Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Bustos barely leads Schilling
Next Post: Repubs mostly target each other in wake of Daley dropout
Posted in:
* AP…
A Cook County Circuit Court judge was expected to hear arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging Gov. Pat Quinn’s decision to stop lawmakers from being paid until they agree on how to deal with Illinois’ nearly $100 billion public pension problem.
House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton sued after Quinn used his line-item veto earlier this summer to cut money for legislators’ salaries from the state budget. They contend that their fellow Chicago Democrat’s actions were unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
The lawmakers have asked Judge Neil Cohen to order paychecks to be issued. Cohen set oral arguments for Wednesday. It was unclear if he planned to rule immediately following the hearing or at a later date.
* Tribune…
There are a number of potential outcomes to the hearing before Judge Neil Cohen. He could rule legislators should be paid immediately with back pay. He could rule in favor of lawmakers but put the decision on hold while the governor’s office appeals it. He could stand by Quinn. And Cohen could listen to arguments and take some time to deliberate.
* Bloomberg…
Quinn, in a July 30 statement, called the lawsuit “just plain wrong.”
The governor’s intent shouldn’t be disregarded, his attorneys said in a Sept. 13 court filing. “A line-item veto, after all, is part of a legislative process for which the fulfillment of legislative intent is the primary objective.”
The Legislature maintains the power to override his veto rendering the lawsuit moot, Quinn said in an earlier filing.
The lawmakers disputed Quinn’s assertion their case was merely hypothetical because the legislative process hasn’t run its course.
“This will come as a surprise to the legislators (and their families), who now have not been paid for two months,” Madigan and Cullerton said in a Sept. 6 filing. “Perhaps their banks can issue hypothetical credits to their accounts so that they can write hypothetical checks to pay their very real monthly bills.”
Subscribers have those September filings.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 9:39 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Bustos barely leads Schilling
Next Post: Repubs mostly target each other in wake of Daley dropout
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Bad precedent to use line-item veto in such a fashion. Separation of Powers is way too important in our republic.
Yet, keeping this in the news, can only help Quinn.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 9:45 am
I still think that allowing the Governor (or the GA for that matter) to hold their budget hostage violates separation of powers. But, I think an issue that remains outstanding in this case is that the GA has not yet tried to use it’s one remedy, which is a veto override. I suppose if I was a judge I might look at that in my decision making process.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 9:50 am
As a rule, you can’t go to court unless you exhaust all your other remedies.
They had a remedy (override) which they never tried.
They made this personal, and that’s never good. They want to go after the Gov. rather than just resolving the issue of pay.
It is disappointing to see all of them acting like children.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 9:50 am
===As a rule, you can’t go to court unless you exhaust all your other remedies.
They had a remedy (override) which they never tried.===
The General Assembly had no remedy because overriding the Veto admits that the Powers usewd by the Executive were/are valid, and further, the “extortion” of the Legislative by the Executive and putting into question the Seperation of Powers would be moot by the override.
No remedy if you believe the act itself is unlawful, and a blatent extortion by one branch of government to another, with the EXPECTATION of something before somethig else is REWARDED.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 9:54 am
Today is also the Supreme Court hearing on retirees’ healthcare premiums. Details on the health Care Premium Lawsuit:
The hearing will be held on the 18th Floor of the Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle St. in downtown Chicago. The case will be listed as the Kanerva case.
Arguments before the court are set to begin at 9:30 a.m. Lawyers for each of the cases that were consolidated will be allotted time to make their case to the court. The hearing will likely go into the afternoon.
You will need to pass through security in order to enter the building.
- See more at: http://www.afscme31.org/news/retiree-health-care-case-heads-to-supreme-court#sthash.TWcRJAVL.dpuf
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 9:57 am
What will be really interesting is if the GA zeroes out funding for the Governor’s Office and he can do nothing to restore that money. He has started a dangerous game that he cannot win, and the Speaker never forgets.
