36 Comments - We've never had one before - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:04 am: Purchasing judges that have to be elected can be quite expensive for most of us, perhaps not to billionaires. They should hang onto these and all other cases, because: 1. if they recuse themselves, there will be no end to the other cases that they will be asked to recuse themselves. 2. if they do not recuse themselves, there will be no end to the criticism for not doing so. - Friendly Bob Adams - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:08 am: As long as we elect judges they will need to raise funds. Agree that there would be no end to searching for perceived conflicts and demands for recusal. - Huh? - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:10 am: Why should they recuse themselves? The paltry sum that Pritzker donated isn’t enough for a bought judge to stay bought. - Norseman - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:10 am: Heck no. It would be appropriate to recuse if they were dealing with personal litigation, but this is a state policy issue. It’s ridiculous to expect the justices to recuse on every state issue upon which the governor or legislative leaders have supported. If folks want to push it, let’s take a look at the donations to the MAGA GOP judges who have made these terrible rulings. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:14 am: Nope. No recusal. Why? Isn’t this a case pertaining to the constitutionality of the law, and further the offices involved, that any governor doing their constitutional duties might face legal scrutiny? You start personalizing the office to the officeholder, even cherry picking “when” this personification exists to passed/signed laws, what exactly are we saying “no judge beholden to their donors can ever be impartial?” I mean, sure, these “folks” call Pritzker a “dictator” or worse to the governing, but in actuality, the oath taken by anyone to *be* governor is the oath to uphold the constitution, and judges ruling, in this case, on constitutionality, any form of weakened “we can’t be impartial to separate the branch or office from a person”, that’s all but admitting there *is* no separating and the office in of itself becomes less, and personification is not seen or written in our constitution. Nope. No. Be specific, if there’s a conflict to say Pritzker owning a gun rancor or the opposite owns a company that is created to take guns off the street. It’s a no for me. - Nuke The Whales - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:22 am: Will conservative justices recuse themselves from cases involving Leonard Leo’s cabal of right-wing tomfoolery? No. This isn’t a serious request by Republicans. They have started doing this everywhere that liberals are standing up for themselves (I believe this has been a Republican attack line on Janet Protasiewicz in Wisconsin). - Torco Sign - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:24 am: Yes. Smell test. We know why they went to Moms Demand Action events and the effect that would have on voters. A little honesty would be refreshing. Maybe they got lost and stumbled into pictures with JB Pritzker to ask him for directions. This is a farce. - H-W - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:26 am: No, they should not “recuse themselves.” This form of recusal is a choice, not a mandate. It is not supported by law. People choose to ascend to the apex of the legal system for obvious reasons; they want to be in the room when significant decisions are made on historic cases. At the same time, people on both sides pay money because they want certain people in the room when historic decisions are made. For these justices to recuse themselves would require all other justices recuse themselves, because all campaigns have been funded by people and PACs who wanted them in the room when these historic cases come forward. Lastly, there is a clearly defined wall of separation between the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch. All relevant parties know this. The only thing that would be immoral here (and in fact illegal), is if justices can be shown to decide cases in favor of a party that paid for their elections, because they received campaign funds from that party. If a justice were willing to ignore the rule of law in order to serve the party that funded their campaigns, there would be some form of evidence, circumstantial or direct. If Center Square and others have reason to believe these two justices are unethical, or incapable of performing their jobs objectively, then Center Square and others have the right to pursue that avenue and present their cases. But in lieu of evidence, the argument is pure political philosophy devoid of substance. More generally, it is an affront to the rule of law to assume justices do this, or will do this, without any evidence to prove the argument. And when fear and/or misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation drive the courts and decide cases, heaven help us. - RNUG - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:26 am: As others point out, fund raising goes with elected judges. If you can’t take a person’s money and still say no, you shouldn’t be in the business of politics or law. And as -Norseman- points out, it’s a legislative / state statute issue, not a personal issue. If it was a personal issue, say JB’s property taxes, then I can see where judges should be recusing themselves. I’ve only know one Supreme Court Justice personally, but he was ethical and