The Illinois Civil Justice League has announced its recommendations for judicial vacancies in Cook County and Downstate. The complete list of the ICJL's recommendations may be found here.In contested Cook County countywide judicial races, the ICJL has bestowed "Highly Recommended" ratings on Rossana Patricia Fernandez (Elrod vacancy), Alison Conlon (Hogan vacancy), Carolyn J. Gallagher (Johnson vacancy), Devlin J. Schoop (Karnezis vacancy), and Daniel Patrick Duffy (Ruscitti Grussel vacancy). The ICJL has also given "Recommended" ratings to Pat Heneghan (Palmer vacancy) and both candidates for the Walsh vacancy, Fredrick H. Bates and Patrick Joseph Powers.
In contested Cook County subcircuit races, the ICJL gave "Recommended" ratings to Maryam Ahmad (1st Subcircuit, Brim vacancy), Chelsey R. Robinson (2nd Subcircuit, Savage vacancy), Leonard Murray (5th Subcircuit, Eadie-Daniels vacancy), and Louis G. Apostal (12th Subcircuit, Kazmierski vacancy). In the race for the Rivkin-Carothers vacancy in the 7th Subcircuit, the ICJL has given "Recommended" ratings to both Rose Silva and Mable Taylor. In the contest for the Howard vacancy in the 10th Subcircuit, the ICJL found Richard "Rick" Cenar "Highly Recommended" and Colleen Reardon Daly "Recommended."
The ICJL specifically expressed "No Position" with regard to Richard C. Cooke's unopposed bid for the Santiago vacancy in the 6th Subcircuit. It also "Recommended" Maureen O'Donoghue Hannon (countywide O'Brien vacancy) and John Fitzgerald Lyke, Jr. (countywide Biebel vacancy) in their respective unopposed bids for judicial office.
Posts
3 comments:
Jack, Let me give you and your readers some insight into the apparent ICJL process and methodology. The ICJL is not a Bar Association who's vetting is relied upon by the Supreme Court in making appointments. Nor are they relied upon in the Cook County Associate process. They are a special interest group. The ICJL mailed questionnaires to all judicial candidates advising them that there failure to provide answers could result in an ICJL finding of "not recommended". As they are a special interest group, a candidate should have the option of not seeking an endorsement or recommendation from them, or any other special interest group like them, without fear of potential negative consequences.
I examined the data on the ICJL website and ascertained that a very high number of judicial candidates simply ignored the ICJL demand that their questionnaires. I believe that these candidates did exactly what they should have done. Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis has taken the position that judicial candidates should refrain from responding to special interest groups. There are sound reasons for this position.
ICJL website reflects that ALL Cook County Judicial Candidates who responded to the ICJL questionnaires received ether a "recommended" or "highly recommended" rating. I interpret the data to reflect that by simply responding to ICJL demand that their questionnaire not be ignored, (and giving in to the threat of a negative recommendation); a judicial candidate would garner a recommendation from the ICJL. And let us not forget the one judicial candidate who earned the ICJL's singular "no position". This candidate chose to ignore their questionnaire but advised them he was doing so with a nice polite letter that they posted on their website. Absolutely hysterical.
To sum it up: The data reflects that the ICJL gave positive recommendations to any and all Cook County Judicial candidates (even to multiple candidates in the same race) who simply respond to their questionnaire. Based upon the foregoing, I find it difficult to give any value to the ICJL primary recommendations.
They even backed the guy who tried to bite his girlfriend's figure off and then lied about it. They backed him just like the author of this blog backed him over the word of the female victim. I'm done reading this blog. Who defends a perpetrator of domestic violence who lied about it under oath?
Anon 6:49 a.m. -- I am going to violate a fundamental precept of the Internet here, namely, do not feed the troll.
But your apparent lack of comprehension touches a nerve with me -- and should with all lawyers -- as we move toward mandatory efiling in 2018. Soon, our work-product will be more likely to be seen on screen than on paper. I have long worried that reading comprehension suffers on line: I am afraid people read paper better than pixels.
I took no one's side in the post referred to; the point of my post was that the television report discussed in that post was incomplete, not that one person or the other was misrepresenting the facts. I expressly said, "I have no idea who did what to whom in 1988; I venture no opinion on the truth or falsity of the charges."
There is no legitimate construction of the English language in which that sentence can be construed as "backing" anyone.
Assuming that you glossed over what was actually written because you don't read screens as carefully as paper, and assuming further that you did not simply choose to deliberately ignore what I said for your own purposes, you make my larger point about the looming danger of having judges read intricate legal arguments online instead of on paper. This was merely a blog post -- and look how badly you misunderstood it!
If my assumptions are incorrect, well, yours may be also, Anon. That's the problem with assumptions; they are not the same as facts. But, if my assumptions -- the ones in the preceding paragraph, Anon -- are incorrect, well, there's no reasoning with you anyway. Farewell.
Post a Comment