Comment by TwoFeetThick Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 9:58 am
I don’t want to get too far off-topic, but I must be missing something here. Quinn seems to have intended to zero out the pay line for however long it takes to pass pention reform. But how can he turn around after it passes and say “just kidding on that veto business”? Isn’t that line zero until the GA sends a bill re-authorizing it for Quinn to sign? I guess the heart of the question really is how is a line-item veto a temporary thing?
Comment by McLean Farmboy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 9:59 am
“A line-item veto, after all, is part of a legislative process for which the fulfillment of legislative intent is the primary objective.”
Huh???????
Now, I’m not a lawyer, and I dont play one on TV either, but that statement makes no sense at all to me.
A veto is not part of a legislative process the way I understand it. It comes at the end of the constitutionally mandated procedure whereby the legislative branch performs its function and the executive then approves or rejects.
“Fulfillment of legislative intent”???? Huh? In any bill, the legislature passes what it believes is the correct action for the state. By rejecting that bill, the executive is saying no and rejecting legislative intent.
–> This is especially true on an appropriation bill! The legislature believes $X should be spent on a specific purpose. By utilizing the line item veto, the executive branch is rejecting the legislative intent of spending $X on that item.
Can someone please explain what the Governor’s lawyers are saying here? Or how in the world they came up with that?
Comment by low level Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:04 am
So any idea why Quinn is being paid? I thought he directed the Comptroller not to pay him? Yet his own accountability portal said he was last paid 8-30-13.
Comment by Spliff Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:04 am
The General Assembly might have a remedy in its power to override, but the individual senator or representative does not since he or she has no power to even call a vote on the matter.
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:05 am
They ran to the court because they are too scared of the voters to override the veto without having resolved the pension issue.
Comment by 100 Miles West Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:13 am
==What will be really interesting is if the GA zeroes out funding for the Governor’s Office and he can do nothing to restore that money. He has started a dangerous game that he cannot win, and the Speaker never forgets.==
I think the GA did something akin to that back in the Walker administration.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:17 am
Huh. And here I thought he wasn’t going to take a paycheck.
http://accountability.illinois.gov/Employees/Employee/EmployeeDetails.aspx?Year=2013&Agency=310&ID=ceb29fbe-f51f-e311-bd9f-0019bb3ad8e6
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:18 am
I bet the Judge punts.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:18 am
Individual lawmakers have no remedy. Also, if you overide the veto you are giving some credibilty to the act itself. I am pleased that MJM now beleives the Illinois Constituion is important. I suspect nothing will happen on pension reform until the court case is decided. The GA will not hand Quinn a victory on this. Quinns actions have slowed the progress towards any kind of pension plan. Yes, if pension reform is passed Quinn can not take his veto back.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:25 am
== I guess the heart of the question really is how is a line-item veto a temporary thing? ==
It isn’t. There’s no such thing as a temporary line item veto. This is another example of Quinn doing something without actually thinking of the outcome.
==They ran to the court because they are too scared of the voters to override the veto without having resolved the pension issue. ==
Besides the fact that it is horrible precedent to let a Governor line item veto salaries for another branch, they had to go to court to get the back pay.Even if they overrode the veto, they cannot receive the back pay without a court ruling.
Comment by neverendingstory Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:28 am
If your position is that the very act of cutting the pay was unconstitutional, than an override isn’t possible. In fact, it would ratify that the act was constitutional.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:28 am
If Quinn is getting his check, I sure hope the press will report on that.
Comment by ugh Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:29 am
I beleive judical branch will be very sensitive to this issue and will act forcefully to overide Quinns actions. If they don’t they would look very foolish the next time their pay is effected because the GA and the Executive branch don’t like one of their decsisons. The judges know they could be next, so I would expect a sharp rebuke of Quinn. Of course one never knows for sure…will be interesting.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:42 am
==If they don’t they would look very foolish the next time their pay is effected because the GA and the Executive branch don’t like one of their decsisons. The judges know they could be next, so I would expect a sharp rebuke of Quinn.==
This is also true for so-called pension reform, and for the retiree health insurance issue.