thoughtful, like you would expect any judge to be. And I’m not a fan of judges having to raise funds; it prevented my friend from marrying my wife and I because our wedding date conflicted with a fund raiser. However, elected judges do permit the people to have a direct voice instead of a political party controlling the judiciary. - TheInvisibleMan - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:27 am: Nope. It’s not like Prizker directly paid off their mortgages and credit card bills. This is the game we’ve decided to play, and there’s no reason at all for any player to not play by the same rules as all the other players. - Homebody - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:35 am: No, of course not. If only because no GOP appointed/elected judge ever would. My entire life as a 40+ year old Dems have been unilaterally disarming themselves in every fight with the GOP. … just stop it. - Hannibal Lecter - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:36 am: The Judicial Canons govern when a Judge or Justice is required to recuse themselves. Campaign contributions are not included in the scenarios laid out in the Judicial Canons. This is likely, in part, because the Judicial Canons also state that Judges or Justices shall not personally solicit or accept campaign contributions - they have campaign staff or consultants to do that. - JS Mill - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:36 am: No. Norseman x2 - DuPage - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:37 am: No. If the judges recuse themselves because of the governor’s name on this case, they will have to do the same thing on every case with the governor’s name on it. Then lawyers for almost any case that involves the state will simply add the governor at the top of the list. - Moe Berg - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:38 am: Question about the math here. According to the Sunshine database link, Rochford has $54,775.41 cash on hand as of Dec. 31. O’Brien has $16,924.05. That looks like $54.8 and $16.9, but it’s not millions and it’s not the amount either raised. Rochford’s committee appears to have raised $3.9 million total for her campaign; JB gave $1 million through two different donations. O’Brien’s committee also appears to have raised $3.9 million. JB have $1 million through two different donations. There was obviously lots of independent expenditure money in these races, but adding all that up is a project, and what outside organizations spent on candidates is outside of their control. BTW, I don’t think either should recuse. Are the two GOP justices going to recuse on cases that might cost their donors money? - Annonin' - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 9:53 am: NOPE. The money was not that important Nobody asked the guy Griffie, Nowlan and their ConfessedCongressman bought while beating Kilbride to step aside after the scandal - We've never had one before - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:01 am: The only way to quiet this at all could be for the judges to give the money back. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:03 am: ===The only way to quiet this=== lol, it’s not even a *this* It’s a *want* of a narrative. It’s a want this “this” - Gravitas - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:16 am: Judges with integrity recuse themselves for much less than accepting large campaign contributions. This is a real issue. - MOON - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:24 am: There is no Quid Pro Quo…. thus no problem. Let the Judges hear the case. - Back to the Future - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:25 am: Read the info and have to admit I did have one of those “don’t confuse me with the facts” moment, but on reflection of weighing the damage to the courts reputation and the possible inconvenience to our Governor and the Justices - - I think these Judges should recuse themselves in cases involving Mr. Pritzker. The multi million dollar contributions by the Governor was just plain bad judgement on his part. Likewise the acceptance of these large donations by these candidates also showed bad judgment on their part. Young people appear so cynical about government that our 1%ers and particularly candidates for the Illinois Supreme Court should be more sensitive to the appearance of conflicts. Both parties made this bed and both should be stuck sleeping in it. The Justices should recuse themselves in cases involving this multimillion dollar contributor. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:29 am: ===The Justices should recuse themselves in cases involving this multimillion dollar contributor.=== At what point in these 4 years will the justices be “able” to see Governor and not Contributor… are you also saying “judges can’t hear cases on the merits only dollars”? I’m not picking on you, your lone sentence there is also my argument to “no” Personifying the office. Hope you understand why I responded. - Socially DIstant Watcher - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:42 am: Is it worth repeating that the judicial canons forbid judges from ever raising money? They can authorize others to raise money on their behalf during a campaign but they aren’t supposed to be directly involved in the ask. They can greet supporters at events, they can mingle with voters, they can go grocery shopping and interact with folks there, but they have more-than-plausible-deniability that they know or care where the money came from. No recusal. - Back to the Future - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:44 am: Absolutely appreciate your response and your reasoning. Yep, I think they should recuse themselves for all the time they are on the bench. This issue was solely the responsibility of the parties involved and the problems their conduct caused is completely on them. I may be wrong on this, but I suspect that if regular citizens in Illinois were asked whether or not Judges who received multi -million dollar contributions from a party in a lawsuit should recuse themselves we would find the overwhelming answer would be “yes”. These high contributions IMHO reflect badly on our judicial system. