Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Dems will revisit Dorothy Brown slating
Posted in:
* From the Illinois Policy Institute…
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether the government can force government workers to pay union fees to keep their jobs when the court issues its ruling in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a lawsuit brought by a group of California public-school teachers.
Many groups and individuals want the court to listen to their views on this issue. Last month, 25 amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs were filed in support of the plaintiffs, including an amicus brief from the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of three Illinois state workers who object to coerced union fees. And many people and groups will weigh in on the other side as well.
But there’s one person with an interest in this important case whose views Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan believes the court should not consider: Gov. Bruce Rauner, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of himself and a group of Illinois public-school employees who object to forced union fees.
After Rauner filed his brief, Madigan’s office took a most unusual action: It filed a letter with the Supreme Court insisting that Rauner had no authority to file a brief expressing his views on this issue without Madigan’s permission. The letter points to provisions of state law and state court decisions that say that only the attorney general may represent the state before the Supreme Court or represent the state or its officials in court cases in which the state “is the real party in interest.”
Madigan’s claim has some problems.
First, the idea that Rauner should have to go through Madigan to express his views on this issue is absurd. The governor is a citizen with First Amendment rights, and he is entitled to submit an amicus brief stating his views on the issue like anyone else. His brief made clear that it expressed his own views, not those of the state. And it’s well known that Rauner’s views on this issue – which favor workers’ freedom to choose whether to give money to a union – are the opposite of Madigan’s, whose campaigns have received substantial funding from government-worker unions that rely on coerced fees from government employees. In fact, as Rauner’s counsel pointed out in a response letter, Madigan has opposed Rauner on this very issue in more than one lawsuit.
The amicus brief is here. The AG’s initial response is here.
They’re absolutely correct that the “governor is a citizen with First Amendment rights, and he is entitled to submit an amicus brief stating his views on the issue like anyone else.”
I totally agree.
* But, as always, there’s an inconvenient fact that the Institute omitted. From the Solicitor General’s response about the governor’s state counsel, with emphasis added…
Mr. Barclay and Mr. Murashko claim that Governor Rauner submitted his amicus brief “in his individual capacity. ” But the brief makes no such claim, and its contentions do not relate to the interests of the Governor personally. In fact, both the brief and the letter explain that Governor Rauner’s interest in this matter derives from the fact that, as Governor, he oversees the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and supervises much of the State’s workforce. Moreover, it would be unlawful for Mr. Barclay and Mr. Murashko, while acting as state employees paid from public tax revenues, to represent Mr. Rauner in his individual capacity in any matter.
Notice that highlighted word? Do you think Illinois’ Solicitor General uses that word lightly - in a letter to the United States Supreme Court, no less?
Yikes.
* So, which is it? Are they perhaps breaking the law to write private briefs on state time, or are they representing the governor in his official capacity? It can’t be both, and the AG’s office says they can’t do the latter. Back to the Solicitor General…
Finally, Mr . Barclay and Mr . Murashko are mistaken in their assertion that the First Amendment authorizes them to file briefs on behalf of the Illinois Governor or gives the Governor the authority to direct their filing. This Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects private speech, not speech by government officials. See, e.g., Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-68 (2009). The State of Illinois has the power to determine who speaks for the State in specific matters. For purposes of litigation, the State’s Constitution and statutes, see 15 ILCS 205/1, et seq., make the Illinois Attorney General the voice of the State and its officials.
…Adding… We have some (I believe) deliberately obtuse commenters who are trying to muddy the waters. So, click here and read the governor’s counsel admit that they submitted the amicus brief for Rauner “in his individual capacity,” and reveal that he is “expressing his own views.”
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:37 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Dems will revisit Dorothy Brown slating
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The first very clear indication that when he wants to, no matter it’s perception, Rauner wants the Office of the Governor to be his personal platform to destroy unions.
Rauner will put forth the Office’s power and influence in twisted ways to advocate for the dismantling of unions, but will then go out of his way to complain for thibgs tgat matter less that his hands are tied.
It’s the prestige of the Office of Governor that Rauner hopes to advocate against unions, not the humbling man from Wilmette asking to be heard on that case. That’s the difference.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:43 pm
Governor going his own direction with his own attorneys on the state’s dime. Sounds Blagovechian…
Comment by Qui Tam Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:43 pm
I think that the Rauner Administration has caused me to appreciate General Madigan as a public servant and a professional more.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:45 pm
Oh, that pesky Constitution. In the way of progress again.
Comment by Bruce (No not him) Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:46 pm
Burn
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:49 pm
===But, as always, there’s an inconvenient fact that the Institute omitted.===
IPI, generating its own reality since 2009.
The Governor’s lawyers must have flunked logic. Either Rauner can file a brief as a private citizen, in which case he needs to get his own lawyer; or, as Governor, he is prohibited from filing a brief without the Attorney General’s permission.
That’s not really difficult to understand.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:50 pm
Just more gotcha politics which solve no problems
Comment by Salvador Dali Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:51 pm
Good for both Madigans.
In this case — and with the budget.
Rauner needs to be forcefully reminded that the shiny new car he managed to commandeer 9 months has brakes — and that he’s legally required to use them.
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:51 pm
Proof again that Brucie doesn’t understand or care about the structure of government.
Comment by D.P.Gumby Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:52 pm
I opened the brief. It says on the first page, “Bruce Rauner, Governor of Illinois”. How is that personal? Why would you put your title on there if it was personal?