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:57 am
@Anon. - Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 10:57 am:
yes, indeed that would seem correct to me as well. Good point. The GA to include MJM know what is correct, legal and proper to do on pensions but they are playing this whole thing out in a political fashion. I belive the GA going to court for pay makes this process harder.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 11:04 am
I should have said “harder for them” them being the GA.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 11:05 am
Even though I support the Cullerton-Madigan lawsuit and don’t believe that Quinn did the right thing by taking away legislators pay the way he did, I’m extremely apalled that our legislators are picking and choosing which parts of our state constitution are constitutional. What about the constitutional protections for pensions that they seem to be ignoring when it’s someone else?
Comment by My Thoughts For Whatever Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 11:09 am
i look forward to thoughtful, creative, painful, but constitutional “payback” by the GA. i am not sure what it will be, but i know it is coming. perhaps start by eliminating vacancies in the governors office, and disallowing/defunding departmental employees from being listed there, but working for the governor. nah, too obvious and not creative enough.
Comment by langhorne Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 11:30 am
@My Thoughts For Whatever - Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 11:09 am
Indeed. Oh what a wicked web we weave when we first set out to deceive. Situational ethics on display for sure. Seems one has to only follow the money.
Comment by facts are stubborn things Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 11:36 am
Anon at the top was me. sorry.
As usual: Word and O’Willy have nailed it.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 11:39 am
I am surprised that Rauner hasn’t tried to latch onto the lawmaker pay scandal by advocating that GA members work without pay permanently. I could see him advocating that plan–but I could be wrong.
Comment by Leatherneck Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 11:51 am
When JBT, over her desire, heeded the advice of her counsel to uphold this procedure until after the court ruled on it, some greater legitimacy was added to the veto itself. We’ll see what the judge says, but in the court of public opinion, the Governor has made his point either way. I have little doubt that the GA will tighten this up with a bill in the next assembly very early on. If you avoid desperate situations, you avoid desperate solution searching. If this isn’t resolved by veto session, I do predict an override.
Comment by A guy... Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 12:00 pm
Facts - The courts have already issued a ruling saying that this can’t be done to them. It is the Jorgensen v. Blago case. So if the court is consistent, it should apply the same standard for legislators.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 2:01 pm
Regarding the ripeness issue, the plaintiff’s reply aptly addresses that issue. I’ve excerpted a relevant portion of the reply which I believe convincingly responds to the point of ripeness. Note that I’ve omitted references to other court cases.
=== The basic rationale of the ripeness doctrine is to “prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.” … Governor Quinn’s line-item veto was “formalized” when Public Act 98-64 went into effect and Defendant Topinka refused to issue legislators their August, and now, September paychecks. Moreover, it is hard to imagine the effect of a law being felt in a more “concrete way” than is happening to legislators today. They are not being paid for the work that they do for their constituents every day, contrary to a specific and straight-forward provision of the Illinois constitution.
The Supreme Court formulated a two-prong ripeness test: “first, courts look at whether the issues are fit for judicial decision; and second, they look at any hardship to the parties that would result from withholding judicial consideration.” … As for the first factor, the Supreme Court has held that claims are fit for judicial decision when they are “essentially legal in nature—whether the language of the rule violates the constitution and must therefore be declared void, as well as whether the rule violates various Illinois and federal statutes…” … Here, too, the claims are “essentially legal in nature” because they challenge the legal sufficiency of Public Act 98-64 and the Governor’s line-item veto and whether they violate the Illinois Constitution or the statutes governing payment of legislative salaries. As for the second prong of the ripeness test, the Supreme Court has held that there was a sufficient hardship that affected the plaintiff in a “concrete way” where a government action causes a “plaintiff to lose financially.” … (plaintiff suffering financial loss “has already felt a direct and palpable injury and has an
immediate financial stake in the resolution of the instant action.”).
Finally, Governor Quinn’s ripeness argument is predicated on a misunderstanding, or mischaracterization, of the Constitution’s legislative article. Governor Quinn suggests that the case is not ripe because Plaintiffs “control their own destiny.” (Def. Quinn Mem., p. 10). He goes on to say that “if plaintiffs wish to receive their paychecks now” they can simply “call a special session of the General Assembly and override the Governor’s veto.” Id. This statement is simply incorrect.
