Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another rash of library bomb threats
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** The cash bail system was definitely a cash cow for some folks
Posted in:
* Subscribers know much more about this, but here’s an ILGOP press release…
IL Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Rochford Fundraises for Democrat Candidates
On Saturday, Rochford violated the Illinois Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct by being the keynote speaker at the Lake County Democratic Women PAC’s annual fundraiser.NORTH CHICAGO — This past Saturday, September 9, Rochford was the keynote speaker at the Lake County Democratic Women Political Action Committee’s annual fundraiser. The fundraiser’s online donation page states ticket sales will benefit the PAC, whose purpose, according to their filings with the Illinois State Board of Elections, is “to support the election of Democratic women candidates in Lake County, IL.”
The Illinois Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 4, Page 48-50) is clear: sitting judges who aren’t up for election shall not speak at political functions supporting the election of candidates:
“Except as may be specifically authorized in the context of judicial election campaigns, Rule 4.1 prohibits judges and judicial candidates from “publicly” endorsing or making “speeches” on behalf of political candidates or organizations.”
“Paragraphs (A)(2) and (A)(3) prohibit judges and judicial candidates from making speeches on behalf of political organizations.to prevent them from misusing the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others.”
As recently as 2021, the Illinois Judicial Ethics Committee issued a clear opinion on this very issue: “…an incumbent judge who is a judicial candidate may appear as a guest of honor at a political party’s fundraising event, but a judge not presently a candidate is forbidden from doing so.”
The Code of Judicial Conduct makes clear why these ethics rules for judges are so important: “Public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence.”
“Illinois voters deserve a fair and impartial state Supreme Court that’s free of and from politics, which does not appear to be the case here,” - Illinois Republican Party Executive Director Shaun McCabe
* Politico…
Watch for a complaint to the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board.
For what it’s worth, attendees said Rochford opened her speech saying she wouldn’t get political. And she didn’t. There was no discussion of reproductive rights or gun legislation, both high-profile subjects facing the court and pitting Republicans and Democrats in Illinois. “It was actually really a boring speech,” said one attendee.
* Justice Rochford sent me this statement…
I receive speaking requests from many groups and organizations. I believe it is important for judges to appear in public and help educate people about the Judicial Branch. My speech at this event was about the work of the Illinois Supreme Court, its non-partisan nature and the collegiality that is fostered by our unique lodging arrangement during court terms. The content of my speech was not political in any way and so should not be construed to have been provided on behalf of any political candidate or organization.
* The Question: Should Illinois Supreme Court justices, appellate justices and judges be officially sanctioned for making speeches to groups like this when they’re not in an active campaign cycle? Explain and stick to the topic at hand, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 9:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another rash of library bomb threats
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** The cash bail system was definitely a cash cow for some folks
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If they aren’t running for election, they should not be speaking to or behalf of political groups at fundraising events. If someone is raising campaign money off your role as a speaker, I don’t care if you are talking about The Influence of Immanuel Kant on Evidentiary Approaches in Eighteenth Century Bulgaria or Singing School House Rock’s How a Bill Becomes a Law. Illinois law strives to separate the judiciary, as much as possible, from the political branches, in spite of the fact that we have partisan judicial elections. That is a laudable purpose and public policy demands more, not less, separation.
Comment by Just Another Anon Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 9:59 am
Oh please. No sanctions. Justice Rochford’s speech was TO the organization, not ON BEHALF of it. I read about US Supreme Court justices delivering similar speeches across the country without issue. I think it’s a good thing when members of the judiciary get off the bench and educate the public on how the justice system works. She should be commended for her speech and offer to give the same speech to the Lake County GOP women (if such an organization exists).
Comment by Original Rambler Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:01 am
The prohibition expressed in the Judicial Canon is quite clear and Rochford skirted it by appearing at a political fund raising function while not campaigning for her own election. If the justice wants to create an exception to the existing rule, she needs to get a majority of the state supreme court to agree. Otherwise, she is likely to deserve a reprimand.
