Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Today’s quotable

Posted in:

Illinois

* Andy Shaw on WGN Radio…

Look, we as reform groups tried to pass redistricting reform. The Supreme Court led by Democrats threw that out. There was a pension reform bill passed, some years ago. Supreme Court threw that one out, led by Democrats.

The pension decision was unanimous, but I digress. Back to Andy…

So these things have been tried. I’ll tell you, the most interesting election in 2022 may not be for governor, or Attorney General or legislative seats, it may be for an open Supreme Court seat. You know, James Kilbride, he wasn’t retained, he lost his retention fight in November. And now, if the Republicans can win that seat, they take over the majority in the General Assembly [I think he meant Supreme Court]. And even though I’m nonpartisan, I’m not, I don’t want Republicans in just because they’re Republicans. But they would be in support of pension reform and term limits, and income tax reform, there’s a lot of reforms that they would approve of that the Democrats didn’t. And so that will be an interesting one to watch to see how that plays, a lot of money will be spent to either protect the seat for Democrats, or turn it over to Republicans. And that could be one of the most important things that happens in 2022, regardless of who the governor is.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 10:57 am

Comments

I’m still trying to wrap my mind around why Kilbride was targeted to such a degree. Aside from complaints about pensions that Kilbride had no real control over in the first place, was the only goal to replace him with a republican? Looking at his record, he seemed to be a very very pro-life judge, and in most other areas didn’t rule along any partisan lines.

Unrelated, Andy needs to work on his messaging a little more.

“I’m not a partisan, I just want to see a republican in that seat.”

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:01 am
Is Shaw stating that a vote for a GOP Supreme Court justice nominee is a vote for a reduction in pensions?

Wonder how that candidate feels about this develpment.

Comment by Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:02 am
Andy Shaw is truly the least educated (apparently) on this issue outside his own Rauner-like anger and angst that ignores a unanimous ruling by the ILSC, and that’s just for openers.

It’s truly a pathetic and sad attempt to seem like a populists to “doing good”, when this is a (literally) poor man’s version of Bruce Rauner… and not grasping the politics of the law… that’s Andy Shaw pandering more than understanding.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:08 am
Andy Shaw supports activist judges who will do political bidding instead of properly adhering to the constitution…? Okay then….

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:11 am
Of course the insiders who benefit from the status quo don’t think any of the wildly popular with bipartisan majorities reforms of pensions, term limits, redistricting are “doing good”.

Comment by Lucky Pierre Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:12 am
Doesn’t he live in Michigan?

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:14 am
To the post:

Just a reminder that there is no prohibition on redistricting the Supreme Court, except for the 1st District, which is 3 justices dedicated to Cook County voters. In fact, according to the Constitution, the other four districts must be of substantially equal population.

But they aren’t. Based on the most recent census estimate, they have the following populations:

1st: 5.2 million (3 justices, ~1.7 million per)
2nd: 3.2 million (1 justice)
3rd: 1.8 million (1 justice)
4th: 1.3 million (1 justice)
5th: 1.3 million (1 justice)

Seems to me redistricting the other four is in order - they should all have about 1.9 million. That should make the 2nd entirely suburban, the 3rd mostly suburban/exurban, with the 4th and 5th splitting the remainder of the state.

Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:17 am
It sounds like he doesn’t know that the Illinois Supreme Court cannot just up and change the pension clause of the state constitution. Bless his heart.

Comment by Teacher Lady Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:17 am
I don’t know who James Kilbride is.

I do know that Thomas Kilbride didn’t win his retention vote.

If you can’t get basic facts right, why should I pay attention to any argument you have to make?

Comment by Steve Rogers Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:18 am
Isn’t the 2nd district also up for election in 2022? That district has Lake and DuPage County. I don’t think that district will automatically elect a Republican anymore.

Comment by Numbers Guy Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:22 am
Sadly, there is a continuing audience for tripe like this. Not even knowing Kilbride’s correct name points to how little he understands what he is seeking to lecture about. Not understanding the constitutional ramifications of pension reform is strike 2. Not worthy of listening to.

Comment by Lincoln Lad Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:22 am
== led by Democrats ==

Andy, the passage of pension reform was led by Democrats, too (check the House roll call,) and as Rich points out, was overturned by a bipartisan Supreme Court. Get your facts straight.

Comment by Roman Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:23 am
Either a Freudian slip when he referred to GA rather than SC, or, more likely, he is truly ignorant of what judges are actually supposed to do, like follow the constitution and precedent.

Comment by West Side the Best Side Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:24 am
Shaw had a kooky op-ed in the Tribune last week too.

Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:35 am
As usually happens whenever Andy manages to find his microphone, he’s spewing nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQNufRmm43k

Comment by The Opinions Bureau Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:38 am
Actually the Illinois Supreme Court pension decision was not only unanimous but a Republican wrote the opinion.

