Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Can we please drop the charade?

Posted in:

Illinois

Ask any of the candidates running for the Illinois Supreme Court if politics will guide their rulings and you’ll get the same answer.

“My commitment is to be impartial and unbiased and to hear the entirety of cases,” said Lake County Judge Elizabeth Rochford, a Democrat.

“I have no political goals,” said her opponent, Mark Curran, an attorney who was formerly Lake County sheriff and the unsuccessful Republican challenger to U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin in 2020. “I don’t have anything like that. The job is to rule fairly and to look at facts and the law and apply them.”

Right. Yeah. Isn’t it time that the candidates just drop this impartiality bit? Because it is a bit.

* I mean, no political goals? C’mon, man. You just admitted the other day that you’re a partisan…

Curran spoke more directly to the role of partisanship on the high court, stating that while he wouldn’t rule in a partisan manner, he’d rule in a manner “that is a balance to the governor.”

“Let’s say Darren Bailey wins – he is behind in the polls and everything but, you know, I hope Darren Bailey wins,” Curran said when asked what’s at stake in the Supreme Court election. “Even if he wins, chances are he’s going to be totally ineffective in many regards, because of the fact that the General Assembly has enough votes to override any veto by the governor. So the state will continue to be run by one party, that party being the Democrats. And there’s no check and balance or anything in the state.”

* Unbiased? Yeah, I’m kinda thinking not…

It’s fine to have these positions. It’s OK by me if Justice Rochford flat-out admitted that she’s pro-choice and would rule that way. And it’s OK for Curran to admit that he’s a party-first kind of dude. What’s not fine is to insist you don’t have positions when you clearly do. We act like our top judges are high priests, or something. They aren’t. And this dance we force on them is really getting tiring.

* Mark Brown: Democrats and Republicans wage high-stakes battle for control of state Supreme Court: Republicans are rerunning the anti-Madigan playbook that worked against Kilbride, portraying Rochford and O’Brien as “cronies” of the unpopular former speaker. Just before he forsook Illinois for Florida, billionaire Ken Griffin made a parting gift of $6.25 million to Citizens for Judicial Fairness, which is paying for the attack ads.

* Ken Griffin’s millions could flip Illinois Supreme Court on abortion and unions: In the second district, Democrats have spent $2.6 million, including $1.8 million by political expenditure committee All for Justice and $848,800 by Rochford’s campaign, according to AdImpact, which tracks election spending. On the Republican side, Griffin-backed Citizens for Judicial Fairness is spending $1 million. In the third district, Democrats have spent $1.6 million and Republicans have shelled out $1.1 million, almost all booked by Citizens for Judicial Fairness. O’Brien has booked $281,000, with $1.2 million additional in support from All For Justice.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:21 am

Comments

I blame the Bar Association.

“Supreme Court Rule 67A(3)(d)(i) prohibits a judge from “mak[ing] statements that commit or
appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues within cases that are likely to come before the court.” General statements, such as a pledge to follow the law, are usually permissible.”

https://www.isba.org/sites/default/files/ethics/Judicial%20Election%20Campaign%20FAQs.pdf

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:27 am
It’s not the Bar Association, as we do not have a mandatory one here. It’s the Illinois Supreme Court that adopts the Code of Judicial Conduct that they have to dance around.

Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:37 am
Judges are by definition politicians even those that don’t run for office. They should be forced to provide a coherent judicial philosophy that both respects precedent and black letter law, but incorporates how they would decide cases. The IL SC keeps them from being able to do that out of the fiction that they are not politicians.

Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:41 am
Nothing wrong with current approach. It is fair to note that if Candidate X shows up a some fringe group event they might have affinity for the views of that group.
We might also conclude if some fringe group finances ads with a Confessed Ex-Congressman who just got a Trump “get out of jail” card, it might be concluded they have no credibility.

Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:42 am
===It’s the Illinois Supreme Court===

It’s also us in the news media who stick to the fantasy.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:43 am
It looks like the two liberal judicial candidates are dominating in TV ad quantity, compared with the other two. Also with the WRA, lots of pro ads on TV—but have yet to see an anti ad.

Comment by Grandson of Man Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:44 am
It is not a bit. The candidates are following the ethics rules.

The Rules of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Canons place strict limits upon judicial candidates and sitting judges. Under the former Illinois Constitution of 1870, judges were able to serve as political party leaders and, some campaigned for other offices such as governor, mayor, or state’s attorney while in the judiciary. Now, a judge would have to resign from the judiciary in order to do so.

Comment by Gravitas Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:47 am
Are there any polls on these two seats?

Comment by James the Intolerant Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:47 am
=== judges were able to serve as political party leaders and, some campaigned for other offices such as governor, mayor, or state’s attorney while in the judiciary===

Learn to read. That is not what I’m talking about here. But you do you.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 11:50 am
Judges clearly stating how they’ll rule if elected will face substitution requests or recusal demands from the party they pledged to oppose.