Comment by 360 Degree TurnAround Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:52 pm
The Supreme Court is really not the venue to showboat.
Call a press conference.
No, maybe not. Might have to think on his feet and answer questions off script.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:53 pm
It’s not the title being “misused”
It’s that the brief has the absolute appearance to be sonething written with the full weight and pier of the Office behind it, not the person holding said office.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:55 pm
Once again our Governor proves his lack of understanding on how government works. He thinks the rules do not apply to him-and displays that daily.
Comment by chiagr Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:55 pm
“power”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:56 pm
This is the kind of thing that happens when you are used to doing whatever the heck you want whenever the heck you want. Try consulting professionals who have experience in government to prevent you from breaking the law…
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:58 pm
==Just more gotcha politics which solve no problems==
Are you referring to the AG’s reaction to the Governor’s brief, or to the Governor’s brief?
Comment by Anon. Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:58 pm
Just another well thought out plan by BVR and the superstars he controls.
Comment by Flynn's Mom Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 1:59 pm
That constitutional legal stuff keeps getting in the way of making progress.
Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:00 pm
When you pick up the phone to clout your denied Winnetka-Living daughter into Payton Prep, around the rules, what’s wrong with a letter, that appears to be from the Office of the Illinois Governor, trying to advocate a strongly held personal position?
When I think of it that way, I’m not really all that shocked or surprised Rauner wants the clout of the office behind his “personal” advocacy.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:03 pm
“Just more gotcha politics which solve no problems”
Just more victim commentary which adds nothing substantive to the discussion.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:03 pm
As 360 stated. It’s on the first page of the brief, for goodness sakes!
BRIEF OF BRUCE RAUNER, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:03 pm
“Unions and litigation are killing this state, and since I’m too incompetent to build support against them, I’m going to sue!”
Comment by Daniel Plainview Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:03 pm
These children playing lawyers are a disgrace. But from what I know, our Governor wouldn’t listen to a competent constitutional lawyer.
Comment by Archiesmom Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:05 pm
Lisa Madigan is over-reaching on this. First of all, despite her representations, Rauner filed the brief as Governor, not on behalf of the State or its People. Second, as it relates to these circumstances, the Illinois AG Act says only that it is her “duty” to “defend all actions and proceedings against any State officer, in his official capacity. . . .” Like many Attorneys General before her, Madigan would like this to mean that she and only she can represent the Governor. But that’s not what the statute says. It provides only that she has a “duty,” which is a very different thing than “exclusive authority.” Additionally, the “duty” relates to “defending” a state officer. It does not relate to representing a state officer in a case in which he/she is not a defendant. Madigan (like some of her predecessors) is trying to contort the statute to hold her fellow constitutional officers hostage to her whim, but the statute itself very clearly says otherwise.
Comment by ChiTownSeven Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:05 pm
For both the governor and the IPI, the ends justify the means. Understand that. Everything is permissible; the credo of the zealot and the fanatic. It’s not that they don’t understand how government works, or know what is the truth, it’s that they don’t care if those niceties get in the way of accomplishing their goals.
Comment by Willie Stark Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:09 pm
From page 12 of the Amicus Brief (more victimhood from the Guv and distortion of reality):
“The issue began when the General Assembly
submitted to the Governor an unbalanced budget, in
violation of the Illinois Constitution.”
*****
Who first submitted an unbalanced budget????
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:09 pm
===Moreover, it would be unlawful for Mr. Barclay and Mr. Murashko, while acting as state employees paid from public tax revenues, to represent Mr. Rauner in his individual capacity in any matter.===
That was from the Solicitor General, not the Attorney General.
Kinda throws cold water on your argument …
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:11 pm
My Comment was to - ChiTownSeven -
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:13 pm
Law, the law? We don’t care about no stinkin law, signed Bruce.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:13 pm
You almost have to feel sorry for the governor …. almost. This is what, the fifth or sixth time he’s taken a position that clearly emanated from the very shallow pool which is the IPI think tank only to be utterly burned. However, you can’t feel sorry for him because, he’s the governor for Christ’s sake! Do some checking, some review of the law, maybe even run their pretzelogical blibber-blabber by someone just to see if it really is just smoke being emitted from the IPI’s collective fourth point of contact. But he didn’t, did he: just scooped up their ideological dung and flung it, this time at the highest court in the land. Good lord! And we thought Blogo made Illinois look foolish. YEESH!
Comment by Springfieldish Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:16 pm
It appears Rauner’s people researched this as thoroughly as they did the impact of the cuts to childcare.
Comment by Cubs in '15 Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:17 pm
By the way, when is the general counsel going to learn some Illinois law?
Comment by Keyrock Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:19 pm
From both viewpoints, we have trench warfare.
Comment by Aldyth Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:21 pm
“By the way, when is the general counsel going to learn some Illinois law?”
As an extension of your question, mine is “Does General Counsel have an Illinois license?
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:24 pm
Oswego Willy — your statement “. . . individual capacity. . . cold water” misapprehends the difference between “individual capacity” and “official capacity.”
A lawsuit in Bruce’s individual (or personal) capacity would relate to his personal affairs — e.g., a lawsuit relating to the fact that he claimed 2 homestead exemptions. A lawsuit in Bruce’s official capacity would relate to affairs arising from his Office — e.g., this lawsuit. As far as I can tell from the Amicus Brief, Rauner filed the brief in his official capacity — not his individual (personal) capacity. Madigan’s touting of the term “individual capacity” as a way of casting aspersions on the Governor’s lawyer is pure chicanery.
