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.
“Two of the justices, Democrats P. Scott Neville and Joy Cunningham, recused themselves while the remaining five justices were divided enough that the court couldn’t make a ruling. Under the Illinois Constitution, four concurring justices are needed to decide on cases before the court.”
They declined to hear the case. That was the ruling. It upheld the lower court.
Chicago Tribune – Illinois Supreme Court sides with GOP, upholds unconstitutionality of ban on slating candidates
Sides with GOP…?
How about sides with the constitution…
Right on, Joey. Shows you how they think there.
They didn’t even hear the case. They didn’t side with anyone: https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/041be7cb-dbaf-4083-8ea0-0fdb76d192a9/Collazo%20v.%20Illinois%20State%20Board%20of%20Elections,%202024%20IL%20130769.pdf 2024 IL 130769 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket No. 130769) LESLIE COLLAZO et al., Appellees, v. THE ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS et al., Defendants (Emanuel “Chris” Welch, Appellant). Opinion filed August 23, 2024. PER CURIAM OPINION ¶ 1 In this case, two justices of this court have recused themselves, and the remaining members of the court are divided so that it is not possible to secure the constitutionally required concurrence of four judges for a decision (see Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI,… Read more »
They knew full well the legal result of what they did. The law is annulled.
The opinion suggests “the remaining (5) members of the court are divided” meaning that some of them wanted to hear the case likely to rule the law constitutional. The court needs four justices to take a case which means, I’d guess it was 3-2, because any other split would result in 4 judges one way or the other. Nelville is a Democrat, he recused. Likely because he ran unopposed in 2020. His write in oppositional candidate had 31 votes. Cunningham, also a Democrat, is apparently running unopposed this fall with no slated Republican running against her. That leaves three Democrats… Read more »
Article sure lacking in certain details. Two judges recused themselves. Rest of court divided, but no count on the vote. Needed four votes to overturn. I would like to know which judge(s) though that this was constitutional.
THE THREE PROGRESSIVE JUDGES. Rochford, Theis and O’Brien are AWFLs. They hate Republican judges. Theis went to the San Francisco law school during the 1970’s after attending college in Chicago.. Who in their right mind, in 1970, says, “I want to go live in San Fransicko” during law school in the 1970’s with the insane leftist hippy and druggie scene that played out there? our insane Supreme court justices, of course! and the progressive authoritarian nature of Rochford and O’Brien were well documented in 2022 when they were ‘elected’ and I use quotes because in one-party states, the Democrats redrew… Read more »
Wow.. You really must have a whopper of an unconstitutional bill to get the Illinois Democrat Supreme Court to shoot you down. It actually is hard, hard to believe that these Dem machine funded judges decided something correctly. Must have been so basically vomitable for anyone with a law degree to uphold.
Illinois dem machine is lucky courts overturned this one in light of dems nationally getting Biden to drop out and choosing (slating) KH.
Good. Stop Dems from election interference. Now atop a them from registering illegal immigrations and people with dementia from voting.