In my post about the FOP endorsements, I noted that the Lodge had endorsed one of the candidates also endorsed by the authors of the Girl, I Guess Progessive Voter Guide. I'd reported on the Girl, I Guess endorsements back on February 18. I reported on these first because they were available sooner. The FOP endorsements did not come out until last week.
In last week's article, I suggested that if endorsers so radically different as the FOP and Girl, I Guess favored the same judicial candidate, it would say something wholly positive about that candidate's reputation for fairness.
Why? Because judges are different from politicians -- well, they're supposed to be different -- because judges don't make the laws (again, they're not supposed to), rather they interpret and apply the laws made by others. A group should care whether they, or their supporters, could get a fair hearing from a judge, whether the judge would listen carefully, and rule honestly, in accordance with the law, regardless of the judge's possible political sympathies. If wildly different endorsers, with irreconcilable views, each determine that a judicial candidate would be fair to their side, that should be a strong point in that candidate's favor.
Contrast this with other politicians, with legislators or executives (mayors, governors, presidents). If a state legislator, say, professed to be the champion of his police constituents, but loyally supported legislation that undermined public safety generally and police in particular, that would say something quite negative about the legislator. Because a legislator could not try to curry favor with both the FOP and the ACAB-Abolitionist-Defund crowd in good faith....... but this could never happen, right?
This is an over-generalization, but one that I think holds up: The difference lies in the different functions of a judge as opposed to other politicians. The judge is focused on the case in court, on the parties before him or her, on their credibility, and how the law applies in the case at bar, while other politicians are supposed to take a longer view -- on statistics and trends and future impacts -- on policies -- on the Big Picture. Where we get in trouble, these days, is that legislators all too often take specific (usually tragic) cases and try and inflate these into statutes, while too many judges use cases before them as vehicles to enact policy changes. But I digress.
Anyway, last week, I thought it a good thing that, in one 8th Subcircuit race, the FOP and Girl, I Guess both endorsed the same candidate, and I said so. I tried to explain there what I've tried to explain again here.
But I must have done a bad job.
Becuase Girl, I Guess promptly pulled its endorsement of that candidate, saying, in pertinent part (quoting from the site, accessed yesterday):
Girl, I Guess is revoking the endorsement of Elizabeth Christina Dibler, who was endorsed by, and has accepted the endorsement of the Chicago FOP. Allegiance to the MAGA-aligned FOP, headed by hatemonger John Catanzara, is utterly disqualifying for this Guide, due to the long history of Chicago police not being held accountable for murder, brutality, and rampant abuse of power (only 8% of police misconduct reports between 1988 and 2023 resulted in discipline). We need judges who will use their full power to hold the police in check, not enable their violent impulses which brutalize hundreds each year and cost Chicago taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars in settlements since 2019, and nearly a full billion since 2011. Diber, who would apparently rather lick the boots of the police than hold them accountable, cannot do that.I truly hate modern politics.
Girl, I Guess has endorsed Kathleen Cunniff Ori in Dibler's stead, and I've updated the Organizing the Data post on the 8th Subcircuit Gamrath race accordingly.
Please note: Nothing I've said here is intended as, nor should it be construed by the reader as, an endorsement of Ms. Dibler, or as a knock or slight against Ms. Cunniff Ori. I don't know either candidate and I don't live in the 8th Subcircuit. In saying, as I have here, with judicial candidates, it is probably a good thing for diametrically opposed endorsers to settle on a particular candidate, I am speaking generally. This is not the first time an endorsement has been pulled in a judicial race because of a candidate subsequently received the endorsement of the FOP, and I complained about it when it happened then, too.
On the other hand, I appreciate how difficult it is to secure endorsements from anyone -- it's something I never managed -- and, I suppose, if you say I can see why, I will just have to nod sadly in agreement -- so I can not find it in myself to criticize a candidate who works hard to secure an endorsement, and who will be justly proud of it. Also, I completely agree that the authors of Girl, I Guess are entirely privileged to make, or pull, any endorsement they please. But I also have the right to complain about it, as I have here.
I believe this may be an instance where the modern adage don't hate the players, hate the game is applicable. This morning, I hate the game.
------------------------------------------------------
For further information, go to "Start here for the most complete information about every 2026 Cook County judicial race"
Posts
2 comments:
Jack, let’s get real here. The FOP truly does not endorse anyone who has not actively sought its endorsement. Its “we don’t want nobody nobody sent” mentality would make the Cook County Dems blush. So, that any judge would want its endorsement says more about the judge’s unfitness for office. The FOP is comprised of members who routinely and brazenly violate the law and victimize Black and Brown communities. And tell Cabonargi if he wants to lick the boots of those fascists, then he can pound sand too.
On whole, this election cycle has yielded one of the worst crop of candidates. I mean, for Christ’s sake how deep at the bottom of the barrel did we have to scrape to get such losers. Besides the fact that far too many refused to submit to bar evaluation, many others are political hacks whose only trial experience is when they appear before electoral boards for campaign finance abuses; bankruptcy court because they tried to dodge their tax liabilities; or (yikes) multiple convictions for DUI (oh wait, sorry, she pled only to “reckless driving.”) What the Holy F! Charlie Beach already had no place to hide many of these mutants. At this rate, competence and attendance will become the gross exception instead of the norm. I give up. I’m leaving this $h*+hole county. But I better not move to Wisconsin or Michigan given how that’s where most of these judges actually live.
Post a Comment