Comment by ChiTownSeven Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:25 pm
==Rauner filed the brief as Governor, not on behalf of the State or its People==
That doesn’t even make sense. If he’s filing as the Governor then he most certainly is, by default, filing it on behalf of the state.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:27 pm
=From both viewpoints, we have trench warfare.=
Huh? The US SC, The Gov, The AG?
Comment by Qui Tam Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:28 pm
Barclay was admitted to the Illinois bar in May 2015.
Comment by Archiesmom Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:28 pm
On this issue, the AG is accurate and correct. The Governor seeks to submit a brief because of impact on his duties and frankly the SCOTUS does not accept friendly briefs from just any citizen. They would only read it because it gives a Governor’s views. He needed permission or needed to make it abundantly clear to the Court that this was only Rauner - American Citizen ….
And…. if so, he should not be using state employees to do his personal work…..
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:29 pm
Loved all of the “unbiased” news coverage cited in the Appendix. /s
Comment by Anon221 Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:29 pm
Clarification to my 2:28 comment - I’m sure Barclay waived into the Illinois bar, so he doesn’t have to know a darned thing about Illinois law.
Comment by Archiesmom Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:33 pm
Barclay seems to have violated the State Ethics Act. Date admitted (waived from IN) to bar: May 20, 2015!
Comment by barnone Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:40 pm
How many unlawful acts can he lawfully do?
Comment by Say It Ain't So!! Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:40 pm
- ChiTownSeven -
===Finally, Mr . Barclay and Mr . Murashko are mistaken in their assertion that the First Amendment authorizes them to file briefs on behalf of the Illinois Governor or gives the Governor the authority to direct their filing. This Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects private speech, not speech by government officials===
Solicitor General.
Thoughts?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:41 pm
I wonder what the remedy is–does Court have to grant permission for an Amicus brief to be filed? Have they already been granted that? I also wonder what the purpose is. Since this brief doesn’t seem to add anything of value to the appeal, it appears to be just a political ploy.
Comment by Orzo Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:42 pm
I’m surprised in the number of illogical and non-sensical comments on this post to what appears to be a fairly straightforward issue. - BVR got caught with his pants down. Yet we have wierd comments form Aldyth @ 2:21, Chi-town Seven @2:05, Salvador Dali @ 1:51. ???
Comment by Qui Tam Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:43 pm
Does this obviously amateur move have any impact on the way the Court views the overall case?
Comment by Frenchie Mendoza Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:45 pm
So what are the consequences here with that “unlawful” tag being thrown at Rauner’s attorneys? are they going to be prosecuted? an ardc complaint filed? what?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:48 pm
Amateur hour administration
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:48 pm
“I opened the brief. It says on the first page, “Bruce Rauner, Governor of Illinois”. How is that personal? Why would you put your title on there if it was personal?”
More than that, it’s “Bruce Rauner, Governor of Illinois,” AND “Kaneland, Illinois, Unified School District #302″
How, by any stretch of the term, is this personal? Shaking my head.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:49 pm
I remember some on this site in the first week of Rauner’s administration lauding the Rauner legal team for bringing competency back to the Governor’s office. That was insulting, given the highly professional and first class work done by Ted Chung and then John Schomberg for Gov. Quinn. It was apparently also an overestimation of Rauner’s counsel if this incident is any indication of the legal advice Gov. Rauner is receiving. Of course it could be that Rauner simply doesn’t listen to advice he doesn’t like.
Comment by slow down Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:56 pm
Hey - anyone over there in the administration know anything about, you know, the law?
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:58 pm
Rauner accuses Democrats of violating the law on balanced budgets, and now he violates the law on representing the State before the SCOTUS without AG approval. Pot, meet kettle.
Comment by nona Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:58 pm
If you’ll recall Rauner’s legal eagles thought he had standing on fair share, as well.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 2:59 pm
==15 ILCS 205/1, et seq., make the Illinois Attorney General the voice of the State and its officials.==
That seems to sum it up for this particular issue.
Maybe someone on the Governor’s staff has done the research and understands these issues. Maybe not. But what the Governor’s office seems to miss most of the time is there are people with institutional or historical knowledge will actually check up on what they’re saying. Pick an issue; Holding onto union dues, closing the Museum, his new pension proposals, selling the Thompson Center, etc.
You’d think after being shown to have such little knowledge of how things work so many times, they’d be a little more cautious before rolling out a new idea or making public comments.
Of course that assumes they WANT to learn.
Comment by Sangamo Sam Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:01 pm
It is interesting how Rauner was unable to find an Attorney in Illinois to be his General Counsel. He hires someone who has never read the State Constitution, as he was schooled and licensed in Virginia, then did a stint in Indiana. He just moved to Illinois. Is he some sort of Upward Mobility Hire with on the Job Training? Clearly the A-teams need for their big salaries is greatly exaggerated. Rauner fiddles away our taxdollars as the JRTC falls apart.
Comment by Beaner Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:01 pm
Various questions:
=I wonder what the remedy is =. I asked an appellate lawyer, who said SCOTUS could strike the amicus brief, but was more likely to ignore it.