If Justice Rochford wants to educate the public about the court, she will need to visit colleges and universities, law schools and bar associations.
Comment by Gravitas Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:01 am
Nah, we need to drop the fiction that these folks aren’t partisan, at least until we stop electing them. They run on party lines and work to advance party agendas. Acting like they’re above it all is silly.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:02 am
Rochford clearly violated the ethics code. The content of her speech is not the issue. That’s irrelevant. Saying you’re not being political doesn’t take away the unethical act. She should be sanctioned. That group should face some sort of punishment (from the ISBE?) for benefiting from Rochford’s unethical behavior.
Comment by Torco Sign Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:03 am
Eh. The lightest slap on the wrist possible. If you’re speaking at an event that’s basically endorsing the people running it, if people pay to hear you speak they’re supporting the party. Seems like that shouldn’t happen. But the fact that she explicitly tried to keep it nonpartisan makes me inclined to just wag a finger at her, not anything serious.
Comment by Perrid Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:05 am
These comments are sad. Her speech was mentioned by leaders of LCDW, among others. It was publicized. The partisan group gained by having her there (and she gained by speaking in front of a group formed to elect Democrats).
Comment by Torco Sign Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:08 am
Stop pretending that judges aren’t human beings with existing opinions. Anyone who claims otherwise is either a liar or a naïve little babe in the woods who hasn’t actually encountered any human beings before.
If anything we should be encouraging party identification in judicial elections. Given how many judges we have to vote for all the time, having more information about them is better.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:10 am
Original Rambler makes a good point. The speech was not on behalf of a candidate (vote for state rep X) or a political organization (vote for the county committees candidates).
Beyond that, it’s time to dispense with the notion that judges are not fully political creatures who regularly act politically on the bench. The current US Supreme Court shows that to be true. Won’t hold my breath for the ILGOP press release condemning Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito.
Many pandemic, gun and criminal justice reform rulings from Illinois circuit courts were utterly political with no grounding in law, just ideology.
It’s a quaint and antiquarian idea that the courts are apolitical and the thin veneer that they were has been totally stripped away, starting with Bush v. Gore and finally blasted off with Dobbs.
Comment by Moe Berg Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:16 am
I second Perrid’s suggestion - if not that, then issue a new opinion/clarification replacing “on behalf of” with “before” which would at least be a subtle rebuke.
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:19 am
Under the former Illinois Constitution of 1870, judges were permitted to engage in all forms of partisan politics. Sitting judges were nominated and sometimes elected to serve in other offices such as governor, mayor, and state’s attorney. Names like Horner, Dunne, Dever, Crowe, come to mind and there were so many others who did so. It was even permitted for judges to serve as political party committeepersons. These practices were prohibited after the new state constitution was adopted in 1970. Rochford needs to be reprimanded.
Comment by Gravitas Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:20 am
People are awfully touchy about this so let’s look at the words and facts: “Paragraphs (A)(2) and (A)(3) prohibit judges and judicial candidates from making speeches on behalf of political organizations to prevent them from misusing the prestige of judicial office to advance the interests of others.”
When Rochford is mentioned beforehand, when people are posting about her during and after the event, it’s hard to say her prestige is not being used. Any objective person would agree with that. The punishment is a different story but let’s not pretend the underlying misconduct didn’t occur. There is no requirement that a judge use magic words about endorsing so and so. The commenters suggesting that are simply wrong.
Comment by Torco Sign Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:22 am
No, let’s drop the farce already. I like that we elect judges so the people get a say. The idea that lifetime appointments makes officials impartial is a myth that’s been sold to us to undermine democracy.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:22 am
“The Illinois Supreme Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 4, Page 48-50) is clear: sitting judges who aren’t up for election shall not speak at political functions supporting the election of candidates”
The justices are all very bright individuals, they all have years of practice as lower court judges and as practicing attorneys- no excuses for this blatant violation. Sanctions should be swift and clear. If Justice Elizabeth Rochford cannot follow the rules, then at least let her serve as an example to others that there will be consequences for violations of ethical cannons.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:31 am
There is no campaign cycle. Still petition season
Comment by Rabid Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:32 am
Just wondering how the commenters can defend the idea that the group didn’t benefit when there are pictures of her at the event, including in front of a giant LCDW banner, and people mention her by name. Maybe someone can answer that.
