Caulkins v Prizker Recusal Thread

[steveTA84]

On 4/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, 2smartby1/2 said:

 

And I just got the checkmate on O’Brien. Wow!  What luck this is LOL. You’ll see when you watch. What’s the Caulkins case about again?.....

 

 

 

 

So if she doesn’t recuse, she’s forced to rule this way or cause controversy that puts her in a position that proves she’s biased. If she recuses she dodges the responsibility (why she’s there) and saves face 

[yurimodin]

On 4/3/2023 at 11:08 PM, steveTA84 said:

And I just got the checkmate on O’Brien. Wow!  What luck this is LOL. You’ll see when you watch. What’s the Caulkins case about again?.....

 

 

FullSizeRender.mov 14.14 MB · 0 downloads

 

 

 

So if she doesn’t recuse, she’s forced to rule this way or cause controversy that puts her in a position that proves she’s biased. If she recuses she dodges the responsibility (why she’s there) and saves face 

got a timestamp?.....I'm not watching that whole thing

[steveTA84]

On 4/4/2023 at 11:35 AM, yurimodin said:

got a timestamp?.....I'm not watching that whole thing

7:07

[steveTA84]

ILSC Chief Justice: “no comment”

 

 

[yurimodin]

On 4/4/2023 at 12:32 PM, steveTA84 said:

7:07

yeah but that's (D)ifferent

[steveTA84]

On 4/3/2023 at 4:32 PM, steveTA84 said:

Rich Miller also overlooked this little problem. They can’t claim to be impartial 

 

 

Today. If you’re reading, Rich, thanks for at least attempting to ask. GPAC seems to realize they made a boo boo 

[mikew]

On 4/3/2023 at 10:43 PM, mab22 said:

When it comes to the Justices receiving $500,000 in excess contributions.

If I read the law correctly.

Did/Do/ Have they/  the Justices have to turn anything in excess of $500,000 over to the state treasure.

Was any single donation over $500K?

 

[steveTA84]

Oh nooooooo LOL 

 

https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/article_d9f9d484-d31f-11ed-8ac8-d77e5ccd4d65.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=user-share

 

The Center Square) – The chief justice of the Illinois Supreme Court won’t comment on a motion for two of the seven justices on the bench to recuse themselves in a case challenging Illinois’ gun ban.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker gave more $1 million each to then-justice candidates Elizabeth Rochford and Mary O’Brien. Now seated on the bench of seven, Rochford and O'Brien are set to hear a challenge of the gun ban Pritzker signed Jan. 10. 

The plaintiffs in the case have filed a motion for Rochford and O’Brien to recuse themselves from proceedings because of “unreasonably large campaign contributions” and other issues. 
 

During a House Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday, state Rep. Brad Halbrook, R-Shelbyville, asked Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Jane Theis about the issue. 

“They were just recently elected, is that correct,” Halbrook asked. 

“That’s right,” Theis said. 

“You think they’ll do the right thing and recuse themselves in relationship to the gun-ban case,” Halbrook asked. 

“There are motions pending before the court as we speak and at this point I’m not going to make any comment on those motions until they’ve been decided,” Theis said. 
 

Some past statements from the then-candidates and now justices have surfaced. 

Nearly a year ago, before the November 2022 election, Rochford addressed with the American Constitution Society how to ensure impartiality by acknowledging a higher standard. 
 

“Just that appearance of bias is a dangerous thing that undermines the credibility of our judicial system,” Rochford said. 
 

In a candidate statement to the League of Women Voters in October, O’Brien sounded off on where she stands on a central question in the gun ban challenge: equal protections.  

“Let the laws apply the same to everyone, no matter what your economic status is or your social status, let the laws apply equally to everybody,” O’Brien said. 
 

Illinois’ gun ban and registry does not apply to active and retired police, and others in the law enforcement and security industries, something plaintiffs say violates equal protections. 

[mab22]

On 4/4/2023 at 2:37 PM, mikew said:

Was any single donation over $500K?

 

They each received 2 donation of $500k Each, one from the Pritzker for Gov campaign, and the other from the Pritzker Trust. Total donation to each was $1 Million.

 

[mikew]

On 4/4/2023 at 3:12 PM, mab22 said:

They each received 2 donation of $500k Each, one from the Pritzker for Gov campaign, and the other from the Pritzker Trust. Total donation to each was $1 Million.

 

Each one of the toilets he removed from the mansion could have had its own revocable trust, each could have made another 500K donation, good thing he didn't game the system.

[steveTA84]

Oh judge......

 

 

and here she is running the Lake Co Democrats booth at the 2022 county fair promoting one of the main defendants (Pritzker), the guy that got the gun ban bill

rolling (Morgan) and HP Strong (who supports a gun ban)

 

[Tvandermyde]

funny thing Mary K had an A+ rating with the NRA when she was a legislator

[steveTA84]

On 4/4/2023 at 10:23 PM, Tvandermyde said:

funny thing Mary K had an A+ rating with the NRA when she was a legislator

She appears to have gotten with the new D platform and forsaken her past positions in order to get power. Once a politician always a politician I guess 

[Tvandermyde]

On 4/5/2023 at 6:51 AM, steveTA84 said:

She appears to have gotten with the new D platform and forsaken her past positions in order to get power. Once a politician always a politician I guess 

well we don't know. If you look at the GPAC endorsement I think there is a quote from rochford, but nothing from Mary K. which seemed to be the case on a number of areas, and i'm not sure her speech Infront of the league was all that telling. Our side might have a surprise on their hands and until we see something further should not overplay their hand. 