=Does this obviously amateur move have any impact on the way the Court views the overall case =. No
=So what are the consequences here with that “unlawful” tag being thrown at Rauner’s attorneys? are they going to be prosecuted? an ardc complaint filed? =. The AG could file ethics charges against the lawyers. But she won’t.
Comment by Archiesmom Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:03 pm
=== Just more gotcha politics which solve no problems ===
It may not solve any problems, but it does expose Rauner’s operational tactics and his disregard for the rule of law!
Comment by forwhatitsworth Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:03 pm
NickName nails it: the brief was filed by Governor in his official capacity. And to be clear: a Governor can go to court without necessarily representing the State or its People.
Oswego Willy: I’m pretty sure that the claim re: Gov’s 1st Amendment rights came from the IPI, not from the gov’s lawyers. Anyone claiming that the Gov has a 1st amendment right to file the brief is over-reaching. The better and stronger argument is that the the AG ACT does not give the AG the exclusive authority to represent the Governor when he files an amicus brief with SCOTUS. Check out the statute and you’ll see what I mean.
Comment by ChTownSeven Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:06 pm
I was recently told by an attorney in a long-running and high-dollar case brought by the state that the state’s lawyers filed a motion asking for a three-month delay in proceedings because they couldn’t pay their staff. Wonder how many of these cases are languishing while this garbage is going on?
Comment by Archiesmom Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:09 pm
- ChiTownSeven -
Your comment;
===Lisa Madigan is over-reaching on this. First of all, despite her representations, Rauner filed the brief as Governor, not on behalf of the State or its People. Second, as it relates to these circumstances,…===
My response?
======Moreover, it would be unlawful for Mr. Barclay and Mr. Murashko, while acting as state employees paid from public tax revenues, to represent Mr. Rauner in his individual capacity in any matter.===
That’s the Solicitor General.
Your Comment…
===. As far as I can tell from the Amicus Brief, Rauner filed the brief in his official capacity===
My response…
======Finally, Mr . Barclay and Mr . Murashko are mistaken in their assertion that the First Amendment authorizes them to file briefs on behalf of the Illinois Governor or gives the Governor the authority to direct their filing. This Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects private speech, not speech by government officials===
Your latest comment…
=== The better and stronger argument is that the the AG ACT does not give the AG the exclusive authority to represent the Governor when he files an amicus brief with SCOTUS. ===
Please pick a lane. Seriously.
Is it personal, “in his capacity”. You’re talking in circles, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:16 pm
What is this mans absolute obsession with unions?
Comment by Jack Stephens Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:17 pm
Rauner’S response to the AG: L’etat c’est moi!
Comment by Truthteller Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:17 pm
Oswego Willy — try to follow along. It ain’t complicated:
The Gov filed in his official capacity. He does not file in his individual/personal capacity. What part of this don’t you understand?
In the face of official capacity, AG claims: No, he filed in his individual/personal capacity. And you, OW, take this claim as Gospel. Only one problem: nothing in the Amicus Brief is consistent with personal/individual capacity.
No one is talking in circles on this. I’m simply reading the brief and the AG Act. You might want to do the same, and then tell me:
1. Where in the Amicus Brief is anything written to suggest Bruce Rauner did not submit it in his official capacity, but instead submitted it in his personal capacity?
2. Where in the AG Act does it say or even suggest that only the AG may represent the Governor (or any other state official) when he/she wants to file an amicus brief? Remember, words have meanings, and “duty” does not mean “exclusive authority.”
Comment by ChiTownSeven Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:33 pm
So the Solicitor General, a position appointed by AG Madigan, holds the same opinion as AG Madigan. I’m shocked, SHOCKED!
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:35 pm
” unlawful ” allegation may trigger ARDC issues
Comment by x ace Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:36 pm
As an avid Union supporter, this means zero. Lisa is merely trying to secure Union support for her gubernatorial ambitions..the only way unions survive is to put your money were your mouth is, and shop Union.. It isn’t easy, but it can be done. We don’t need politicians to protect us us, we can and will through our actions.period!
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:37 pm
===The Gov filed in his official capacity. He does not file in his individual/personal capacity. What part of this don’t you understand?===
I understand, as does the Solicitor General;
===Finally, Mr . Barclay and Mr . Murashko are mistaken in their assertion that the First Amendment authorizes them to file briefs on behalf of the Illinois Governor or gives the Governor the authority to direct their filing. This Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects private speech, not speech by government officials. See, e.g., Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-68 (2009). The State of Illinois has the power to determine who speaks for the State in specific matters. For purposes of litigation, the State’s Constitution and statutes,…===
So there’s that…
===1. Where in the Amicus Brief is anything written to suggest Bruce Rauner did not submit it in his official capacity, but instead submitted it in his personal capacity?
2. Where in the AG Act does it say or even suggest that only the AG may represent the Governor (or any other state official) when he/she wants to file an amicus brief? Remember, words have meanings, and “duty” does not mean “exclusive authority.”===
I refer you to the above grab from the Solicitor General.
My point?
