FWIW readers are responding to my "pics or it didn't happen" request for palm cards -- thank you. If you have a card to send, scan or photo it and email it to me at jackleyhane@yahoo.com.
This one, strictly speaking, isn't a palm card. It appears to be an image of an email from 19th Ward Ald. and Committeeman Matthew J. O'Shea. Because it is only an image, the links shown above are not "live."
O'Shea breaks ranks with the countywide party in two ways here -- both by encouraging a "yes" vote for Judge Michael P. Toomin, officially dumped by the Cook County Democratic Party, and by seeking a "no" vote on Judge Diana L. Kenworthy. (O'Shea also requests a "no" vote for Mauricio Araujo -- but Araujo, who was also dumped by the Party because he was facing removal in a trial before the Illinois Courts Commission on charges of personal misconduct, has, as noted in the text of O'Shea's email, already resigned his judgeship.)
Kenworthy is endorsed for retention by the Cook County Democratic Party. She is also rated qualified for retention by the Chicago Bar Association and all 12 members of the Alliance of Bar Associations for Judicial Screening. She was found Recommended for retention by the Suburban Bar Coalition.
Posts
6 comments:
Wait a minute, didn't this guy already vote to oppose retaining Toomin when the Cook County Dems voted to withhold their endorsement. I thought Tunney and Reilly were the only no votes?
He didn’t participate in the retention vote, which is why it was just Tunney and Reilly.
Do you have a source for your claim that O'Shea didn't participate in the retention vote? Everything I can find suggests that the vote was 78 to 2. But even assuming that he didn't participate - since O'Shea claims to be so knowledgeable and supportive of Judge Toomin's record - then why didn't he come forward to defend Toomin at the roll call vote. What changed in the meantime? Is this endorsement truly based on the quality of the retention candidate or is it just a political decision after getting pressure from the Mayor (who appears to need help getting off of the limb that she has gone so far out on). Also, why is he targeting Judge Kenworthy based upon a single bond decision? Why aren't the 'judicial independence' people making any noise about this one?
They voted and he is bucking the party. In other news, water is wet. Welcome to countywide Kenworthy.
Anon 10/25 at 11:03 a.m. -- While I have no way of knowing whether you know beans about how the Democratic Party's retention endorsement vote went, or who voted, you do have a good point: Targeting a judge on a single bond decision does seem like it should attract the attention of "the 'judicial independence' people."
But for this (no pun intended) trumped notion of "threats to judicial independence," there would be no attention given to how certain committeemen have strayed from certain judges or other candidates. It happens every cycle without exception. But you wouldn't have known prior to 2018 because it almost never gets any attention.
Post a Comment