While Plaintiffs, as the presiding officers of their respective chambers, have the
constitutional authority to call a special session (Ill.Const. 1970, art. IV, §5(b)), they have no constitutional authority, despite the Governor’s statements to the contrary, to independently “override the Governor’s veto.” An override of the Governor’s line-item veto requires an affirmative vote by a three-fifths majority of both the House and the Senate. Ill.Const. 1970, art. IV, § 9(d); 9(c). As there are 118 Representatives, and 59 Senators, (Ill.Const. 1970, art. IV, §1), Plaintiffs are reliant upon the concurrence of 70 other Representatives and 35 other Senators before the Governor’s veto can be overridden. Moreover, although President Cullerton, in concert with Speaker Madigan, could call the Senate into special session, the Senate is powerless to override the Governor’s veto until 71 members of the House vote to do so first. Ill.Const.
1970, art. IV, § 9(d)(”An item vetoed shall be returned to the house in which it originated and may become law in the same manner as a vetoed bill.”)
As a result, Plaintiffs do not “control their own destiny” as the Governor claims. The Defendants’ actions have violated Plaintiff’s rights by denying them their rightful salaries. As a result of this financial loss, Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete impact that renders this matter ripe for judicial consideration. ===
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 2:32 pm
Norseman,
Basically they argue that exhausting remedies might not result in the result that plaintiffs’ seek.
Well, that happens. Sometimes you go through the process and you lose. That’s why courts exist to reverse those things if they are wrong.
You still need to jump through the hoops before running into court.
Basically what the plaintiffs are doing is similar to asking the Supreme Court to hear a case that has not been heard at the appellate court on the basis that the appellate court may agree with the trial court. Yes, it may. But you still need to go step by step through the process.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 2:59 pm
For an extensive analysis of the oral argument in Kanerva, check out http://www.appellatestrategist.com.
Comment by Archiesmom Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 3:31 pm
- Norseman -,
Well done, great post.
Also, - Skeeter -, you are missing the point that the General Assembly will not validate the Veto by overridding what they feel is a breach of the Seperation of Powers.
If they even tried the override, they would be undercutting their own arguement, so relief must be sought first and only.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 3:32 pm
Oswego, the problem with your argument is that it would mean that for any allegedly unconstitutional AV, somebody would have to rush to court.
There is a procedure in place for dealing with improper AVs. Until that procedure is followed, they shouldn’t go to court.
Going through the procedures doesn’t validate anything. It is just a hoop to jump through.
You need to exhaust remedies first.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 3:38 pm
- Skeeter -,
The veto is based on the Separation of Powers! The question is about overriding and making legit the extortion of I’ve branch over the other.
Seeking relief legislatively, gives the veto power that the GA can not let the Executive have over the Legislative.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 3:56 pm
=== Oswego, the problem with your argument is that it would mean that for any allegedly unconstitutional AV, somebody would have to rush to court. ===
Skeeter, what other potential unconstitutional AV’s do you see. (Actually we’re discussing an Item Veto) A ruling on a similar reduction veto has already been declared in Jorgensen. This would be another. I can see the potential of one other if there was a elimination of an appropriation to pay for pensions. All three of these involve constitutional protections involving the change or diminishment of salaries or annuities.
=== There is a procedure in place for dealing with improper AVs. Until that procedure is followed, they shouldn’t go to court.===
As referenced in the blurb I posted before, there are two issues in whether the court should intercede. First, is there a remedy before going to court. I agree with plaintiff’s argument that this remedy is not available to an individual lawmaker. The constitutional protection is granted to the individual, not the institution. The second is whether there is any damage. These folks are not getting paid.
=== Going through the procedures doesn’t validate anything. It is just a hoop to jump through. ===
This point has been excellently made by so many before me, I won’t repeat the argument. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 3:58 pm
Oswego,
Let me give you a hypothetical — what if, in the bill regarding timing for insurers to deliver releases and settlement drafts, Quinn had AV’d it an added “Any settlement of a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff receives more than $500,000 more than his proven medical bills is hereby void and unenforceable.”
Would anybody opposing that AV have to rush to court to declare the AV to be unconstitutional?