Pick a lane, they’re both dead end lanes, but…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:38 pm
The following is snark and a poor attempt at comedy…
Hello, I am Bruce Rauner, Governor of Illinois. But I am not here in my official capacity as Governor of Illinois, but as a concerned citizen. Right now, countless union members are paying dues. Isn’t that outrageous? That is why I, not as the Governor of Illinois, but as a concerned citizen, am having state of Illinois lawyers file briefs with the Supreme Court. Because unions, like poor people, have no right to exist. At least not where I, Mr Bruce Rauner, not Governor Bruce Rauner, have to acknowledge them. Signed, Bruce Rauner, Governor of Illinois
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:40 pm
Willy, you’re acting like the Solicitor General is some independent voice in all of this. She’s not, SHE’s PART OF THE AG’s OFFICE.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:41 pm
Do not feed ” - Anonymous - ” Trolls…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:42 pm
===The State of Illinois has the power to determine who speaks for the State in specific matters. For purposes of litigation, the State’s Constitution and statutes, see 15 ILCS 205/1, et seq., make the Illinois Attorney General the voice of the State and its officials.===
Chitownseven disagrees with the Solicitor General on this. Hmmm, who should I believe? An anonymous commenter responding to another anonymous commenter, or Carolyn Shapiro, the Solicitor General, writing to the United States Supreme Court?
Yep, that’s a tough one. I’m going go with Shapiro on this. Sorry chitownseven.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:46 pm
In the word of the late, great Bill, “oops.”
Comment by Cheswick Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:47 pm
===…responding to another anonymous commenter,…===
Wow, - 47th Ward -,…
you do know… how to cut me to the quick…
lol.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:48 pm
I’m nearly certain that there is precedent which says when the AG and a Constitutional are at odds the Constitutional may choose their own representation.
Unless Madigan wants to support and argue in favor of Rauner’s position herself, she should back off.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:55 pm
“You see things; and you say ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say ‘Why not pretend the Constitution says what I want it to?’”
- George Bernard Rauner
Comment by Juvenal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:56 pm
If one looks at the brief you will see that it is filed by the Governor and the administrative support staff of Kaneland CUSD #302. There were no teachers belonging to THE KANELAND EDUCATION ASSOCIATION IEA/NEA that were named in this brief. Moreover, the Kaneland IEA local specifically in its current contract states:
“Professional employees shall have the right to form, join, or assist professional employees’
organizations, to participate in professional negotiations with the School Board through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other legal activities, individually
or in concert, for the purpose of establishing, maintaining, protecting or improving
conditions of professional service. Professional employees shall also have the right to
refrain from any or all of such activities as stated above.”
The idea of forced unionization is not exactly consistent with the Kaneland Association which specifically grants its teachers the right not to participate in union activities. The current contract also states that the administrative support staff are not part of the association. There are many reasons to object to this AMICI brief beyond to those being raised by the AG.
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:57 pm
- Political Animal -,
Does Rauner have actual “standing”…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:58 pm
Barclay and Murashako, in their response to the Solicitor General’s first letter and on behalf of Bruce Rauner, claim that Rauner filed the brief in his individual (i.e. Personal) capacity. ChiTownSeven, this can be found in the correspondence linked in the posting.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:58 pm
@- ChiTownSeven - Learn the meaning of words and then get back to us.
Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 3:59 pm
“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” — Richard Nixon, May 19, 1977
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:00 pm
Yup, they cited the case:
“When the attorney general is in conflict with another state executive official, such as the governor, the courts have held [B]“attorney general must yield to the other official’s choice of counsel,”[/B] Barclay and Murashko wrote, citing the case of Suburban Cook County Regional Office of Education v. Cook County Board.”
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:03 pm
No offense Willy. Lots of us are anonymous. For all I know, chiseven is Bill Kunstler, lol.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:04 pm
-OW-,
Why do you need standing for an amicus?
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:04 pm
===ots of us are anonymous. For all I know, chiseven is Bill Kunstler, lol.===
Well played!
- Political Animal -,
Interesting.
Is that as Governor, this “standing”?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:06 pm
Really big sigh …
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:07 pm
- Political Animal -,
I’m just confused…
Is Rauner saying he’s filing as Governor, in that capacity, or as a private citizen, and if it doesn’t matter, as you say, that Rauner has… “standing”… I’m just confused at the importance that the Office of the Governor is involved… or is it private citizen Rauner with state employee lawyers…
Dizzying, isn’t it?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:09 pm
He had his official Counsel draft the brief on official time. For me that means it’s the Office of the Governor writing the amicus, so I think they’re wrong on that one.
But I still think he has the right, as Governor, to have his Attorney’s draft his amicus if the AG is at odds, which she most clearly is.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:12 pm
- Political Animal -,
Now the haze is lifting a bit.
What about…
===Finally, Mr . Barclay and Mr . Murashko are mistaken in their assertion that the First Amendment authorizes them to file briefs on behalf of the Illinois Governor or gives the Governor the authority to direct their filing. This Court has repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects private speech, not speech by government officials. See, e.g., Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-68 (2009). The State of Illinois has the power to determine who speaks for the State in specific matters. For purposes of litigation,…===
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:15 pm
If you read the ag’s letter to scotus clerk, it becomes very clear this is a separation of powers issue. Guv can’t sue or represent state in a question of constitutionality. It’s not in the executive branch’s authority to that. So, Guv can’t claim to have been harmed or need redress on an issue that he can’t represent the state on. The only way he can claim harm is as a private citizen. Which means those 2 lawyers shouldn’t have filed those briefs.
Comment by Tec Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:16 pm
In other words, Bruce Rauner the individual can file an amicus brief but not using employees being compensated with public dollars.
Bruce Rauner the Office of the Governor can use public employees to draft a brief, but he is only filing on behalf of the Governor, not the State of Illinois.