Comment by Torco Sign Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:32 am
I’ll first honor Rich’s request and stick to the topic at hand and say yes, Judges who politick while on the bench should be sanctioned.
I’ll next note how our childish republican commenters aren’t able to honor Rich’s request.
Comment by AlfondoGonz Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:35 am
Wisconsin Republicans are wishing their newest Supreme Court justice would serve up something like this. Theirs hasn’t done anything but they’re still talking impeachment. Ginning this up may provide some cover for Republicans’ brethren to the North.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:39 am
To the question, no one has claimed that the Justice’s remarks were inappropriate or crossed any lines, only the location. It’s a judgement call, but it’s her judgement that matters.
Comment by Socially DIstant watcher Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:41 am
I believe so. I believe sanctions should also be explicit, and cumulative (first offenses - x, second offenses - y, etc.).
The idea of a separation of branches is above all else an important check on power.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:42 am
==I like that we elect judges so the people get a say.==
I *hate* it, but it’s the system we got, and I think it’s really hard to take a vote away from the voters, so we’re stuck with it.
As such, it’s time to be honest with ourselves that these folks are politicians.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:44 am
Rochford made a mistake. Should she be sanctioned? I think the debate here and elsewhere is sanction enough, but to prevent this from happening again, a mild official sanction seems warranted.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:47 am
Original Rambler +1.
For the record, I also don’t care if Alito (or Overstreet) talks to the Federalist Society.
Comment by Steve Rogers Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:50 am
Thomas and Alito are on the take, and Scalia was too, and this is what the GOP is worked up about?
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:51 am
==Thomas and Alito are on the take, and Scalia was too, and this is what the GOP is worked up about?==
I would more point to the fact that Lisa Holder White is actively campaigning with Republicans, and the only distinction appears to be the nebulously-defined “election cycle”.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:55 am
The question at hand…
“…be officially sanctioned for making speeches to groups like this when they’re not in an active campaign cycle? ”
No.
Why?
To the ethics, keeping it Illinois and the question at hand, until it’s legislatively forbidden outside an ethical requirement, no, there should be no sanctions.
I don’t think it’s good by its appearance or even the intent of it here, but there needs to be a line drawn, unequivocal or undeniable to these type of acts.
Doesn’t mean I agree with this choice, but there needs to be that line. Now.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:56 am
People, I’ve been busy on another post, but I’m gonna start deleting comments that do not answer the question and will advise Isabel to do the same.
This job’s a lot without policing y’all, so do better.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:04 am
Another nod to Original Rambler’s point, though the distinction made might be too fine those who look for reasons to be outraged.
It’s not hard to imagine judicial issues of interest to political groups on which judges might speak (effects of reform, procedures, new/proposed legislation affecting the courts, constitutional questions) without crossing into partisan or electoral territory. So no, no sanctions in such circumstances. There’s political speech, which should be allowed, and partisan speech, which should not be except when judges themselves are standing for office.
Comment by Flapdoodle Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:09 am
===Maybe someone can answer that.===
What exactly are you doing here, pointing out spilled milk… to seemingly an act not particularly in violation of one thing or another until the ethics can be hashed out.
This idea of then “whatabouting” to the national, and - BnW -‘s “in-law uncle” mouthbreathing… here’s the sitch;
In Illinois, we can control this all by statute or ethical requirements so plain it’s without a loophole.
You’d think it would get 177 Green and a signature pretty easy when discussing “non-election cycle” speaking, you’d think that… but I do believe there would be arguments to allow such “free speech within guide rails ”… so get me the guide rails.
