Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rate the new People Who Play By The Rules PAC ad
Next Post: Bailey’s family made big bucks off wetlands sale to state
Posted in:
* Tribune…
Democratic Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow filed a lawsuit Friday against Gov. J.B. Pritzker and other top state Democrats alleging that they violated the state’s constitution when they pushed through sweeping criminal justice reforms last year. […]
Glasgow has been accused of spreading misinformation about the SAFE-T Act, particularly by claiming that murder suspects currently in custody will automatically be released when the no-cash bail policy goes into effect.
“Sadly, I have received veiled threats over my opposition to this legislation, but I must put the safety of my constituents first,” Glasgow said in his statement Friday. “On this issue, I’ll grab a line from (the late rock star) Tom Petty — ‘You can stand me up at the gates of Hell, and I won’t back down.’” […]
Pritzker spokeswoman Jordan Abudayyeh on Friday called the lawsuit a “weak attempt” to protect an outdated system that lets murder suspects and others accused of violence pay their way out of jail.
The lawsuit is here.
* Patch…
“The legislation violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Illinois Constitution which provides that ‘all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties ….” and Article 1, Section 8.1 which provides ‘the right to have the safety of the victim and the victim’s family considered in denying or fixing the amount of bail,” the State’s Attorney’s lawsuit declared.
Furthermore, Glasgow noted:
The legislation violates Article II, Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution, the separation of powers clause, which prohibits one branch of government from exercising “powers properly belonging to another.”
The legislation violates Article IV, Section 8(d) of the Illinois Constitution which provides that “[a] bill shall be read by title on three different days in each house .…”
We talked about the bail aspect last week.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:05 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rate the new People Who Play By The Rules PAC ad
Next Post: Bailey’s family made big bucks off wetlands sale to state
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Mr. Glasgow, kindly take Mr. Petty’s name out of your mouth. Thanks.
Comment by Tony DeKalb Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:17 am
If the bail thing isn’t constitutional, change it so bail is $0 and call that “sufficient.” And I’m not sure I understand the separation of powers argument, the legislature makes laws that the courts have to abide by all the time?
Comment by Perrid Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:22 am
15 yard penalty for misquoting Tom Petty in a press release, and a lifetime ban for ever seeking higher office, Mr. Glasgow:
“You could stand me up at the gates of Hell
But I won’t back down.”
Stay in Will County where you belong. And maybe do something about the murder rates in Joliet and Aurora, which are higher than Chicago under your watch.
Comment by Thomas Paine Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:26 am
Re the three readings, we have an enrolled bill doctrine:
Illinois follows the enrolled bill doctrine. This doctrine provides that once the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate certify that the procedural requirements for passing a bill have been met, “a bill is conclusively presumed to have met all procedural requirements for passage.” (Emphasis added.) (Geja’s Cafe v. Metropolitan Pier & Exposition Authority (1992), 153 Ill. 2d 239, 259, 180 Ill. Dec. 135, 606 N.E.2d 1212.) Thus, under the enrolled bill doctrine, a court will not invalidate legislation on the basis of the three-readings requirement if the legislation has been certified. In this case, plaintiffs acknowledge that Public Act 86-16 was certified.
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:36 am
I saw Glasgow on Mike Flannery last night. As Rich has mentioned earlier, the Dems (in this case Kam Buckner) don’t seem to defend the soon to be law very well.
Comment by James the Intolerant Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:48 am
What a joke. Section 9 sets a minimum standard for people who are arrested. Is he now saying that the law on the books for release on own recognizance was unconstitutional? No money required there. Also, if the Act violates the separation of powers for the General Assembly, why do we have a criminal code? One that allowed for release on own recognizance.
The 3 day read law does get courts into the fight with the legislative branch. Normally, the court doesn’t touch legislative procedural issues - enrolled bill rule.
Glasgow et al are the people who are supposed to ensure justice. God help us.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:51 am
local ‘news’ is absolutely gushing over glasgow today. They are proving how great he is, by posting quotes of people on their own social media site praising glasgow.