If we had Bruce Rauner Governor being backed by AG Madigan, we’d have an amicus from the State.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:16 pm
Not so sure Suburban Cook County is applicable.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:19 pm
Oh I don’t think anyone is disputing that Rauner can hire his own private attorneys to draft the Amicus Brief.
It’s when you have state employees doing it on state time that the problem arises.
Comment by GraduatedCollegeStudent Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:19 pm
===Bruce Rauner the Office of the Governor can use public employees to draft a brief, but he is only filing on behalf of the Governor, not the State of Illinois.===
Isn’t the Office of the Governor constitutionally linked to the state of Illinois?
How can the Office of the Governor seperate itself?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:20 pm
Guess Bruce skipped taking the computerized Ethics Test …
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:24 pm
Not surprising.
Comment by Jorge Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:25 pm
Willie, to date, the governor’s office has done a remarkable job separating itself from any responsibilities in the operations of tne state of Illinois.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:25 pm
Oswego Willy — you disappoint me. I asked you to point me to any part of the Amicus Brief that suggests Bruce Rauner filed it in his personal capacity. Instead, you quote the Solicitor General, who is hired by and answers to the AG.
I asked you to cite that portion of the Illinois Attorney General Act that gives the AG exclusive authority to represent a constitutional officer in every case whatsoever, and you didn’t answer that one at all.
Not like you. . . . Maybe you need an iron supplement?
Comment by ChiTownSeven Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:26 pm
===Willie, to date, the governor’s office has done a remarkable job separating itself from any responsibilities in the operations of tne state of Illinois.===
I walked right into that one… lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:27 pm
I should clarify my 4:16 statement. The AG is allowed to question constitutionality of laws. The Guv has to go through AG in order to garuntee separation of powers. Look back at PQ’s attempt to withhold GA members’pay. The AG said “no” that is unconstitutional. And both offices were held by democrats. So political animal, I think your 4:16 assertion is incorrect.
Comment by Tec Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:28 pm
-OW-,
Because the Office of the Governor is one branch of the State. I think if he wanted to file as “the State of Illinois” he may need the AG. Even that’s a grey area because he’s not being “represented” legally and isn’t a party to the suit.
In a separated powers system, you can and will have branches at odds over legal and political questions.
The case I cited above gives precedent for the idea that a Constitutional can have a different counsel if he’s at odds with the AG. If they couldn’t, why would constitutionals even need their own lawyers? The obvious answer is that since the AG isn’t appointed by the Gov the AG may at times be at odds and there needs to be some method of resolution.
-Tec-,
You don’t need standing or harm to file an amicus brief.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:28 pm
=== asked you to point me to any part of the Amicus Brief that suggests Bruce Rauner filed it in his personal capacity===
Go here and shut the heck up already https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4Bi-iePG1O6bmMxT1MyODU1aUU/view?usp=sharing
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:29 pm
- ChiTownSeven -
===The State of Illinois has the power to determine who speaks for the State in specific matters. For purposes of litigation, the State’s Constitution and statutes, see 15 ILCS 205/1, et seq., make the Illinois Attorney General the voice of the State and its officials===
Thoughts?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:31 pm
ChiTownSeven would seem to be following the Mobius Strip of logic followed by the Gov’s attys in the way they intended. Once on, you cannot get off.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:36 pm
Again, this isn’t litigation.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:37 pm
To the update,
Bizarre that the lawyers are state employees, the continued referencing of “Governor”, and submitting the amicus brief for Rauner “in his individual capacity,” and reveal that he is “expressing his own views.”.
Rauner really hates unions.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:38 pm
Kind of like this: http://www.mcescher.com/gallery/recognition-success/mobius-strip-ii/
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:38 pm
-Tec-
Respectfully, please stop. It’s not a separation of powers issue. Not in the slightest. State Ethics Act issue. 5 ILCS 430 Et. Seq. Scotus will do nothing. No one will prosecute Barclay for ethics act violation. End of story really.
Lawyered
Comment by Lawyered Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:39 pm
===Again, this isn’t litigation.===
Again, this is, according to the AG’s office, about using significant state resources/employees for personal matters.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:40 pm
==Rauner really hates unions.==
I hadn’t noticed. /s
Comment by AC Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:42 pm
===Bruce Rauner the Office of the Governor can use public employees to draft a brief, but he is only filing on behalf of the Governor, not the State of Illinois.===
====Isn’t the Office of the Governor constitutionally linked to the state of Illinois?====
It was a typo, it was supposed to read:
BRUCE RAUNER, Governor of Plutocristan.
There, problem solved.
Comment by Qui Tam Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:43 pm
Hmmm…in reading the link Rich posted I don’t think they ever claimed that Governor is filing in an individual PRIVATE capacity, but rather in an individual OFFICIAL capacity as the Governor. They specifically reference his “supreme executive power” and they cite at least two cases which say that Constitutionals may pick their own counsel if they’re at odds with AG. They also lay out quite clearly that the AG is at odds with Gov on issue.
The whole argument hinges on the fact that he’s filing as Gov, not as state, so I think the IPI is misrepresenting Barclay’s argument quite badly.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:45 pm
Rich,
It’s not a personal matter. He’s the Governor filing an opinion, with no active state interest, as the Governor using Governor’s Office employees.
I encourage everyone to read Barclay’s response directly rather than relying on the IPI.