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:50 am: ===Yep, I think they should recuse themselves for all the time they are on the bench.=== That’s an unrealistic expectation for an elected judge (or judges here) in a fair and free election. Why even have a judicial branch if the question of fair is undermining the entire process. Believing in democracy and the three branches of governing we have is based on the idea that elections matter, the rule of law matters, and process to all is fair. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:54 am: This alone… ===I may be wrong on this, but I suspect that if regular citizens in Illinois were asked whether or not Judges who received multi -million dollar contributions from a party in a lawsuit should recuse themselves we would find the overwhelming answer would be “yes”.=== 1) you’ve already judged (no pun intended) that they and the process is inherently corrupt. 2) the entire election was about who voters trusted in the bench, given their partisan labeling. The voters decided, voted, and we already know the answer. Finally… 3) a question like that, phrases like that is how we’ve gotten deniers and conspiracy theorists who don’t believe in our system. Thanks for your response. I’ll leave it here, be well. - Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 10:56 am: One thing is for sure that if Ken Griffin donated 1 million to both judges the usual suspects would be shrieking about threats to democracy and demanding recusal - Anyone Remember - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 11:00 am: No. Precedent has been “set” … https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/state_farm_to_pay_250m_to_settle_suit_claiming_it_orchestrated_win_of_justi - sulla - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 11:01 am: “They can greet supporters at events, they can mingle with voters, they can go grocery shopping and interact with folks there, but they have more-than-plausible-deniability that they know or care where the money came from.” Oh, come on. “Golly Gee, I’m a judicial candidate and I totally have NO IDEA that my golfing buddy wrote a check to my campaign. My hand-picked campaign fundraising staff is totally not keeping me updated on a daily basis about my campaign’s fundraising status.” If my eyes roll any harder, I’ll do a cartwheel. - northsider (the original) - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 11:07 am: No recusal. The Governor is named in this suit in a governmental capacity, not as JBP personally. If he were to resign tomorrow, Acting Gov Stratton would be substituted as defendant. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 11:17 am: ===if Ken Griffin=== Ken Griffin has never had, nor ever will have, an elected office in Illinois, let alone sign legislation into law. Go back to bed, start your day over. - froganon - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 11:26 am: No recusal. This is the system we have. Trump/Republican judges deliver for their donors and supporters regularly; witness the upending of established laws on abortion, voting and environmental regulations. The All State link is a ridiculous comparison. The verdict that comes from this lawsuit doesn’t go into his pocket, it affects public policy about which Pritzker and the majority of voters have have widely known opinions. I know exactly why I voted for both judges and I expect that they will rule accordingly within the legal framework we have. - froganon - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 11:43 am: No recusal. This is the system we have. Trump/Republican judges deliver for their donors and supporters regularly; witness the upending of established laws on abortion, voting and environmental regulations. The All State link is a ridiculous comparison. No verdict that comes from this lawsuit goes into Pritzker’s pocket, it affects public policy about which Pritzker and the majority of voters have have widely known opinions. I know exactly why I voted for both judges and I expect that they will rule accordingly within the legal framework we have. - Dotnonymous - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 1:01 pm: “This man just doesn’t know when you be quiet.” TD That makes two of you. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 1:09 pm: ===According to the Illinois Sunshine database, Justice Mary K. O’Brien reported raising $16.9 million and Justice Elizabeth Rochford reported raising $54.8 million.=== Moe Berg is right, these numbers are off by a factor of ten, at least. If a candidate for Supreme Court in Illinois raised $54.8 million, I think I would have read about it here. - Shytown - Thursday, Mar 9, 23 @ 3:13 pm: This is ridiculous. Republicans are perfectly fine with Trump appointed judges ruling on cases that are split down partisan lines, so too bad. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.