-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
Progressives are on the march in Illinois, and they want to make sure their new policies can’t be overturned in state court. Solution: Pass a law that requires any constitutional challenge to a state law, rule or executive order to be filed in only two counties.
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
It’s all about the Benjamins.
Illinois, Communist state, run by communist legislators.
Laws created by the criminals in favor of criminals.
Until such time as this law is struck down, if you’re going to sue the state, do it in Sangamon County because it’s not (yet) controlled by liberal Democrats and judges there have been known to rule against the state. For example, a Sangamon County judge struck down the school mask mandate in February 2022.
A thoroughly Hitlerian move by Pritzker
I’m not an attorney, so I’m wondering how in the world this is constitutional. Is there a constitutional foundation by which this can be challenged and overturned? Doesn’t this severely limit the separation of powers? How can the executive and legislative branches handcuff the judicial branch in 100 counties? Constitutional lawyers, please explain.
Anyone can still file a suit under 42 U.S. Code § 1983, against the individual(s) in their personal or professional capacity.
Something called Qualified Immunity is an absolute defense to 42 U.S. Code § 1983 cases. Legislators passing a law limiting challenges to state law does not violate “clearly established law” prohibiting this. Lawyers will figure out a way to challenge this law, probably like what someone above said, separations of powers. “Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine created by the Supreme Court that shields state actors from liability for their misconduct, even when they break the law. Under this doctrine, government agents—including but not limited to police officers—can never be sued for violating someone’s civil rights, unless they violated “clearly… Read more »
They operate in an environment near-zero accountability because most people do not understand their rights, or know how to defend their rights in court. In most cases, the plaintiff will hire an attorney instead of representing themselves, and lose the case since the attorney will not risk losing their license to practice by challenging the status quo.
Most people don’t even care…to them its all bout High School sports.
Attorneys challenge the status quo all the time. That’s what every supreme court case is “please change the law to favor my client”. That’s how Roe vs. Wade was overturned. But the courts have repeatedly declined to overturn qualified immunity and the legislatures are afraid to do it too. The SAFE-T Act was supposed to overturn qualified immunity for police officers and that was the only part of the bill that did not pass because they government will always protect itself.
Considering the Constitution has been the supreme law of the land for over 200 years, this should qualify as “clearly established law”. Legislating from the bench, by creating a “judicial doctrine”, is not law.
How can this happen? Communists/socialists/goons do not follow the Constitution.
They are in the process of creating their own communist manifesto.
When it comes to rigging the courts, Pritzker is on a role – bought two justices on Supreme Court and now just crapped over most of the state to have cases only filed in Leftist courts.
Just more communist control by jb prickster and his leftist cabal….we need to split this state up…
Back around 1969 the late Sherman Skolnick successfully obtained the resignations of two
Illinois supreme court judges for their improprieties. Democrat scum do not want a repeat and looks like we are closer to civil war due to speech suppression. Sherman was crippled by polio but was he angry enough at the corrupt courts to spend most of his life combating them.
This is where the friendly judges are
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges, including harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. This prohibition applies to both professional and personal conduct. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might… Read more »
Yes, and the Supreme Court Justice’s response was essentially, pearl clutching and Greta Thunburg impersonation of “HOW DARE YOU!”….accuse me of partiality! You’re just trying to attack me! “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.’” “Plaintiffs cast sinister aspersions that contributions to my campaign committee were made to influence the instant litigation,” Rochford said. “Plaintiffs provide no factual basis for those aspersions.” Rochford also denied making any pledge of support for gun control groups’ efforts. “Despite this broad claim, plaintiffs do not cite… Read more »
https://www.gunssavelife.com/tainted-justice-a-million-reasons-for-two-il-supreme-court-justices-to-recuse-themselves-or-else/
TAINTED JUSTICE: A million+ reasons for two IL Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves – or else… Chief Justice ducks comment
“…That’s Elizabeth Rochford on the right, holding a “Moms Demand Action” cookie, posing alongside a bunch of Moms Demand Action activists…”
Moms Demand Action is a harpy gun grabber group. What chance do you think Plaintiff’s have when she’s campaigning before a gun grabber group when she’s deciding a gun grabber law?
What an absolute disgrace. For the D’s to pass and Pritzker to sign a law saying you can only raise challenges to our wave of bulls__t new laws in the 2 counties where I have bought off and totally control the judges Is beyond any sense of fairness. Just outlawing input from the citizens and judges in the other 100 counties, including DuPage, Lake, Will, etc. seems to be the democrat way now. This should kill any chance of new businesses choosing to relocate to this state.
I’m still trying to figure out why Pritzker doesn’t just issue another executive order. Worked like a charm last time.