Comment by Political Animal Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:48 pm
===Again, this is, according to the AG’s office, about using significant state resources/employees for personal matters.===
The next thing you know, someone might FOIA the emails from both attorneys…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:49 pm
First he uses a government flack to pass out his personal tax returns and now government lawyers to draft his missive and file it…..
Wonder if there was a filing fee?
Comment by Anonin' Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:53 pm
Not necessarily litigation, but still a legal brief written by legal professionals representing a state official (or not; they argue both, even though they cannot - alternative pleading is not applicable for such arguments).
Suburban Cook County is (arguably) not applicable as that case involved funding specific to the superintendent’s office. The Friedrichs case’s applicability/link to the functions of the office of Governor of Illinois is much more attenuated. Also, where was the court appointment of these attorneys? We have procedures to prevent misuse.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:54 pm
Has she weighed in yet on the unconstitutional $ adjustments for the GA during session?
I thought she was dedicated to ==protecting the Constitution== and all that. /s
This is going to be a lot of reading for tonight…
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 4:55 pm
Rauner: I am filing as Governor of Illinois.
AG: You can’t file as Governor of Illinois without my agreement.
Rauner: I was filing in my personal capacity.
AG: You can’t use state attorneys and resources to file in your personal capacity.
Rauner: I was filing as Governor of Illinois.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 5:11 pm
Someone needs to leave a copy of Catch-22 on the doorsteps of the mansion. It may not help the governor out of this mess, but it may help him avoid the next.
Comment by AC Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 5:17 pm
Anonymous 5:11 - thanks for the laugh. I needed it to repair my equanimity after plowing through the bickering above. Pretty succinct.
Comment by Archiesmom Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 5:25 pm
I am laughing my rear end off at all this legal-eagle lawyer talk. Who can use the most Latin buzzwords. Hey, Pope Francis left three weeks ago and Union membership is at an all time low(despite governmental unions signing up in mass-now that’s funny). Shop Union, patronize Union. It will all take care of itself. We need to quit hiding behind governmental regs and NLRB decisions and step up to the plate(ooh! Another timely funny)!
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 5:25 pm
Late to the party here.
There are some reasonable arguments to be made about the jurisdiction of the AG over various State legal matters.
The Superstars’ arrogance and incompetence blew any chance of a discussion into smithereens. Massive Fail.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 5:29 pm
I posted this in the pension thread on a related post, but it bears re-posting here:
Rauner comes out of the corporate raider branch of the private sector where they pay lawyers to find ways around the law, regardless of the morality or legality.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 5:42 pm
I can only hope (and pray) that these private sector lawyers CAN find a way around these immoral laws.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 5:49 pm
you want to pray for people to lose what was promised to them, and if properly funded as other states do, we would not be in this situation? please don’t include me in your prayers guy.
Comment by Poolguy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:00 pm
I’ve never actually read a comment on this site that made me sick to my stomach.
Comment by Poolguy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:01 pm
Sadly, a large percentage of those union members who voted against Quinn (and not necessarily “for” Rauner) still think they did the right thing.
Comment by Still a Sox fan Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:05 pm
Somebody please tell me about the morality of a $425,000/yr pension and a 3% COLA.. promises were made by corrupt politicians rewarding or seeking voting blocks. This isn’t morality ,it’s criminality.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:13 pm
I work with pensions every day. I probably know a lot more than Bruce. However, when I send him emails to tell him what a terrible governor he is, I never use my title, nor do I do it on state time. That wouldn’t be appropriate. I also don’t need a fancy lawyer to tell me that.
Comment by Harvest76 Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:22 pm
===Somebody please tell me about the morality of a $425,000/yr pension and a 3% COLA.. promises were made by corrupt politicians rewarding or seeking voting blocks. This isn’t morality ,it’s criminality. ===
Meh. Most of the workers who Rauner would be trying to remove their pensions from make far, far less than that.
And yeah, contrary to what many contemporary “businessmen” would tell you, reneging on commitments you made should not be kosher and is not the behavior of, well (sidestepping morality), an honorable individual.
Comment by GraduatedCollegeStudent Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:23 pm
Average public employee pension in Illinois is 32,000 a year. That includes many who do not receive social security. The highest pension in the state goes to a surgical oncologist who retired from UIC at age 72.
Comment by AC Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:30 pm
Blue dog
Name names. Who has a 425k/year pension? Us working-class folk are closer to 20k for a career’s labor. Are you suggesting we punish the many for the sins of the few?
Comment by Harvest76 Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:30 pm
Gee, BDD, just how large is that $425K pension voting block, anyway? Hundreds of thousands, swinging a lot of elections?
You might want to pray for knowledge and wisdom while you’re at it.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:34 pm
- Blue dog dem -,
Please stop trolling.
Thanks.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:37 pm
And then, the Rauner team asks: why do they hate us? Why don’t they trust us? Hmmmm…..
Comment by Quill Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:37 pm
Poor Jason may know a lot about Indiana law but needs to bone up on Illinois law.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:40 pm
BDD way to walk back your initial comment. if you have numbers on how many thousands of pensioners get over $400K a year please tell us where that information is hiding.
Comment by Poolguy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:49 pm
Willy they got me again. dang it
Comment by Poolguy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:52 pm
Good on Solicitor-General Shapiro for this. The Governor cannot simply outsource the government’s policy operations to better serve his private agenda.