Are you advocating for a rule that any allegedly unconstitutional AV must be litigated rather than overridden?
An override takes what — a few weeks?
A court case can easily take four years.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 4:08 pm
=== Author: Archiesmom
Comment:
For an extensive analysis of the oral argument in Kanerva, check out http://www.appellatestrategist.com. ===
Thank you Archiesmom. After reading the article which opines that the questioning by IL Supremes in today’s hearing leads him to believe that they will allow insurance and pension reductions.
My visceral response to this, if it becomes true, is that the courts will take care of itself and possibly the solons, but the rest of us are just screwed despite the plain language of the constitution. Perhaps we should root for the courts to let the legislators sit without their salaries for a long time.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 4:10 pm
- Skeeter -
To your post,
With respect, again, the point is not to or not to override, the point is the Separation of Powers. The Speaker and Senate President will not give on Branch “Extortion” powers over another.
How you can’t see that as one of the prongs, and one of the strongest prongs, that is on you, not me.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 4:16 pm
Oswego,
Courts have limited jurisdiction.
They can only hear cases where there is an actual case or controversy.
They can only hear cases where other remedies have been exhausted.
That’s true no matter the perceived injury.
Is there a remedy outside court? Yes.
Would that remedy fix all the problems (other than perhaps the perceived insult to the process?). Yes.
As such, the court lacks jurisdiction.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 4:22 pm
- Skeeter -,
A question of “Extorted” powers of one branch of government over another IS a controversy.
Yikes, the fact that us lost on you…
The GA can not …CAN’T… override. They would blow their own case.
Further,
It is in the Court’s pervue to decide Seperation of Powers… For those governmental powers.
Constitutional impasses need courts.
Worked in the past when there were Constitutional questions, so I hear.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 4:30 pm
=== Author: Skeeter
Comment:
Oswego,
Let me give you a hypothetical — what if, in the bill regarding timing for insurers to deliver releases and settlement drafts, Quinn had AV’d it an added “Any settlement of a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff receives more than $500,000 more than his proven medical bills is hereby void and unenforceable.”
Would anybody opposing that AV have to rush to court to declare the AV to be unconstitutional? ===
Skeeter, you need to bone up on the process. Your hypothetical is dead on arrival. A bill that was AV’d doesn’t become law until after the General Assembly has acted. A bill that is IV’d or VR’d becomes law except for the amount that was deleted by the IV or reduced by the VR. Since this involves money, the Comptroller can’t issue checks when the disputed money is not law.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 4:34 pm
Initially Oswego, I don’t need the attitude.
You can disagree without the snide little remarks. Learn how to disagree without the anger.
Second, yes courts can decide constitutional questions. I said exactly that above. In fact, as I noted, they do it all the time. So what was the intent of your “Constitutional impasses need courts” comment?
Were you claiming that because plaintiffs did not WANT to do an override there is suddenly a reason to skip that step? I wish I could just skip steps when I don’t like them. “Appellate Court, please direct this one directly to the Supremes, because I don’t want to stop at your court. I want to leap over this one. We are at an impasse, so there is no need to take this step.”
I don’t think it would go over too well.
However, I also said a court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case that is not ripe.
If there is an override, the Gov. wins? No, he really doesn’t.
IL govs do stupid stuff. They issue improper AVs. There is a remedy. It is called “override.” Problem solved.
Oswego, you need to step away from feeling hurt that the Gov. did something that was mean and stupid.
Yes, he did. And a remedy exists to solve the problem. The plaintiffs’ decided to ignore that method. Until they do so, they don’t get to clog the courts.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 4:40 pm
- Skeeter -
They went to circuit court, seems like a first step.
The GA is not skipping a step, when what the Governor did was unconstitutional. No step to skip.
As for the attitude, with respect, you have been missing a major reason the GA will not seek an override, and the fact that doing an override naked this all Moot.
I get “upset” when having discussions where one party thinks the Constitution is a bad personal injury lawsuit.