It doesn’t have to be so macro that the micro constraints are seen as the “enemy of the good”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:10 am
“I read about US Supreme Court justices delivering similar speeches across the country without issue.”
The difference is that the Illinois Supreme Court has a code of ethics, the US Supreme Court does not.
To the question, yes a violation of the code occurred. The degree of “sanctions” start at “censure” and progress in seriousness to “reprimand” “suspension” and culminating in “removal from office.” I would humbly suggest that censure might to appropriate.
Comment by Peoria Man Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:16 am
She should absolutely be sanctioned.
She’s not *just* a judge. She’s a justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, the body that literally sets the rules all other judges in the state are supposed to follow.
This is a justice who also accepted big campaign money from the governor, and who assured us her judicial integrity is second to none.
Then, she steps on this rake, knowing full well what the code says. And if she did not know, then that speaks to her judicial acumen.
Either way, something is wrong here. And it’s not her critics.
Comment by JB13 Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:23 am
Yes, reprimand is warranted. It’s important to the rule of law in the state that all of our judges not be partisan on the bench - and to be perceived as not acting as partisans.
Also, this is not just about Justice Rochford, or other Supreme Court justices. Every judge in the state, including lower court judges, may get a heater case with partisan overtones. (Think COVID rules, for example.) Public confidence in the result will be much higher if the judge didn’t speak last month at a party event. The rules need to be applied to Justice Rochford so that it’s clear they apply to all judges.
None of us were born yesterday. We know our judges were selected because of partisan politics. But the system only works if people believe that (most) judges can put party loyalty aside when deciding cases. The Code of Judicial Conduct should be enforced.
Comment by Keyrock Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:35 am
The issue of sanctioning is different but it’s hard to take people at their word when they’re in denial about the facts and the law:
“To the question, no one has claimed that the Justice’s remarks were inappropriate or crossed any lines, only the location. It’s a judgement call, but it’s her judgement that matters.”
This is simply not true. Of course being blatantly political in words is wrong regardless of where she is outside of court. BUT the code is very clear that who you speak in front of matters too. It’s a different problem. You can recite the alphabet at the Republican National Convention and still be in violation.
Rochford never should’ve done it. Why she couldn’t say no is bizarre. If a justice who had run as a Republican and had just won a multimillion dollar election that featured TV ads and endorsements from the governor did this at a Republican fundraiser, people would rightfully be up in arms.
Comment by Torco Sign Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:36 am
Should she be sanctioned?
Of course, she should be sanctioned. She broke a rule. She then wrote a note trying to justify her actions which really just confirmed that she just doesn’t “get it”.
This is not at all complex.
Would have gone along completely with 47th Ward and Perrid before I read her statement. On balance, if she addresses her actions in a way that acknowledges her problem with the rules that are in place then she should get some points for that and a mild caution from the Board to her would be fine with me.
Comment by Back to the Future Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:38 am
According to the subscriber edition today from Rich, “sitting Illinois judges are prohibited by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 4.1 from making “speeches on behalf of a political organization,” or “solicit funds” for a political organization or candidate, except when they’re up for election or retention.”
Parsing that out is what is happening here, when it seems clear to me that Justice Rochford made a mistake when she agreed to this appearance. Depending on whose spin you agree with, she should either apologize and admit her mistake, that created an appearance of misconduct, or accept a reprimand.
I think we can all agree that this created an appearance problem, which is why we’re even discussing it. It was a bad idea for her to lend her name to this event and her legalese response isn’t helping.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:45 am
No, she shouldn’t be sanctioned. Rochford ran and was elected as a Democrat, with help from various Democratic Party organizations. She’s a Democratic elected official, she should be able to speak at Democratic Party functions.
Any punishment here wouldn’t be for the sin of “having partisan allegiance.” She’s allowed to run with the D next to her name. The purported sin here is that she wasn’t cagey enough about that allegiance. She said a quiet part a little less quietly. Basically, she broke kayfabe. That should be rewarded, not punished.
