Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives

Previous Post: Lethal weapon
Next Post: Question of the day

Madigan, Cullerton file response to Quinn on legislative pay case

Posted in:

• Illinois

* Speaker Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton have filed a response to Gov. Pat Quinn’s motion for direct appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court of the legislative pay case. The leaders want the court to take the case and then issue a summary judgement against Quinn…

1. The Governor’s constitutional argument in this case is contrived. He asks this Court to find that the drafters of the 1970 Constitution either did not know the meaning of the word “changes,” or intentionally misused that word when they prohibited mid-term “changes” in Article IV, Section I I , which provides that “changes in the salary of a member (of the General Assembly) shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected.” Specifically, he claims that when the drafters prohibited mid-term changes in legislative salaries, they did not mean “any change”, they only meant to prohibit an “increase”.

2. His second argument (and perhaps his principal one) is that the case is not “ripe” for review. This argument will be shown to be a transparent attempt to avoid an adverse ruling on his actions, which were in violation of the Constitution.

3. The Plaintiffs are reluctant to impose this appeal on this Court (in denying a stay, the trial court found it “totally meritless” (see Exhibit A to this Response, the circuit court’s ruling denying Defendant’s Motion to Stay, at p.2l)). But, regardless of its lack of merit, because it is a controversy between two branches of State government which has attracted some notoriety, we urge the Court to exercise Rule 302(b) jurisdiction over this appeal.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:53 am

Comments

1. === we urge the Court to exercise Rule 302(b) jurisdiction over this appeal ===

   Good.

   Hopefully the IL Supreme Court will forcefully nail shut the door Pat Quinn opened.

   Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 11:58 am

2. ===Hopefully the IL Supreme Court will forcefully nail shut the door Pat Quinn opened.===

   Agreed.

   No Governor should think about this tactic to begin with, so closing this door, nailing it shut, that should deter those in the Executive from trying to find any way to use this again.

   Hopefully.

   Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:05 pm

3. I’m confident the SC will rule against Quinn. If not, we’re looking at more chaos in Illinois government.

   Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:22 pm

4. So apparently, when it comes to legislative salaries, the Illinois Constitution is all-important. But when it comes to pensions, crystal-clear language prohibiting diminishment can be ignored. Am I the only one who sees the hypocricy here?

   For the record, I am glad legislators are getting their full salaries, as that was the proper ruling. Hopefully I will get my full pension.

   Comment by Andrew Szakmary Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:40 pm

5. The Gov’s move (and GA battle) may come back to haunt them when the pension cases eventually get to the Supremes.

   If “change” actually means “change” then “diminshed” might actually mean “diminshed”.

   Comment by titan Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:41 pm

6. Feel that since Quinn is appealing anyway, this is a good move on their part- get it settled once and for all.

   Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:44 pm

7. 93 comments on the rauner thread about a woman no one had heard of until today. You weren’t kidding about him generating emotion.

   Comment by Shore Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 12:51 pm

8. We are going to find the real meaning of ‘diminish’ or a new meaning for diminish is about to be declared on high.

   Comment by I'm Strapped Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:09 pm

9. I think that when Quinn appears in person before the Supreme Court, Madigan will ask them to Execute Order 66.

   Comment by alternatively Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:10 pm

10. Andrew Szakmary- Thanks for the comments. I had the same thoughts. Apparently, Madigan and Cullerton think that they can pick and choose those segments of the Illinois Constitution which suites their wishes Hopefully the Illinois Supreme Court will rule that these two political leaders must abide with the Illinois Constitution when it comes to protecting our pensions and COLAs

    Comment by Earl Shumaker Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 1:50 pm

11. The Supreme Court needs to knock down this undemocratic tactic so it can never be used again.

    Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 2:23 pm

12. Rich, any links to a copy of the response?

    Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 5:12 pm

13. All the arguments used by the GA in this case and by the State in the health insurance case about the proteciton of the State Constitution will surely be cited in the forthcoming pension case …

    Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 8, 13 @ 5:29 pm

Add a comment

Sorry, comments are closed at this time.

Previous Post: Lethal weapon
Next Post: Question of the day

Last 10 posts:

• Isabel’s afternoon roundup (11-21)
• HGOPs whacked for opposing lame duck session (11-21)
• Uber’s Local Partnership = Stress-Free Travel For Paratransit Riders (11-21)
• Report: IDOC's prison drug test found to be 'wrong 91 percent of the time' (11-21)
• SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Session update (Updated x2) (11-21)
• Illinois Supreme Court rules state SLAPP law doesn't automatically protect traditional journalism (Updated) (11-21)
• ‘This is how I reward my good soldiers’: Madigan ally testifies he was rewarded with do-nothing consulting contract (11-21)
• Illinois Supreme Court rules that Jussie Smollett's second prosecution 'is a due process violation, and we therefore reverse defendant’s conviction' (11-21)
• Dignity In Pay (HB 793): It Is Time To Ensure Fair Pay For Illinoisans With Disabilities (11-21)
• It’s just a bill (Updated) (11-21)

more Posts (Archives)

WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.

powered by WordPress.