Of course, the fact that the appointment is open-ended does not mean it will last forever.
FWIW readers know, but most members of the public probably do not know that, at any given time, the First District Appellate Court will have as many as six Circuit Court judges sitting on the Court pursuant to Supreme Court appointment, a full 25% of the court's composition (there are 18 elected seats). In recent years, when a vacancy occurs on the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court will move the Circuit Court judge with the most time on the Appellate Court into the vacancy, where that judge will have to seek election to that vacancy or leave the court. Readers will perhaps be familiar with this as the 'up or out' slot.
In a different order entered yesterday, the Supreme Court moved Justice Freddrenna M. Lyle into that 'up or out slot.' Justice Lyle is a Circuit Court judge who was assigned to the Appellate Court in 2022. She is now being assigned to the position formerly held by Justice Mary L. Mikva, whose retirement from the Appellate Court is effective today, although Justice Lyle will keep her current case load (Judge Donnelly will inherit Justice Mikva's cases). But the key here is that Justice Lyle's new assignment now has an end date: December 4, 2028, when the person elected to Justice Mikva's vacancy will take office. Thus, up or out.
But not necessarily out altogether: The new assignment order specifies that Justice Lyle will remain a Circuit Court judge so that, should she decide not to run for the Mikva vacancy, she will be able to go back to the Circuit Court. If she had been appointed to the Mikva vacancy, that option would have been foreclosed.
The Supreme Court's press release concerning the Donnelly appointment can be found at this link.
Posts
9 comments:
Lyle is too cheap to raise the money to run and too lazy to retire and get a real job. So she will eventually return to the circus or leave.
What a mope.
Dear Readers... here is the level of modern, online dialog condensed into two mean comments. Anonymity alone is not the problem. One can make intelligent, important observations while preserving one's anonymity. In fact, that's sometimes the only way that intelligent, important observations can be made, because if the author is identified, the preconceived notions concerning the author may overwhelm the point trying to be made. The Federalist Papers are an example of great, anonymous content.
But this sort of comment...? Stabs from the dark? What does it add to... anything?
Low turnout for the Retention Class fundraiser 2 weeks ago.
This is the second comment I've received about the turnout for the Retention Judges reception; I flushed the first because it took a gratuitous swipe at an individual who is not even on the retention ballot. But I don't know if the turnout was high or low.
I would expect a lower turnout at the Plumbers Union Hall than at the Cultural Center (the old library... but you have to be getting old to remember that). The Cultural Center may not exactly be on the way home for persons working downtown, but it's only a block or two out of the way. OTOH, downtown denizens would have to get out to the Union Hall, then back downtown to get home.
Cutting down the turnout may even have been a goal: To be blunt, the organizers don't need bodies to make the event a success, they need checks. Or whatever passes for checks these days. It's not as if lawyers have to 'meet' the retention candidates in order to decide for whom to vote.
I guess we'll just have to see if the money raised is comparable.
Meanwhile, if anyone who attended the event has comments about the turnout, without taking mean-spirited shots at individuals, leave a comment.
This guy looks like he came straight out of a Dick Tracy comic book.
Illinois judges earn $258K. Why do they need a tag day for retention?
What comic book did you come out of, Anon 9/30 @ 10:27?
Neither publish such comments nor engage with them. Pigs love the mud, but you don't have to.
Post a Comment