Comment by vern Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:47 am
===I think we can all agree that this created an appearance problem, which is why we’re even discussing it. It was a bad idea for her to lend her name to this event and her legalese response isn’t helping.===
This is the crux, the genesis, its ball game.
While my answer is “no”, it’s not like I woulda thought a great disservice exists if there are sanctions.
The question posed is to “Should”, if there is zero room for ambiguous thoughts, going forward, that would be far better than trying to hash out “thoughts, approaches, or angles” to this type of speech from now on.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 11:51 am
Absolutely sanction a judge who violates the rules. If the rule is the issue then remove it but if it’s in effect then follow it.
Comment by Franklin Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 12:02 pm
Yes, she knows the law, or she should anyway.
Even if she didn’t there are many cases where not knowing the law doesn’t mean you get to break it and you still pay the consequences.
Comment by Frida's boss Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 12:05 pm
Yes, there should be some sanction. Not much more than a slap on the wrist, though.
There’s impropriety, and the appearance of impropriety. We are dealing with the latter here. Judges in particular, need to avoid both.
Comment by Tony T Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 12:31 pm
The question was about all judges, and my answer is No.
We should quit pretending that our judges are not elected, that political parties play a key role in those elections, and that issues of deep partisan divide often come before the court.
We may wish our judiciary was non-partisan, and individuals may choose to put themselves forward as non-partisan, avoiding the slightest hint of partisanship or their views on reproductive rights, gun control, etc.
Anyone with any sense knew it was a lie when Justice Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh said they had no idea how they would rule on Roe, or they believed in state decisis. And wall the encroachment of partisanship might undermine some people’s faith in the judiciary, it’s not so deeply damaging has having someone take an oath before the American people and them lie right to our faces, only to be confirmed.
Let’s stop the lies. Let’s stop pretending that judicial candidates are not part of a partisan process, or that they have no core beliefs and values that they bring to the bench. It’s why we elect them instead of relying on AI to decide cases.
Believe me, I wish protecting the environment were not a partisan issue, I am even old enough to remember when it was not. But that’s no longer the reality we live in, partisanship touches nearly everything now, and the court rules should reflect reality.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 12:48 pm
Still trying to glean what ethical rule Justice Rochford violated that would justify any sort of sanction. Select commenters say she should be sanctioned. Okay, tell us what rule she violated and what action violated it. Feel free to be specific. Regardless of whether it was a good idea or not, it’s a real stretch to not just allege but prove that Justice Rochford’s speech was on behalf of the organization to advance its interests.
Comment by Original Rambler Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 1:24 pm
This situation (along with the recusal controversy re: the assault weapons ban) is a prime exhibit of why having judges be elected is a bad idea.
Judges are supposed to be concerned with one thing above all—what the law and the Constitution (whether federal or state) says.
Having them be elected (or even politically appointed and confirmed) means they have to be politicians, just like anyone else who needs to collect votes to get or keep their job.
So even if the Justice had gone partisan, it would only be what I expected to see.
Anyone who expects a judge to run for office in a partisan election and then immediately put aside all partisan preference as soon as they take office is delusional.
Even making judges “non-partisan” doesn’t fix it. They still have to appeal to partisan voters to get the gig.
If we want unbiased judges, we need to get away from electing them.
It makes *zero* sense to want judges to be both elected and not to have partisan bias. ZERO.
Anyone who must run for office or who is appointed or confirmed by politicians **is** a politician, full stop. And every politician is partisan, full stop.
And let’s be real here: ZERO Republicans would be up in arms if a pro-life judge gave the exact same speech to a right-wing group. Let’s not waste time pretending that their objections are anything but partisan kabuki.
Comment by ILLINI123 Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 1:27 pm
@ Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 10:22 am:
“No, let’s drop the farce already. I like that we elect judges so the people get a say. The idea that lifetime appointments makes officials impartial is a myth that’s been sold to us to undermine democracy.”
