Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Pritzker revises new EO to allow for limited religious services
Next Post: Poll: Illinoisans reveal how they’re coping, what they’re doing, what their concerns are
Posted in:
* Hmm…
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.) #twill pic.twitter.com/UviyZ5HGjW
— Ben Orner (@Ben_Orner) May 1, 2020
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
— Jon Seidel (@SeidelContent) May 1, 2020
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:34 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Pritzker revises new EO to allow for limited religious services
Next Post: Poll: Illinoisans reveal how they’re coping, what they’re doing, what their concerns are
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Well he’s already gotten the publicity, which is all he wanted anyway.
Comment by The Dude Abides Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:38 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.
Comment by Ron Burgundy 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?”
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:41 am
Darren Bailey, will you please go home?
Comment by Soccermom Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:43 am
Laura Ingraham isn’t good enough, he wants Hannity
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:44 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.
Comment by Norseman Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:48 am
Bailey is the Jim Lahey of the GA
Comment by estubborn Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:52 am
taking his ball and going home. coward.
Comment by Amalia 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.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, May 1, 20 @ 9:59 am
=== Bailey is the Jim Lahey of the GA===
Then whose Randy?
Comment by All This Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:02 am
Okay Bishop, run this story the next couple of days.
Comment by efudd Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:04 am
Ah man, he’s going for the Presidential re-tweet.
Comment by XonXoff Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:04 am
===Then whose Randy?===
He lost to Lauren Underwood.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:06 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.
Comment by Techie Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:12 am
===Bailey isn’t retreating===
He absolutely is.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:14 am
Stringing it along for as much time in front of the camera as possible. Also, what new information?
Comment by Fixer Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:16 am
Reads like “leveling up” to me.
Comment by XonXoff Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:17 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.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:20 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.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:23 am
Give Us Barabbas, lol. You hit the nail on the head. Plus Covid Mary of Richland County is still on the loose.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf 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.
Comment by DownSouth Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:34 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.
Comment by Flapdoodle Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:45 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.
Comment by walker Friday, May 1, 20 @ 10:58 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
Comment by efudd Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:04 am
===Then whose Randy?===
John “Modelo” Cabello
Comment by estubborn Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:10 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.
Comment by efudd Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:20 am
efudd at 11:20 was being being as old as I am — my apologies
Comment by flapdoodle Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:21 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.—
Comment by Don't Bloc Me In Friday, May 1, 20 @ 11:30 am
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.
Comment by Friend of the Family Friday, May 1, 20 @ 1:16 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?
Comment by Random Name Generator Friday, May 1, 20 @ 1:54 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?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, May 1, 20 @ 2:21 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.
Comment by 37B Friday, May 1, 20 @ 4:02 pm