Comment by Ramsin Canon Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:53 pm
How is there money to pay lawyers with State funds but we can’t subsidize daycare or give a lousy extra 10 bucks a month to people with disabilities so they can get necessities? I thought the Gov. didn’t like lawyers…or maybe he just hates unions more. This is absolutely personal, and as a taxpaying Illinoisan (yes Sue I work and pay taxes) I want the Gov. to reimburse the State for the cost of expressing his personal opinion.
Comment by burbanite Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:57 pm
Superstars, I say, Superstars!
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 6:57 pm
Sadly to say,my numbers will be doubled in less than five years. Nearly 10,000 fellow Illinoisians make over $100k annually. 66,000 make between $50k and $100k. The good news for mankind is that life expectancies after the 2020 census are expected to increase another three years.see, I am not always so pessimistic!
OW: don’t be a troll.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 7:04 pm
- Poolguy -
It’s all good. - Blue dog dem - has just turned out to troll more and comment less.
I’m actually doing it to remind myself, lol
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 7:06 pm
===I thought the Gov. didn’t like lawyers…or maybe he just hates unions more.===
I am starting to think this is less about unions and more about the governor’s own ego. He just wants to win a. That’s it. His ascetic bravado has not been satisfied.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 7:07 pm
burbanite, Rauner’s GC makes 186k and lives in a $1.4 million dollar house.
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20150129/NEWS02/150129748/top-rauner-staff-more-highly-paid-than-quinns
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-jason-barclay-elite-street-0416-biz-20150415-story.html
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 7:07 pm
- Poolguy -,
See, stats you didn’t ask for…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 7:38 pm
-Willy,
yep I saw that. ugh. live and learn.
Comment by Poolguy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 7:46 pm
===Sadly to say,my numbers will be doubled in less than five years. Nearly 10,000 fellow Illinoisians make over $100k annually. 66,000 make between $50k and $100k. The good news for mankind is that life expectancies after the 2020 census are expected to increase another three years.see, I am not always so pessimistic!===
And Illinois’ state population is at almost 12.9 million.
To heck with the .08% I guess.
Comment by GraduatedCollegeStudent Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 7:51 pm
Swingining elections. Now that will get the state out of its self-created financial mess. Isn’t that how we got there. Making upkeep able promises, not paying into pension funds so other “elections” can be won.oh, by the way, the individual making $425kannually, will, assuming they live to expected lifespan., me making $589k annually. Not bad for a public “servant”.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 7:54 pm
Gosh blue dog, that’s almost as much as he was making when he was saving people’s lives from the scourge of cancer. What a terrible excuse for a human being one of the two of you is.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 8:14 pm
Political decision by the AG. Another feud coming, like with Blago in 2007. Bad for the State.
Comment by park Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 8:16 pm
Well said AA.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 8:20 pm
AA- not going to find much sympathy out there. We have real public servants out there making $12/hr tending to our elderly and disabled who are having their pay checks jeapordized so that we can make court ordered pension payments. Real Dems know its the 1%ers who aren’t paying their fair share, and here we got a class of ‘promised’ millionaires paying NO share.
Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 8:31 pm
(Tips cap to - AA -)
That’s how you end the discussion.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 8:32 pm
Do you have a Facebook account?
Post this Capital Fax story in response to the Illinois Policy Institute post claiming Rauner was denied his first amendment rights by Lisa Madigan.
See how long it takes for the IPI to ban you and remove your post.
Comment by Chicago 20 Tuesday, Oct 20, 15 @ 8:33 pm
Thanks Anon 7:07, so a 53% increase in atty salary over Quinn’s atty, all to “protect the most vulnerable” in our state, who pay for it with cuts in their benefits…
Comment by burbanite Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 6:50 am
“and here we got a class of ‘promised’ millionaires paying NO share.”
Perfect. Too many reasonable statements get out-shouted by the echo-chamber here.
Comment by Robert the 1st Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 8:06 am
Two things. The “morality” of a 3% COLA is the fact that inflation is projected to be between 2.5-3.5%, and often times is higher. A COLA merely allows someone who retired based on a level of income to keep that level of income. Pay freezes and reductions in COLA do nothing more than reduce what you are paying people. This isn’t an argument about raises, but maintaining income.
Second, does anyone honestly think the surgical oncologist working at UIC as both a highly skilled professional and teacher couldn’t have made more money in the private sector? If you think that, then you really don’t understand the money they can make. A good pension was promised by the State as part of his/her compensation, and to say we can renege now will harm the State’s ability to attract and keep people who really (actually) are superstars in their fields.
Comment by Dilemma Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 9:45 am
Rich, “individual capacity” does not mean “personal capacity.” He is an individual elected official and has every right to speak in that individual capacity without asking permission.
This is not the Governor in party to a suit. He is filing his own opinion to the court from his perspective as the Governor of Illinois.
Did you read the rest of that paragraph?
“The Governor never represented that he filed the brief on the behalf of the State of Illinois, the Attorney General of Illinois, or any OTHER elected official in Illinois. The State of Illinois is not now and has never been a party in interest in the Friedrichs matter.”
Comment by Political Animal Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 1:16 pm
An appeal to a reviewing court is most definitely considered to be litigation.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 7:06 pm
Political Animal read this slowly. If he is filing as Governor of the State of Illinois — a public OFFICIAL — he is filing in his official capacity. If he is filing as a private citizen, he us filing in his individual capacity. It ain’t rocket science.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 21, 15 @ 7:53 pm