Caswell Crebs is not available: A Supreme Court story?

Gather round, FWIW readers, for another installment in our occasional series, How to Read the News.

A real newspaper, an endangered species to be sure, consists of at least three things: news, ads, and opinions.

(I would add that a real newspaper must also include a robust comics section, whatever those stuffed shirts in New York may say... but I will try not to digress.)

A newspaper's opinion content typically consists of two types, the newspaper's own opinions (editorials) and the opinions of columnists, not all of whom need always agree with the newspaper's editorial board. These are often found on the page opposite the page on which the newspaper's editorials are printed; thus the designation, 'op-ed.'

Usually, a newspaper's editorials will be linked to some articles that have appeared in the paper's news columns ('columns' here used in the sense of how words on a newspaper page are divided into columns, not 'columns' in the sense of some pundit spouting his or her opinions).

I realize the Millennials in the audience may be growing restless at this point. Some may be having trouble remembering what a newspaper looks like. I can refer you to what one of my wisenheimer kids said one day, picking a newspaper up off my couch: "Wow, Dad!" he said, as mockingly as possible, "Someone's taken the Internet and put it on paper for the convenience of old people! How clever!"

But traditionally -- historically -- a newspaper would print editorials based on some news stories it had already run: News stories about the indictment of Ald. Filch on various charges of malfeasance are followed by an editorial calling on Ald. Filch to resign.

But sometimes a newspaper will offer an opinion based on mere rumor.

Thus, a couple of weeks ago, fueled by rumors that Supreme Court Justice Charles Freeman is thinking of retiring soon, the Chicago Tribune published an editorial, "Editorial: Intrigue on the Illinois Supreme Court." A few days later, the Champaign News-Gazette, picking up on the same rumor, and building on (and citing to) the Tribune editorial, followed with Editorial | End politics on state high court."

There are differences in the positions staked out by the two papers, but there is at least one area of common concern: If the Supreme Court appoints someone to Justice Freeman's seat, that person would have a 'leg up' on election to that seat in 2020. (The editorials also both question some of Justice Freeman's picks for other judicial vacancies -- the assumption being that the outgoing justice will be given the privilege of choosing his successor, as has happened before.)

Would a Freeman-designated successor have the inside track on holding the seat in 2020?

FWIW readers know that a whole lot of Supreme Court appointees don't find electoral success in races for vacancies on the Circuit or Appellate Courts. Supreme Court vacancies are as rare as hen's teeth -- so there's not a lot of sample size on which to make a meaningful projection.

But why should we expect any different? Put it this way... a prospective replacement who can not count on the active support of the Cook County Democratic Party... or of the 'establishment' (Tribune editorialists included)... will have a tough go in a crowded primary, regardless of 'incumbency.' And, no matter who might be appointed, it will likely be a crowded primary.

I don't know if Justice Freeman is stepping down soon or not. I've heard the same rumors that the Tribune and the News Gazette have heard -- but I didn't run them. Why not? Well, for one thing, I hear lots of rumors -- in the March primary, for example, there was certainly going to be one, and maybe even two, 9th Subcircuit vacancies, and a second vacancy in the 3rd Subcircuit besides... but these vacancies did not materialize. If I could figure out which rumors were true and which were false, I'd be able to predict the future. And if I could predict the future, I'd head over to the Rivers Casino. Just for one afternoon -- no sense being greedy.

But, whatever. Let's assume that Justice Freeman really is looking to step down soon so that a Supreme Court vacancy would need to be filled in 2020. I submit that this is what the newspapers want us to assume -- without their having to squander any credibility by reporting this rumor as news.

So, now that we know what the papers intend, what are we to make of the stories themselves?

The Tribune thinks a blue-ribbon committee should screen applicants for the position and that the Supreme Court should appoint a temporary replacement based on the committee's recommendation, without any tawdry political considerations.

Sometimes the Tribune can be so charmingly naive.

A committee is too often just a group of persons recruited to ratify a decision already made. While two of our three First District Supreme Court justices have screening committees for Circuit Court appointments, to judge by the comments I receive, FWIW readers are extraordinarily skeptical about them. And I'm being polite. Personally, I think that any process that brings to the attention of the appointing justices persons that might not otherwise be considered is worthwhile -- but, I admit, based on observation, there are very few true surprises that have to date emerged from existing screening committees.

So the News-Gazette's approach strikes me as more practical.

The Downstate paper suggests that the Court should appoint a temporary replacement who will not run in 2020.

Someone like Caswell Crebs.

Not actually Crebs, of course, inasmuch as he is not available on account of the fact that he died in 1988.

Now it may not be just the Millennials who are scratching their heads at this point. But let me explain.

Crebs hailed from Carmi, in White County, Illinois. He was elected a Circuit Judge in the far Downstate 2nd Circuit in 1945 and he retired in 1964.

But, in 1969, the Supreme Court called Crebs out of retirement to fill the 5th District vacancy created by the death of Justice Byron O. House. Crebs didn't run for the vacancy; the vacancy was subsequently filled by Justice Joseph H. Goldenhersh. Justice Crebs did such a good job of not running for that vacancy that, in 1975, when a Second District vacancy opened up, following the resignation of Justice Charles H. Davis, the Supreme Court invited Crebs back. He didn't run for that vacancy either (Justice Thomas H. Moran was elected to that vacancy).

Let me state the obvious: Nobody on the Supreme Court confides in me.

But I'd be shocked if every justice didn't have someone in mind for Justice Freeman's seat, should he choose to give it up. There might even be some agreement among a couple of them about who might be the best choice. And maybe that person might be acceptable to the political powers-that-be, and the unions, and the media, and the bar groups, and whoever else thinks they get to stick their oar in before the people get to choose. And if such a consensus candidate emerges, God bless him or her; that person will surely be appointed -- and then we'll see whether incumbency really does help a Supreme Court candidate.

But... if that consensus candidate does not emerge... maybe the Court might want to look at its history... and seek out a new Caswell Crebs. Someone who will not run in 2020.