Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Recusal Thread


mauserme

Recommended Posts

Everyone should write the Chicago Tribune and comment on their article asking the question if the justices should recuse themselves. 

I did but they don't like me anymore either. 

 

To:

letters@chicagotribune.com

 

Their automated response: (note rules) 

Thank you for writing the Chicago Tribune opinion team. Because of the number of letters we receive, we can't respond to everyone individually. Please look at our guidance below. If your letter fails to comply with our criteria, it may not be considered.

Before sending us a letter, be sure to type your letter in the body of the email. Do not attach it as a document.

Please note:
• Letters must be NO MORE than 400 words.
• Provide us with your full name. (No letters will be published anonymously or with only first names.) Also provide your contact information, including city and state, as well as your phone number for verification purposes. If your letter is chosen, your city/town will be printed with your name. All other contact information will remain private.
• No more than four signatures will be printed with a letter.

We are looking for:
• Timely responses to current events and Tribune news and opinion content.
• Thoughtful criticisms of elected officials.
• Both serious and whimsical observations of our local communities, our state, our nation and human nature in general.
• Personal stories that will resonate with readers.
• Pieces that sincerely advocate for legislation or a cause.

We are not looking for:
• Open letters to elected officials and other people.
• Self-serving advocacy or promotional pieces.
• Ax-grinding rants.
• Poems.

We prefer to edit and/or trim letters as little as possible, but we reserve the right to do so. Thank you again for reaching out to us.
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 2:47 PM, steveTA84 said:

Pritzker asked about it and he is MAD!!!!’ He made excuses and walked away🤣🤣🤣

 

 


 

I like how he categorized 1 million to each judge as “some money” like he found some change behind the couch and gave it to a campaign. He was lead donor for at least one of the judges campaigns and he is lead defendant on a case they are hearing. This is very different than cutting a hundred dollar check to the DNC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caulkins should be demanding recusal. If he’s expecting them to do the right thing, he’s going to be sorely upset. If the reverse was happening, we all know the Democrat would be demanding the judges step aside. I’ll eat crow on that if I’m wrong.

 

 

Regarding DeVore, I don’t care who wins, as long as someone wins here and doesn’t just throw their hands up. Caulkins was given this on a silver platter and there’s no denying anything regarding the content, especially since we have prior SCOTUS precedent on an issue that mirrors it. It should be used 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 5:17 PM, mauserme said:

I think it's possible that Representative Caulkins is trying to avoid the appearance of making this a political argument.

 

 

While true (maybe he’s giving them time, none of us can read minds, only what’s in front of us), I guess we shall see in time. Luckily, the federal cases will be further along before May anyways, so maybe both cases (DeVore’s and his) will be moot 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_cdff6172-be06-11ed-a9e4-5357b48209ca.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
 

(The Center Square) – Gov. J.B. Pritzker said Wednesday that despite his million-dollar donationsto two Illinois Supreme Court justices last year, they are independent and should not have to recuse themselves from two high-profile cases before them in which the governor is a defendant.

Pritzker donated a total of $2 million from two separate accounts to then-Illinois Supreme Court candidates Mary O’Brien and Elizabeth Rochford, $1 million each. Those candidates are now justices on the bench of seven who will hear separate challenges to the state's no-cash bail provision (next week) and to the state's gun ban and registry (in May). Pritzker signed both the SAFE-T Act and the gun ban into law and is a defendant in the lawsuits challenging their constitutionality.
 

Responding to a question about the donations, Pritzker said it was "ridiculous" to suggest that anyone who received money from him should have to recuse themselves.

“If you’re suggesting that the fact that I gave money to let's say the Democratic Party or the committees that supported candidates means that everybody who’s received any money has to recuse themselves from anything to do with the state of Illinois, that’s ridiculous,” Pritzker said at an unrelated event in Springfield. “And I’ve certainly never asked anybody to vote a certain way or decide on a case a certain way. I would never do that. I never have and I never will.”
 

Independent observers say judges should recuse themselves where there is any hint of conflict of interest.Chris Forsyth with the nonpartisan Judicial Integrity Project in Colorado told The Center Square that trust in the judicial system is crucial in American society.
 

“If we don’t have confidence in the opinions the judicial branch issues then our judicial branch is failing,” Forsyth told The Center Square.

