judge who initially made the ruling.
Bailey is saying if the Supreme Court is going to look at this case, there is more information he wants to include in his filing.
Yet somehow, he was celebrating the decision of the judge who made a judgement without that information?
I hope that clay county judge has a backup career.
- All This - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:02 am:
=== Bailey is the Jim Lahey of the GA===
Then whose Randy?
- efudd - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:04 am:
Okay Bishop, run this story the next couple of days.
- XonXoff - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:04 am:
Ah man, he’s going for the Presidential re-tweet.
- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:06 am:
===Then whose Randy?===
He lost to Lauren Underwood.
- Techie - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:12 am:
I’m not sure some of the commenters here understand this in context. Bailey isn’t retreating - on the contrary, he’s withdrawing this complaint to file a NEW one with more “evidence”/information. He wants that new content to be included so the Supreme Court of IL can refer to said information if/when the case reaches them.
- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:14 am:
===Bailey isn’t retreating===
He absolutely is.
- Fixer - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:16 am:
Stringing it along for as much time in front of the camera as possible. Also, what new information?
- XonXoff - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:17 am:
Reads like “leveling up” to me.
- Oswego Willy - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:20 am:
Two very important takeaways;
1) Mr. Bailey, by saying “new evidence”, left-handedly concedes the weakness of the evidentiary aspects when facing an appeal.
You can’t withdraw and not let the ruling on its face be judged, AND claim new evidence too… it’s a tell.
2) The case served its immediate “microwave attention span” purpose, and ruining that with real legal discussions to the ruling, its meaning, the law… “the right to fish” can’t diminish the immediate gratification or tarnish the stand alone ruling.
If, and in the legal sense of this issue, Mr. Bailey refiles… I know I’m interested what was so compellingly different that was found for this new tact.
- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:23 am:
===I’m interested what was so compellingly different===
He probably saw the pricetag for having to send his lawyers to the state supreme court.
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:34 am:
Give Us Barabbas, lol. You hit the nail on the head. Plus Covid Mary of Richland County is still on the loose.
- DownSouth - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:34 am:
Wondering if I can file against these downstate legislators for endangering my life, health and safety? ? /s
On a more serious note, still considering requesting formal censuring for that whole illegally entering a closed state park business.
- Flapdoodle - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:45 am:
This is most likely a tactical withdrawal rather than a full scale retreat. Mr. Bailey now has the advantage of having seen the AG’s appeal to the ILSCt, which seems plenty strong enough to carry the day against the Fishing Judge’s haphazard decision. If the ILSCt accepts the AG’s appeal and then rules against Mr. Bailey, it sets precedent Mr. Bailey and his ilk don’t want to live with. Withdrawing the TRO not only avoids that immediate prospect but may also allow other cases with better prospects to move forward. All of this may well appear fairly clownish, but that doesn’t mean there’s no tactics behind it.
- walker - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:58 am:
Learning as they go. The TRO appeared to be based mostly on the judge’s own perceptions and experience, as he openly expressed them, beyond anything brought to the hearing by Bailey and his attorney. They’re shoring it all up for a new audience.
Cabello’s needs work too, if it proceeds. Same attorney.
- efudd - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:04 am:
“doesn’t mean there’s no tactics behind it”
Maybe, or it could be after Covid Mary from his district made news, he had a revelation.
“No one ever regretted saying, ‘Wait a minute’”- Sam Rayburn
- estubborn - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:10 am:
===Then whose Randy?===
John “Modelo” Cabello
- efudd - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:20 am:
Oh wow — a quote from Mr. Sam himself. Love it, even though it makes me feel as old as . . . well, as old as I am.
- flapdoodle - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:21 am:
efudd at 11:20 was being being as old as I am — my apologies
- Don't Bloc Me In - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:30 am:
Copied from thexradio.com interview this morning:
—During the phone conversation this morning Rep. Bailey said the State is planning to appeal the filing of the temporary restraining order for technical reasons, so he asks for the dismissal of the TRO so that is not a distraction in the course of getting a hearing on whether the Governor has overstepped his authority in issuing the Stay-At-Home orders.
Bailey said there are state laws already on the books that should be guiding how Illinois deals with COVID-19.—
- Friend of the Family - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 1:16 pm:
The amount of uncertainty, anxiety and anger this stunt caused should be grounds to throw him out of office next election. These stunts have consequences for real people and society. This is not leadership but trolling all of us.
- Random Name Generator - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 1:54 pm:
Why is he doing this? He saw Mike Bost act ridiculous, and Bost keeps going to Congress. Why not act like a fool and get promoted?
- Pot calling kettle - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 2:21 pm:
==Bailey said there are state laws already on the books that should be guiding how Illinois deals with COVID-19.==
Like the law that allows the Governor to issue EOs?
- 37B - Friday, May 1, 20 @ 4:02 pm:
God I wish I had paid more attention during that section on mootness. Am hoping that there is a public interest exception which would allow the appellate/supreme courts to retain and decide the appeal of this strictly legal question of gubernatorial power to issue successive declarations regarding a continuing disaster. Time is wasting and the Cabello suit is waiting in the wings but weeks behind the timeline.