All the platitudes about no one bring above the law and America bring a nation ruled by laws are grounded in reality.

You can say judges are purely political creatures but how would you get an impartial judge if you did as some of you suggest?

Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:15 pm
===but how would you get an impartial judge===

You think they are now?

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:18 pm
===We act like our top judges are high priests, or something. They aren’t. ===

amen

Comment by Boone's is Back Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:18 pm
The news media also adds to this fantasy by repeating Republican marketing slogans (i.e., CRT, Defund the Police, etc) as though they are fact. Just an observation.

Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:19 pm
It is funny that this came out as my better half and I was just discussing this the other night. We are thinking that the courts should be unbiased but because there is an election and the candidates may have previous positions stated, how can they be impartial/unbiased? Appointment with confirmation??? But, that is questionable too as it was brought up after the reversal of Roe of how a supreme court judge should be fired for lying during the confirmation hearings.

On top of all this, most voters have no clue about the judges they are voting for except what they hear in the ads.

Comment by snowman61 Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:23 pm
All the more reason to get rid of partisan judicial elections.

Of course judges are partisan. Politics just like life experiences will color a person’s perspective. You would not think that a judge who has been a victim of a crime is now ineligible to serve as a judge in a criminal matter. The real question for judges is, will partisan politics (or their life experiences) interfere with their ability to weigh the facts and law on a case.

Comment by Unionman Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:28 pm
When you’re referred to as a Democrat Judge in mail sent on your behalf by the Democratic Party of Illinois, you’re not a high priestess. Same with Curran posting pictures of himself at anti-choice events. Come on, people.

Comment by Torco Sign Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:38 pm
I agree with Unionman. Quit electing judges.

Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:40 pm
==you think they are now?==

They’re supposed to be. They’re supposed to follow precedent and rules of evidence, to give everyone a fair hearing. If they don’t, they tend to get low ratings at retention time and some even get voted off.

If every judge I’m a circuit or district says they’re prolife, then a case involving abortion could be moved. If every candidate on the highest court of appeals has already said how they’ll rule before any evidence is presented, them how are people to find a certain remedy in the judicial branch?

Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:40 pm
Conduct for candidates running for judicial office is prescribed by the Canons of Judicial conduct. People may object to the lack of position statements- but their ability to speak out is truly limited

Comment by Sue Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:41 pm
“I agree with Unionman. Quit electing judges.”

Exactly. Just look at the flawless federal appointment system that is working free from all partisanship.

The problem is, if a judge is going to be empowered to make decisions, there are people who will want to influence who decides who becomes the judge. It doesn’t matter if it’s presidents, governors, senators, appointment boards, or voters. There is no good way to pick a judge—at least not a way yet considered. But at least with elections the influencing is out in public.

Comment by Golden Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 12:55 pm
The stakes are high for women, who have already lost so much at the hands of the supremes. It’s difficult to trust those who call themselves independents. It’s a neg. Either you are with us or you’re against us. I’m sure the other side feels the same.

Comment by Politix Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 1:06 pm
= They’re supposed to follow precedent and rules of evidence, to give everyone a fair hearing. If they don’t, they tend to get low ratings at retention time and some even get voted off. =

It is extremely rare for a judge to lose a retention election, and it’s usually for weird behavior (see Jackie Portman-Brown), not bias.

Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 1:42 pm
“So the state will continue to be run by one party, that party being the Democrats. And there’s no check and balance or anything in the state.”

So much for judges pledging to follow the law and justice being balanced and blind.

Disqualifying to say the least.

Comment by Save Ferris Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 1:43 pm
I don’t know if it is a total charade. When the law is clear, the justices should apply the law regardless of political considerations. In Re Pension Reform Litigation was a good example of that. Political ideology plays some role in the courts, but it should not be the primary consideration.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 2:15 pm
@Golden: I understand your point. Well taken.

Comment by Jerry Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 2:18 pm
I guess I am not shocked that Mark Curran would completely disregard the Supreme Court rules re political activities by judges and the restrictions against taking positions on potential cases. The guy isn’t fit for traffic court, let alone Supreme Court.

Comment by Southside cubs fan Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 2:32 pm
The judiciary lacks diversity WITH elections. Without elections, it would be even worse. Bar association ratings are laughable to those who know how the sausage is made. Implicit biases abound in that process.

Comment by Luke Steele Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 2:35 pm
== When you’re referred to as a Democrat Judge in mail sent on your behalf by the Democratic Party of Illinois, you’re not a high priestess. ==

But she’s running as a democrat on the democratic ticket. This isn’t a nonpartisan race.

Comment by Shytown Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 3:23 pm
This remind me of an old Dilbert (before Scott Adams changed) and it had Dogbert up for a Supreme Court seat saying he had no opinions about anything. One of the Senators questions him, no opinions about anything? You must think I’m an idiot. And Dogbert, says, OK yes, that.

Comment by cermak_rd Tuesday, Oct 25, 22 @ 5:22 pm