First of all, the United States is not a Democracy. Even says so right in the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s a Republic.
With that said, regardless of party, judges, and especially supreme court judges are supposed to be fair and impartial to “party” and only rule on the letter of the law (often Constitutional law). If the judge got millions of dollars from antigun orgs and were obviously on board with their agenda to be endorsed by them and receive their campaign contributions especially when she could’ve easily recused herself, it’s impossible to not question their rulings when she sides with her political donors in a case that they helped push through the system and she was a deciding vote on.
I always wondered how much it would cost to buy a supreme court judge. Apparently, Giffords Pac, Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, and others have now answered that age old question.
I’d remove her from office and bar her from ever practicing law in the state again if it were up to me.
Ethics violations are not grade school detention hall material where you write 500 times “I will not attend political rallies”. They’re violations against the entire state and their rulings also spill over state boundaries and affect national law.
Comment by Jessup Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 1:47 pm
Justice Rochford’s violation of ethics rules notwithstanding, why doesn’t the LCDW Pac simply donate their ticket sales to a Lake County not for profit organization….and prove up Rochford’s contention regarding political intent?
Comment by Big Tent Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 2:34 pm
- First of all, the United States is not a Democracy. Even says so right in the Pledge of Allegiance. It’s a Republic. -
What the United States is, and what I wish it were are vastly different things.
- With that said, regardless of party, judges, and especially supreme court judges are supposed to be fair and impartial to “party” and only rule on the letter of the law -
They aren’t, so they should at least be accountable to the public.
Comment by Excitable Boy Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 2:52 pm
This falls into what police and lawyers call “totality of circumstances.”
Making a speech to any group, in and of itself, should not be barred. Even if it’s a political organization (and, honestly, what organizations AREN’T nowadays?).
But the next thing is the content of the speech. In this case, it sounds like it was just a speech about the ILSC. That’s the job, and educating people in any forum is not a bad thing.
The next thing I’d look at is if the person only accepted speaking engagements from one side. If they speak at “Billy Bob’s MAGA Rally” one week and refuse to address “Lefties Forever of Podunk” the next week, then that might be an issue. But if they deliver the same (apparently boring) speech at both places, then fair game.
One speech, at a meeting (as I understand it, not at a rally or campaign stop) isn’t enough to condemn anyone.
Comment by Mike Sorensen Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 3:30 pm
Justice Rochford should be applauded not sanctioned. I was at the event and here are the facts: 1. In her speech she stated she would not make political remarks. 2. Rochford was very humble in her remarks, and spoke about the history of the office and building and the relationships with the other Justices on both sides of the aisle. 3. She invited both Republicans and Democrats to visit the Supreme Court.
4. She did not accept the award that was given to her, nor did she buy a ticket or make a contribution to the event.
It is sad to think that Supreme Court Justices could be sanctioned because of their interest in educating the public about how the Supreme Court functions. Not once did Rochford speak about issues that have or will come before the court - She simply explained the operations of the highest court in the State. We should be proud that she believes in the process so strongly while keeping partisan politics out of the discussion. She definitely spoke TO the audience and not on Behalf the organization.
Comment by Linda Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 4:14 pm
What does the code of judicial conduct say about what the penalty is for this type of violation? The code should be followed. If it says reprimand, then reprimand. If it says “this code is advisory only”, then she should be advised. If it says this disqualifies her as a judge, then she should resign.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 4:18 pm
She should not be sanctioned because she adhered to the rules that were effective 1/1/23. THe opinion expressed in the GOP PR is based on the previous rules, which were repealed. So what would be the basis of a reprimand - a rule that was eliminated in 2023? There’s a reason that the rule was repealed. Justice Rochford did nothing wrong; Republicans are just trying to confuse people with information that is no longer applicable.
Comment by Crosswalking Wednesday, Sep 13, 23 @ 7:00 pm