Jump to content

Caulkins v Prizker Case Discussion


jcable2

Recommended Posts

On 11/25/2023 at 7:55 PM, RANDY said:

My question is.  If the judges had recused themselves, as they should,  the ruling would have still be 3-2 which is a lose.   So what are we expecting to be the wanted outcome from SCOTUS in this case. 

Who’s to say that Rochford could have recused and O’Brien would have ruled the same, thus a 3-3 and the lower court ruling stands? Who’s to say that there wasn’t a back room deal with the other D judges going on?  Whole thing just stinks and the fact remains that neither justice rescued and flat out refused, and we have settled SCOTUS precedent for which they should have followed 

 

As for the wanted outcome, Rochford’s ruling get tossed and the absolute bonkers corruption/conflicts of interest cleaned up so this never happens again anywhere 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2023 at 5:25 PM, steveTA84 said:

Natural News picked up the case, so you should expect more articles about it next week (and word getting out more than it is)

 

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-11-26-supreme-court-review-challenge-illinois-gun-ban.html

Is it guaranteed that SCOTUS is going to take up the case?
Some of the articles make it sound that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2023 at 7:55 PM, RANDY said:

My question is.  If the judges had recused themselves, as they should,  the ruling would of still be 3-2 which is a lose.   So what are we expecting to be the wanted outcome from SCOTUS in this case. 

 

If SCOTUS takes the case, they can do whatever they want.  The most desirable outcome would be a complete smack down of the law on 2a and equal protection.  I'm still leaning that they won't grant cert, but if they do, I have a feeling we'll get a much more favorable outcome rather than less. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2023 at 11:12 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

Wayback machine? 

 

On 11/27/2023 at 11:16 AM, davel501 said:

 

Not sure if that gets everything. The providers would be more interesting though because you could get PMs, secret groups, etc.

And even so, one must request the "save" from the archive.org.

"If you see something, archive something"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2023 at 7:04 AM, SiliconSorcerer said:

 

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-state-board-of-elections-all-for-justice-fine-20231121-uzvzy5bjlbcujfxccsulp2bktu-story.html

(doesn't seem to be behind a paywall.

 

Democratic PAC shifts cash out of its account as it gets hit with one of the biggest state election board fines ever

 

A political committee that helped expand the Democratic majority on the Illinois Supreme Court and was backed by Illinois Senate President Don Harmon emptied its bank account just weeks after being notified it faced one of the largest state election fines ever for failing to timely disclose millions of dollars it spent until after last November’s election.

On Tuesday, the State Board of Elections issued a final order assessing $99,500 in fines against the All for Justice political action committee. The action followed a Tribune story earlier this year detailing the PAC’s reporting deficiencies as it spent more than $7.3 million on independent expenditures supporting Democratic Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien, both of whom won their campaigns and increased the court’s Democratic majority to 5-2 from a previous 4-3 advantage.

 

(continues)

Caulkins brought this up today in an interview and sounds like they’re gonna use it, aaaaaaand he also said this was the strategy from day one (bull**** Dan, you wouldn’t have gotten any of this if it wasn’t for a blogger, where it is all first laid out in the other thread before it was even known/used (ha),  and a reporter with balls lol)

 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^
watch/listen to that. He completely takes credit for it all coming out and said it was his legal team’s idea 😂😂😂😂

 

Where do I send the bill? 😂😂😂

 

 

Rooting for him obviously, and they did the right thing appealing to SCOTUS, but seriously!😂😂😂

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2023 at 7:08 PM, steveTA84 said:

^^^^
watch/listen to that. He completely takes credit for it all coming out and said it was his legal team’s idea 😂😂😂😂

 

Where do I send the bill? 😂😂😂

 

 

Rooting for him obviously, and they did the right thing appealing to SCOTUS, but seriously!😂😂😂

I don't think I found a lawyer that actually games things out that far, USUALLY they go a few steps ahead, but NEVER ALL THE WAY TO THE SCOTUS APPEAL from the start.

He's a B.S. Politician!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2023 at 7:58 PM, mab22 said:

I don't think I found a lawyer that actually games things out that far, USUALLY they go a few steps ahead, but NEVER ALL THE WAY TO THE SCOTUS APPEAL from the start.

He's a B.S. Politician!

 

And it’s all documented step by step when it broke in the first place in the other thread 😂. And yeah, freakin politicians. Oh well, we all know how it came to be 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2023 at 8:02 PM, steveTA84 said:

And it’s all documented step by step when it broke in the first place in the other thread 😂. And yeah, freakin politicians. Oh well, we all know how it came to be 

If Scotus actually takes this case up I'm making it my mission to spread the news of how this story actually broke. If taken up it will be a huge deal and the truth absolutely will get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 8:50 AM, RANDY said:

So basically if SCOTUS does what they should and follow their own precedence then they should issue a ruling for the two judges to recuse and reverse the decision.

That’s one play, yes. That’s what happened in the Caperton V Massey ruling, and per the IL Constitution, if they both would have recused, the lower court ruling would have stood because even then it was 3-2 and 4 concurring justices are needed (not a simple majority)

 

 

 

and because I give credit where it’s due, Caulkins brought this up in an interview this morning (the 4 concurring justices required to make a decision) 

 

 

 

Its also looking like O’Brien really wanted to vote to join the majority, but her dissent implies she wasn’t against the law, and possibly dissented to attempt to avoid more controversy 

Edited by steveTA84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 8:59 AM, Matt B said:

If Scotus actually takes this case up I'm making it my mission to spread the news of how this story actually broke. If taken up it will be a huge deal and the truth absolutely will get out.

What needs to be made a point of is that you don’t need to be some hotshot politician or lawyer to cause a massive story to break/form, all based on facts and info that’s already out there and just needs to be pieced together and spread. Imagine if many more people were doing that as well instead of waiting on others to do it. That’s what needs to be focused on here. Truth, persistence and getting info out, and you don’t need to be some “professional” to do it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2023 at 12:25 PM, mauserme said:

I think we need to be open to the idea that Caulkins had a strategy in mind, as I alluded to in my 3/9/2023 post :

 

 

 

 

I think that was the state's strategy against Caulkins.   His strategy screwed about 7,000 people out of their TRO's.  

Edited by 2smartby1/2
Wrong quote area
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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