 

 

[steveTA84]

 

[steveTA84]

On 4/5/2023 at 6:59 AM, Tvandermyde said:

well we don't know. If you look at the GPAC endorsement I think there is a quote from rochford, but nothing from Mary K. which seemed to be the case on a number of areas, and i'm not sure her speech Infront of the league was all that telling. Our side might have a surprise on their hands and until we see something further should not overplay their hand. 

 

 

Yeah there’s not much out there on O’Brien. Wish there was a way we could figure out what was said w/GPAC and O’Brien.  
 

Rochford, however, not even a chance she would be unbiased. Her decision on this is obvious without a doubt and always had been

[steveTA84]

O’Brien related tweets (she scrubbed her account and killed it)

 

 

 

[steveTA84]

GSL article about the more recent developments 

 

https://www.gunssavelife.com/tainted-justice-a-million-reasons-for-two-il-supreme-court-justices-to-recuse-themselves-or-else/

[steveTA84]

Now we (likely) know there were private conversations had behind closed doors to get those endorsements and $$, especially considering her past positions 

 

https://news.wttw.com/2022/10/12/balance-power-could-shift-illinois-supreme-court-here-are-candidates-running-november

 

Democrat O’Brien said her time as a legislator gives her the best perspective for a job with the responsibility of deciding the legality of the statues the General Assembly passes.

As a state representative from 1996 to 2003, O’Brien chaired the criminal justice committee and served on the audit commission; she said she also sponsored measures to redraft the grain insurance code and to improve consumer access to generic drugs.

“I think that my experience both as a practicing attorney, having 19 years experience on the appellate court, and the depth and breadth of the type of work really makes me perfectly suited to this position,” O’Brien said. “There is a lot at stake. As states begin to look at laws regarding reproductive health and other issues, the state supreme courts are going to be deciding this.”

She stands by ads against Burke, and said they are not a smear.

She says to avoid the appearance of impropriety she will not share her views on abortion, beyond that the Dobbs decision does not reflect constitutional protections.

“The justices they’re using the originalist philosophy, because I think if you look at where we were as a country in the 1860s, women once they were married had no right to own property. They couldn’t vote,” she said. “So we can’t look simply to the history of where our country was at the time an amendment was passed to look at where we should be today.”

O’Brien she doesn’t subscribe to a particular judicial philosophy, so as not to be pigeon-holed.

“We don’t determine what the law is, we simply look at it, we look to see whether or not it fits within our state constitutional framework” and whether the lockstep doctrine calls for following federal precedent, she said.

O’Brien said she is passionate about improving how Illinois courts deal with children who are wards of the state, as status hearings that determine whether children can be reunited with their families are too infrequent.

 

 

Now, that said, O’Brien is far less obviously committed than Rochford. With O’Brien’s previous statements on the state  constitution EPC, she’s on record for it being important to her. If she stays and goes against the Macon Co ruling, it’s obvious she’s compromised. If she recuses, she saves herself from going against her donors and those who backed her in the gun control movement. If she sides against the state, she’s gonna upset a lot of people who backed her (even though it would be the right and correct thing to do).

[steveTA84]

2022 GPAC candidate questionnaire candidates filled out to get an endorsement 

https://gpacillinois.com/candidate-questionnaire-2022/

 

[yurimodin]

On 4/4/2023 at 10:23 PM, Tvandermyde said:

funny thing Mary K had an A+ rating with the NRA when she was a legislator

A Negotiate Rights Away rating isn't all its cracked up to be.....Ron Paul would only get like a B or C rating back in the day because he wouldn't vote for their compromise bills.

[steveTA84]

More O’Brien goodies. 
 

she canvassed with Maura H on gun control 

 

 

 

GPAC was involved in Don Harmon’s scandal involving PersonalPAC

 

 

 

[steveTA84]

Archived copy of O’Brien’s not deleted campaign Twitter account located. Will

post any relative findings

 

 

 

[Jeffrey]

The deeper Steve digs, the more these judges look like they'd belong to a JB supreme corrupt court.  

[steveTA84]

On 4/5/2023 at 2:46 PM, Jeffrey said:

The deeper Steve digs, the more these judges look like they'd belong to a JB supreme corrupt court.  

Nothing much of substance on O’Brien’s deleted Twitter. It only goes back to September of 2022 as well, whole thing wasn’t archived. A couple of pics of her and JB though and that’s about it, no mention of  GPAC or guns 

[steveTA84]

Mailers sent out 

[steveTA84]

So, she campaigns with the now defendant and they both get their GPAC endorsement 

 

and then goes on to explain how she got the endorsement, which the link takes you here 

 

 

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0YJRJW3cfHD2od31duQ6sFbJLMLakWqEEAhHmfYVUSuS44RvT9NqHhSWjKoodn1fLl&id=100071877366376

[steveTA84]

[mab22]

On 4/5/2023 at 11:48 PM, steveTA84 said:

This looks like an endorsement, not a candidate statement or position?

[steveTA84]

On 4/6/2023 at 2:06 PM, mab22 said:

This looks like an endorsement, not a candidate statement or position?

Yes, it’s an endorsement, but I’m pointing out that the strategy (obviously) is to use state courts to hit back against the Bruen decision