It doesn’t matter that glasgow is making provably false statements, all that matter is how people feel about what he is saying. It’s bizarre.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:52 am
Glasgow makes an argument framed around the worst offenses, and suggest the most dangerous suspects will be free on their own recognizance. That is false. Such beliefs are not captured in the text of the law.
But from an alternative perspective, how do naysayers address victimless crimes? Should the be treated as if the are a imminent and serious danger and a threat to society writ-large, or should some crimes (speeding, rolling stop, jay walking, smoking pot in public, drinking in public, be automatically no cash bail?
The problem with the naysayers is that they seem to want to err on the side of severely pu8nishing any who violate any crime. To do so, they make claims of heinous offenses, and the make false assertions about the SAFE-T ACT.
Either/or, Good/Bad, my way/the highway dialectical thinking is the problem. Legislators must learn to reason well with others. Unfortunately, we see too little of this today.
Comment by H-W Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:30 am
Has a lawsuit ever worked that challenges a bill based on 3 readings?
Comment by SaulGoodman Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 11:43 am
Actually, they could and sometimes do let people go on home ankle monitors, I-bonds, personal recognizance, promise to appear, etc…
Why are minor traffic tickets defendants being locked up? Quota systems? Local police should be billed by counties for any prisoners brought in if the offence could have been handled with a ticket and promise to appear.
Comment by DuPage Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 12:01 pm
==Has a lawsuit ever worked that challenges a bill based on 3 readings?==
Based on Glasgow’s other lies there may even have been three readings.
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 12:02 pm
Big Dipper, of course the bill met the 3 day reading requirement. The bill was amended in the Senate to add the Safe-T provisions. Essentially, he’s arguing that the amended version didn’t meet the requirement. This is a nonsensical argument given that bills are routinely amended in 2nd chamber. He might as well argue germaneness. However, this all runs into the Enrolled Bill rule.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 1:33 pm
The game the new Republicans are playing is all about making the voters think the Democrats did something wrong. They don’t care if it is true or not.
Comment by Mama Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 1:46 pm
But nobody has explained what happens when an office tries to write a trespass ticket/NTA/etc., and the offender either tries to flee, refuses to provide information, or tells the cop off and refuses to leave. Now what? Oh wait, that’s now more arrestable offenses (littering ,obstructing, and the 2nd criminal trespass charge for refusing to leave after being told to and cited), so the cop still makes a custodial arrest in the end. Will that also be called ‘oppressive’ or the other words claimed these days?
Comment by thisjustinagain Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 2:02 pm
=== Will that also be called ‘oppressive’ or the other words claimed these days?===
Are you calling police officers oppressive? They are just trying to do their jobs.
Comment by Da big bad wolf Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 2:05 pm
thisjustinagain - Your statement at 2:02 suggests you are trying to find a loophole so that you can say loopholes exist. The problem however is that your loophole argument only indicates that you have not read the bill, not listened to the countless discussions that explain the criteria upon which a judge can require bail. For example, your “loophole” asks that if a person demonstrates themself to be a flight risk, can the be detained in custody? Even without reading the bill, one would automatically assume “yes - flight risks can be detained in custody.” Why you would infer otherwise is a more interesting question.” Given that nothing in the law says so, why do you insist on believing as you do?
Comment by H-W Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 2:30 pm
“Essentially, he’s arguing that the amended version didn’t meet the requirement.”
I knew he was going to step in in publicly eventually. This is also how the bill passed for the hearsay exemption that allowed him to get a conviction on Drew Peterson.
Wonder why he wasn’t filing any lawsuits back then?
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 3:11 pm
My above comment was referring to SB2718 - 95th General Assembly
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 3:12 pm
thisjustinagain-you can’t arrest for obstruction of an officer. That was part of the SAFE-T Act. 720 ILCS 5/31-1(d) (”A person shall not be subject to arrest under this section [obstruction of a peace officer and other things] unless there is an underlying offense for which the person was initially subject to arrest.”) That’s the problem - you can’t do custodial arrest for trespass, so failure to comply, even if presumed obstruction, is not an underlying offense subject to arrest.
Comment by Mary Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 5:07 pm