I get like that. Jimmy falling down and suing, and the Executive and the Legislative in court on Extortion of one branch over the other, yeah, it ain’t Jimmy tripping and falling seeking relief for a slippery sidewalk.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 4:51 pm
Skeeter, as one of Demoralized’s favorite constitutional experts (LOL), I have noted my reasons as to why the case should be decided now. This is a point shared by Oswego Willy (my favorite gubernatorial candidate) and others. We have not convinced you of the merits of our position. Conversely, you have not convinced us of the merits of your argument. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
That being said, that doesn’t mean the judge won’t rule your way. They are people and people make decisions that don’t make sense to all of us. Given what I perceive as poor questions by the judge as referenced in the feed, you may be get your victory. I’d still take the rational opinion that he would be wrong. Emotionally, given what they’re trying to do to public employees and retirees, I would love to have the Solons suffer financially.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 4:55 pm
Oswego,
Are you claiming that constitutional rights relative to PI cases don’t really matter?
Are there different classes of constitutional violations, where you get an immediate answer on some, and on others you need to go through the process?
Let’s get back to my example — if a Gov. did an AV on a civil procedure bill to add unconstitutional tort reform, could people rush straight to court, or would they have to wait for an override? And if there was a failed override, would that mean that unconstitutional tort reform would become law?
It sure seems like your argument boils down to “this perceived constitutional violation is worse than that one, so I shouldn’t have to follow all the rules or jump through all the hoops.”
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 5:18 pm
- Norseman -
Ever my “voice of reason”.
What are you doing for the next 4 years …
To your Post,
Agreed, the judge has many avenues to rule. Passion on this case is only as high as the Pension Crisis that is part and parcel to why Pat Quinn felt the nedd to do what he did.
My fear is that this Seperation of Powers is getting lost, and in the long run, ruin … the Seperations beyond a repairable working relationship that is needed for a better Illinois.
It’s important.
There is a game within this game, not lost on ALL of us, but let’s be quite clear, none of us want “seperate but equal” be something missing in Illinois government.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 5:21 pm
- Skeeter -
See - Norseman -’s post.
If you don’t get “it”, its on you, not me.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 5:23 pm
Oswego,
Keep the day job.
Leave the law to professionals.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 5:30 pm
- Skeeter -,
I hope Constitutional Law is not YOUR day job …
“With kindest personal regards …”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 5:32 pm
Actually it is, Oswego, which is why I find your “arguments” sort of ridiculous.
Some Constitutional violations do not require an exhaustion of other avenues? As a professional, I can safely call your argument “interesting.”
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 5:37 pm
lol,
- Skeeter -, dude!
See - Norseman -, see the posts upon posts …
Now I actually HOPE you are not a Constitutional lawyer. Yikes!
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 5:39 pm
You never know for certain what a judge will say, but saying you have not exhausted your remedies mean that you still have an avenue open in which you can demand consideration of your complaint. An individual member of the GA has no such remedies available because he or she has no ability to force a vote. If all you can do is say “pretty please,” you don’t have a remedy.
Comment by Anon. Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 8:00 pm
Anon @ 8:00 PM - Exactly right!
A remedy has to be one an individual can pursue, on his/her own. How does a veto become a viable “administrative remedy” which must be exhausted first when Legislator X has no individual power to make it happen?
Beyond that, I’m with O’Willy - this is a critical separation of powers issue. A veto vote would serve to validate Gov. Squeezy’s unconstitutional action, leading to the temptation of many more such actions in the future when the Gov “demands” the legislature acts in a certain way “for the people”.
The Gov’s act is designed simply to shore up his bona fides with the electorate that has been whipped up into a hatred of supposedly over-paid, political hack employees (which many think we are).
Ultimately, his banana-republic style tactics need to be revealed and rejected.
*******************************************
- Anon. - Wednesday, Sep 18, 13 @ 8:00 pm:
You never know for certain what a judge will say, but saying you have not exhausted your remedies mean that you still have an avenue open in which you can demand consideration of your complaint. An individual member of the GA has no such remedies available because he or she has no ability to force a vote. If all you can do is say “pretty please,” you don’t have a remedy.
Comment by Algonquin J. Calhoun Thursday, Sep 19, 13 @ 8:31 am