Comment by Bigtwich Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:39 am
= And even though I’m nonpartisan =

Oh, please.

Comment by Dirty Red Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:39 am
Id like clarification on what pension reform means. Tier 2 was pension reform. Is reform really code for chopping benefits to those receiving them now? Because I don’t know what else it could mean. If they want benefits cuts, then say pension benefits cuts.

Comment by Anon Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:46 am
=wildly popular=

In your vengeful opinion. Another word for it is unconstitutional or theft. Pension “reform” which was actually change was done a decade ago. The legacy debt that LP and others helped create will not go away with theft.

But feel good about the rule of law.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:50 am
Re Redistricting

Would not be surprised if Lauf and Kinzinger face each other in the GOP Governor primary after Kinzinger’s district is redrawn

Comment by Julian Perez Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:58 am
===wildly popular with bipartisan majorities reforms of pensions, term limits, redistricting are “doing good”===

You, like Rauner, are wholly disingenuous to a fault, and dishonest to the thoughts you hope to push.

Pension reform has faced the ILSC.

The path is exacting to what can be done, how it rests now, what going forward can be without diminishing.

I’d point to John Amdor and his “term charts”. This idea of “decades of service” is as phony as a pristine Carhartt jacket.

A want doesn’t mean it can pass or is constitutional.

The mistake is the hatred ingrained in the policies towards organized labor and those supporting the constitutional guarantees, even the laws to collectively bargain and prevailing wage.

The mistake is the anger is so seething, the politics and policy you abhor gets overshadowed by the end game want.

That’s why 71 and 36 is elusive.

Policy can find middle ground(s), anger at people and punishing won’t bring people to change minds.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 11:59 am
=== Lauf and Kinzinger face each other in the GOP Governor primary===

I know it just turned noon, but please, slow down and don’t operate any machinery for your safety… and the safety of others.

My gosh.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 12:01 pm
Term limits are either aimed at Democratic State House Speakers who built their parties into a powerful organization (Mike Madigan, Ohio’s Vern Riffe, Maine’s John L. Martin) or people of color (Willie Brown, Nebraska’s Ernie Chambers). Sangamon County is full of people who wanted term limits imposed on Mike Madigan yet voted for Sheriff Neil Williamson all 5 times he ran (and won).

Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 12:06 pm
==But they would be in support of pension reform==

Translation: “I, and my fellow boomers, want to skate on the $144 billion tab we ran up.”

Comment by Jocko Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 12:10 pm
A lot to take in here, many of the things have already been highlighted.

But also reasonable to keep in mind that before the pension decisions came down, Kanerva, the case relating to retiree health insurance came down. That was struck down by a 6-1 vote, with the lone dissenting opinion coming from a Democrat.

Redistricting could potentially be allowed, but the petition would have to change both the structure and procedure of the GA. Just changing the process by itself isn’t going to cut it. But those pushing this know that. They don’t actually care about redistricting, they are just grifters like Rauner who want to appear to care about redistricting for political benefit.

A petition on term limits has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court since the 1980s (maybe 90s). But that precedent is not likely going to get overturned any time soon.

And what on earth is he talking about in regards to tax reform?

Comment by Juice Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 12:27 pm
Andy Shaw is a shameless, partisan self-promoter who so deeply damaged the reputation of the Better Government Association that I am not sure it will recover. Shaw and the BGA honoring Ferro after he ran roughshod over the Sun-Times editorial board to endorse Bruce Rauner, forced out McKinney, and then went over to the Chicago Tribune to oversee its troncian decline just long enough to award himself a multi-million no-bid Golden parachute contract.

Every interview with Shaw should begin with questions about his relationship with Ferro.

Comment by Thomas Paine Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 12:38 pm
Yes, Republicans are all in favor of term limits. Until they’re the ones getting term limited. (See Shimkus, John)

Comment by Original Rambler Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 12:40 pm
== Seems to me redistricting the other four is in order ==

Bingo. Democrats don’t have to accept that the swing vote on the state supreme court, which makes law for the whole population of a deep blue state, belongs to a district that voted for Trump. By divvying the districts up more fairly, the Democrats can credibly claim to be following the state constitution’s mandate that the districts be of substantially equal population. Long-term, they should also amend the constitution so that every seat on the court is elected statewide.

Comment by Quibbler Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 1:09 pm
Give him half a point for saying “Democrats” instead of “the Democrat party.”

Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 1:19 pm
Poor Andy Shaw has lost his way. The articles he now writes are baseless, fact less without any research or basis.
It appears to me from what he writes is that he wants to work for the Illinois Policy Institute, as if that will somehow make him relevant again.

Comment by Chicago 20 Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 2:21 pm
I was going to type something and then realized Andy Shaw has never mattered less.

Comment by Third Reading Tuesday, Mar 2, 21 @ 3:25 pm