Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Bates, Forti receive new appointments

In separate orders entered yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court reappointed two judges who were unsuccessful candidates in this year's judicial primary.

The Court appointed Judge Fredrick H. Bates to the 1st Subcircuit vacancy created by the pending retirement of Judge Rodney Hughes Brooks. The court also appointed Judge Michael A. Forti to the 8th Subcircuit vacancy created by the pending retirement of Judge Deborah J. Gubin.

Both appointments are effective Monday, December 3, and terminate December 7, 2020.

Judge Bates had been serving by appointment to a 2nd Subcircuit vacancy. He was an unsuccessful candidate for this vacancy in March.

Yesterday's order marks the third time Bates has received a judicial appointment from the Supreme Court. Bates was first appointed to a countywide vacancy in December 2015. He was an unsuccessful candidate for a different countywide vacancy in the 2016 primary.

Judge Forti was an unsuccessful candidate for an 8th Subcircuit vacancy this past March; the Supreme Court appointed him to that vacancy in September 2016. Thus, yesterday's order marks the second time Forti has received a judicial appointment.

Though slated by the Democratic Party, Forti was also an unsuccessful candidate for a countywide vacancy in 2012. He made the Associate Judge short list in 2014.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Shark bait, the both of them.

Anonymous said...

What’s the definition of insanity again?

Anonymous said...

Fred Bates must have a good luck charm in his back pocket. Nothing can hold him down. He is truly the Come Back Kid.

Anonymous said...

Damn the democratic process I guess . . . The voice of the people is clearly irrelevant because they said NO TWICE . . .

Anonymous said...

Really? Only three comments about this recent development, Jack? Or were these the only ones fit for print?

Anonymous said...

The comments must be really toxic if Jack only posted these three to date.

Judge John Roberts said...

I remember the days when deceased SC Justice MAM would block appointments based on the candidate having lost an election.. primary or otherwise. "The voters have spoken" she would rationalize. Nice that those days are over.

Anonymous said...

JL - you really are a coward. Now you refuse to post the truth. Why do you feel compelled to protect garage
individuals like Bates? How is the truth ever objectionable? The only answer I can come up with is that in addition to
being a coward you are garbage yourself. So afraid you might hurt someone's feelings. So afraid you piss off someone that might
be able to advance your own interests. You are such a stupid ass you even applied for an Associate Judgeship again. That says
a lot about you. Do you even remember Rhonda Crawford? I bet you watch CNN and take delight in all the Trump bashing; you smug and pompous hypocrite. You are no journalist. You are no truth seeker. When you disabled comments everyone stopped
reading the blog - then without a word from you you turn it back on. We all noticed and were laughing at you. Your shadow is
getting long, go out and buy some balls.

Jack Leyhane said...

Dear Anonymous 12/5 at 10:09 p.m. -- I'm a coward?

I quite agree. I am a practicing coward.

But I'm not half the coward you are.

See, my name is on this comment. On this blog. Where is your name, O Brave One?

And, by the way, I never disabled comments. I only required readers to supply a name. Google/Blogger requires the creation of some sort of account now to accomplish this. That might be traceable.

Some readers complained. They wanted to share sensitive information or strong opinions without fear of being traced. I understood that concern and I went back to what I was doing before.

You are correct, of course, that I did not announce the return of anonymous comments. I was hoping that word might not immediately reach you under the bridge where you usually lurk. And, apparently, it worked for awhile. But, of course, all good things must come to an end. And here you are again.

And not all anonymous or pseudonymous speech is bad. See, for example, The Federalist Papers.

But you wish to share neither information nor opinion, except of the most coarse and basic variety.

You don't like Fred Bates. Got it. He got in trouble many years ago over an engagement ring. Got it. There were sordid details. Got it. They were reported on TV during the 2016 primary cycle. I noted and linked to the report here, on this blog, at the time. Because an actual news gathering organization (even if it is the local Fox affiliate) went public with it. It didn't whisper poisonous slanders from the shadows, and it didn't leave those long-ago allegations the top of the headline package forever after... as you would do.

Look, I don't know Judge Bates from Adam. I've met him, perhaps a handful of times. Some people that I know and respect don't have much use for him. Others -- obviously -- think quite highly of him. Despite the ring incident. Despite the firetruck incident, whatever actually happened there. And, no, I did not report on it because I did not have facts, merely anonymous smears and slanders. But, as I've learned so often on this beat, everyone on the "inside" knows all about everything long before I ever do. So those people who had a say in whether Judge Bates stayed or went undoubtedly knew whatever they thought that there was to know about the fateful ring and the blessed firetruck.

Am I protecting Judge Bates, as you insist?

I suppose, in a sense, I am. As much as I'd protect anyone, even you, O Brave One, from the kind of stuff you vomit into my comment queue.

Do I "protect" Judge Bates -- or, potentially, you -- to protect my interests? Because of my burning and unrequited judicial ambitions?

Maybe -- except that each passing day proves, more and more, that if the weak-kneed coverage of matters judicial that I provide here was ever really part of a conscious, rational plan to achieve judicial office for myself, said plan has failed utterly.

But I don't need to burden you with my many failures and failings. You have enough of your own. So, instead, I wish you peace.

Anonymous said...

When 2 or more candidates are running, the democratic process for a judicial vacancy is “pick one.” It’s not the retention ballot. Losing 2 primaries is not a “NO” twice, it’s “I choose that one.” To even call it a “YES” for the winner is presumption. Is it “when choosing between 2 candidates I know nothing about, I like names that are Irish/female/1st on the ballot/on yard signs where I walk my dog?” The voice of the people in judicial races? Generally it’s: “Eh?”