Pritzker also said Wednesday that he didn’t violate campaign finance laws he signed last year in making the donations. The 2022 law capped contribution limits in such campaigns to $500,000 from “any single person.” Pritzker's $2 million in donations $1 million each – came from two separate counts, $500,000 to each from both Pritzker’s political campaign and his revocable trust.

Illinois House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch, D-Hillside, also was a top donor to the justices with O’Brien receiving $350,000 and Rochford receiving $150,000 from The People for Emanuel Chris Welch fund. Welch is another top defendant in the gun-ban challenge and the challenge against Illinois’ no-cash bail law that’s currently on hold pending appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they do recuse and he doesn’t get a favorable ruling he’s hurting.

If they do recuse and he gets a favorable ruling he’s good.

If they don’t recuse and he gets a favorable ruling he’s good.

If the don’t recuse and he doesn’t get a favorable ruling there’s grounds to continue…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 5:41 PM, steveTA84 said:

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_cdff6172-be06-11ed-a9e4-5357b48209ca.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share
 


 

Responding to a question about the donations, Pritzker said it was "ridiculous" to suggest that anyone who received money from him should have to recuse themselves.

“If you’re suggesting that the fact that I gave money to let's say the Democratic Party or the committees that supported candidates means that everybody who’s received any money has to recuse themselves from anything to do with the state of Illinois, that’s ridiculous,” Pritzker said at an unrelated event in Springfield. “And I’ve certainly never asked anybody to vote a certain way or decide on a case a certain way. I would never do that. I never have and I never will.”


We should have our cases transferred back to Judge Gilbert then.  No reason for Gilbert to recuse for simply being a trustee at SIU - a much weaker potential conflict of interest.

 

No, nothing to see here.  Besides.. JB didn't tell them to decide a case a certain way, and he never will, and we can take him and his missing toilets at his word.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 5:36 PM, mauserme said:

He's likely following the advice of his attorney, who may have some insight we don't.

 

 

You mean the one he told to step aside while he answers the question? He could have let his attorney respond, then follow up after that. 

His actions tell me he is running the show, not the attorney.

 

I get that we don't want to accuse anyone of nefarious actions, and we will have to see how this plays out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2023 at 6:08 PM, mab22 said:

You mean the one he told to step aside while he answers the question? He could have let his attorney respond, then follow up after that. 

His actions tell me he is running the show, not the attorney.

 

I get that we don't want to accuse anyone of nefarious actions, and we will have to see how this plays out.

 

If you're talking about the guy that stepped away from the microphone in the Bishop on Air tweet Steve posted at 4:57 PM, he looks like Representative Windhorst to me.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one simple question everyone in Illinois should be asking, since these justices are not needed to deliver a just ruling, why don't they simply step aside and put to rest all doubt they are bought and paid for by JB?

 

If they fail to step aside and ultimently rule in favor of JB, literally no one (that is being honest) will believe they are/were impartial...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^
 

if they don’t step aside, a whole new can of worms is opened because they would be violating settled SCOTUS law 

 

10C4C7FB-9E14-4A3D-82E9-B60E26E445CB.thumb.jpeg.3b2430c43d58dc81b8809304dafefd05.jpegCAA99CD2-5832-46C0-A0DC-DDC2E68F4C97.thumb.jpeg.9eb86b29971a389a82f3bca868c171fd.jpeg

 

we can potentially see what’s gonna happen sooner though 

 

32F88F74-B6ED-4623-AEC3-1C45AA7E9584.jpeg.d72240971a78b8dfaf173e38773ee7b8.jpegA95C8115-8F74-4BAF-84E3-5105D0D02BBD.jpeg.ef0780f5399ceeeda5ab14522e5e8670.jpeg
 

Both Pritzker and Welch (named in highs this one and the gun case) are defendants 

 

1A73AF23-6347-4355-AA11-4475F2160E53.jpeg.96d40154c4ba500ae9d1cece5d951ad5.jpeg7FF85C42-4575-4E36-B5EC-96700FDA97AA.jpeg.1ff28606db427dec5597cd576c168cee.jpeg

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • mauserme changed the title to Caulkins v Prizker Recusal Thread
  • mauserme unpinned this topic
  • Molly B. locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...