Speaking of Judges and Money
-
In Illinois...
The Illinois Supreme Court has denied a motion to disqualify two justices from hearing a challenge to the state's new gun ban over perceived conflicts of interest. The two justices also declined to recuse themselves.
Before Elizabeth Rochford and Mary O’Brien were elected to the Illinois Supreme Court in November 2022, Gov. J.B. Pritzker gave each of their campaign funds half a million dollars from both his campaign account and a revocable trust, totaling $1 million to each. The two justices also received six-figure donations out of a campaign fund controlled by Illinois House Speaker Emanual “Chris” Welch,” D-Hillside.
Both Pritzker and Welch are top defendants in a Macon County challenge of Illinois’ gun and magazine ban brought by state Rep. Dan Caulkins, R-Decatur. The county judge there issued a final judgment that the law is unconstitutional. The state appealed the case directly to the Illinois Supreme Court after a separate case was found by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to have a likelihood of success on the basis the law violates equal protections.
Late last month, Caulkins’ attorney filed a motion for the two justices to recuse themselves, or for the Illinois Supreme Court to disqualify them from hearing the challenge. Attorney Jerry Stocks argued “unreasonably large campaign contributions” from Pritzker and Welch “undermine public confidence” in the judiciary.
Asked in early March if the justices should recuse themselves because of the donations, Pritzker said that’s “ridiculous.”
“And these are independent judges and they didn’t go around and campaign on things that they thought would win my support for them,” Pritzker said when asked by The Center Square.
Late Friday, Rochford filed an order denying the motion.
“That contributors to my campaign committee might appear as counsel or parties before this court does not require my recusal from this case,” Rochford said. “Our supreme court rules specifically allow a judicial candidate’s campaign committee to solicit and accept reasonable campaign contributions and public support from lawyers.”
Rochford further said previous precedent “cautioned that courts must consider whether attacks on a judge’s impartiality are ‘simply subterfuge to circumvent anticipated adverse rulings.’”
-
Who said that the judges and the courts are not getting more political? LOL
-
Who said that the judges and the courts are not getting more political? LOL
@taiwan_girl said in Speaking of Judges and Money:
Who said that the judges and the courts are not getting more political? LOL
Remind me, how much time have you spent in Illinois?
This is a tradition that can only rival Louisiana, right @Jolly ?
ETA: I posted this for a reason. If you can show me that Justice Thomas had political influence working on his decisions, that's a concern. But, no one has done so, have they?
In Illinois it's a way of
lifedoing business. -
@taiwan_girl said in Speaking of Judges and Money:
Who said that the judges and the courts are not getting more political? LOL
Remind me, how much time have you spent in Illinois?
This is a tradition that can only rival Louisiana, right @Jolly ?
ETA: I posted this for a reason. If you can show me that Justice Thomas had political influence working on his decisions, that's a concern. But, no one has done so, have they?
In Illinois it's a way of
lifedoing business.@George-K said in Speaking of Judges and Money:
@taiwan_girl said in Speaking of Judges and Money:
Who said that the judges and the courts are not getting more political? LOL
Remind me, how much time have you spent in Illinois?
This is a tradition that can only rival Louisiana, right @Jolly ?
Y'all are minor league, but at least y'all are AAA.
