-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
Summary and audio linked here.
Chicago’s political leadership is floating a pension buyout program as evidence it is seriously addressing the city’s thirty-six-billion-dollar unfunded pension liability, but Mark Glennon, founder of the Illinois policy research organization Wirepoints, said that the proposal moves debt from one column to another rather than reducing it, and that the broader fiscal picture facing the city continues to deteriorate across every measurable dimension. Audio here.
Expect no retraction or apology. This what they do.
The state’s existing buyout program for its own pensions is the precedent for Chicago, which should be a warning: Look out for similar exaggerated claims and shoddy analysis.
Full interview and summary linked here.
SIGN UP HERE FOR OUR FREE WIREPOINTS DAILY NEWSLETTER
Nothing to see here. Move along. Perfectly OK for a governor to dip into the generational ill-gotten gains of his family’s offshore tax evasion trust fund — and bribe the justices of the Illinois Supreme Court
Just remember that probably the most corrupt Alderman in Chicago, Edward Burke, wife was an outstanding, prominent member of the Illinois Supreme Court. Appointed to the bench by the corrupt 1st Ward crew and elevated to the ILSC via crooked politicians. Her husband was stealing everything he could while her pompous behind was sitting in final judgement to many legal cases that affected every citizen of Illinois. No party favoritism? No allegiance to the drmocrat party? No bias? BULL…T
Pritzker bought these Judges. He OWNS them. Of course it’s ridiculous to expect them to recuse themselves. After $2 million they are his slaves for life.
Emperor Flintstone is going to make a GREAT Democrat POTUS candidate.
Should US Supreme Court justices also recuse themselves if the current administration appointed them to SCOTUS and they have a case before the court? I would imagine quite a bit of loyalty would be earned from that appointment. So during Trump’s Presidency we could have had up to 3 justices recusing themselves. Just looking for consistency here.
Yes, a SCOTUS justice should recuse himself IF the president contributed millions of dollars to the SCOTUS’s election campaign in the months before a big decision.
But that’s not how it works in the SCOTUS.
So. only money but not the actual nomination? As you’ve noted, SCOTUS appointments are not money dependent but are still based on nomination choice. That’s why I mentioned nominated not money. Are you seriously that much of simpleton that you can’t draw the parallel between the two. That’s rhetorical in case you’re wondering.
Also, this is why no one takes out of power party complaints seriously. Everyone knows it’s just sore losers whining and they don’t actually care when their party is in power.
I saw the parallel between nomination and money. And others, along with myself, reject your analysis, and showed that money – straight up money – is different, for many reasons, than nomination. You may think they are the same, and you are entitled to your opinion, but many others disagree with you. Let’s say YOUR case was in the ILSC court. Then you find out that your opponent donated $2,000,000 to four of the seven candidates deciding your case several months earlier. It’s not like it’s generic democrats donating the money – records show it was his personal revocable trust… Read more »
You’re correct that we can disagree. So too can JB when it comes to request that justices should recuse themselves. It’s not up either of us.
So go ahead and complain away but it won’t do any good. The equivalent of yelling at clouds.
No direct response to Debstor’s hypothetical?
PPF, you disappoint me.
Your arguments on this topic are substandard – I expected more from you.
This scenario is transparently problematic and you deny it.
Come on, man! (or woman!)
Your reading comprehension is substandard. Please re-read what I already wrote.
I don’t deny that it’s problematic its just that I don’t think it’s any more problematic than any other outside influence. People seem to not complain when the outside influence benefits their brand of politics.
Utilizing my substandard comprehension, I then conclude that you would find Debstor’s scenario problematic.
Note … the discussion is not about those in power versus those not in power. The topic is the undue influence of money on ILSC and a specific situation that will impact citizens and the state.
Your arguments are a red herring.
Admit it, PPF, this stinks to high heaven and recusal is warranted.
The topic is undue influence. Not just undue influence because of money. In this case money happens to be the cause of the influence. You either want to get rid of it or you don’t.
Clutching your pearls over this over this but ignoring other influence shows that you’re just a partisan hack. You either care or you don’t. As I’ve shown many times on this site, most only care when it impacts their brand of politics.
Stay on point and I’ll give up my pearls.
The topic is recusal of justices who have accepted $2 million from a defendant.
If you were the plaintiff in the action you would sit by calmly and hope for the best?
As a comprehension deficient partisan hack I rest my case – have a good day, PPF and let’s hope that justice prevails.
You don’t get to decide the topic Pat. Save that for your husband as the rest of us don’t need to operate under your rules. If you don’t like it, move on.
PFF- maybe you’re not from IL. But look up the controversy involving former Republican ILSC Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier. Soon after being elected, he overturned a verdict against State Farm for a Billion Dollars. State Farm supported Justice Karmeier but didn’t directly donate money to him. They supported people that supported him and his campaign and he won. Democrats made a huge stink about hidden corporate influence in judicial elections, and eventually redrew his judicial district after he retired specifically to make sure a Democrat, rather than a Republican was elected. in 2010 Democrats tried to deny him retention but… Read more »
The sad reality is that JB Pritzker, with his inherited billions, has bought off nearly all the Democrat politicians in the state. He is using his own personal money to fill the void that Madigan’s IL Democrat Party used to fill. This is the definition of soft corruption. He owns every branch of government of the state, and he’s weaponized them against his enemies. Like the complete scumbag that he is.
Big difference. US SCJs are appointed and appointed for life. They can then be independent. IL SCJs are elected and to ten year terms according to party. Several US SCJs turned out different than their appointer anticipated, Earl Warren, David Souter and others. IL SCJs never fail to vote their party line, especially Democratic ones when it’s made clear what the party wants.
Wally, I agree that there is more likelihood for independence with a SCJ but there is no doubt some level of loyalty to the current administration. Obviously the lifetime appointment helps but unless we want to do that in Illinois and do away with elections, then loyalty will still exist.
My point is that complaining about this but not other conflicts of interest is selective outrage. Either this type of influence bothers you or it doesn’t. It certainly appears that it only bothers people when they are out of power.
The ‘out of power’ argument is an irrelevant side show. IIRC, within the last year, JB’s personal revocable donated $2,000,000 to four of the seven candidates who are now deciding the case for the very bill he signed. It’s completely disingenuous to clam there’s no conflict of interest. Even if there is no conflict of interest, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest, and that alone should be enough to force recusal.
So what? Now what are you going to do? Complain some more it won’t matter.
As long as judges are human there will be conflict of interests. Your argument that it’s less influential is ridiculous. There is either a conflict of interest or there isn’t. Stop with the selective outrage.
There’s a clear link between $2,000,000 in donations directly to sitting justices AND the fact that he’s a defendant in a named suit before the court. Recusal is absolutely necessary.
Of course he would say this.
Just because he gave them money, he wouldn’t expect them to vote his way? Everything in IL is implied, understood, or unspoken. Quid pro quo rules. And if you violate it or go against what you are supposed to do, the money dries up and a new well financed opponent pops up.
Ignore the influence I have with my money says the Governor who thinks he was elected naturally. However the Tribune reported Pritzker has spent $350 million to win his two terms in office. Seems to me like he may have just purchased the governorship with his vast wealth from his grandpa? Throwing money around to all takers to gain influence? Therefore logical to assume that is happening again with the gerrymandered Supreme Court.
That is what I have written about with the Belvidere Car plant. JB should throw his money into the plant and open up his own line of EV cars and trucks. Then he can talk about how well the economy is doing in the JB state of Illinois.