tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post1814353736125514859..comments2024-03-26T13:05:52.830-05:00Comments on For What It's Worth: Slating, professions of partisan loyalty, and the art of persuasive speakingJack Leyhanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-19867531105066175512013-08-21T13:14:31.318-05:002013-08-21T13:14:31.318-05:00I agree with Anon... as an appellate lawyer I am v...I agree with Anon... as an appellate lawyer I am very disturbed that Ellis and Lyle will be deciding appellate issues when their experience and qualifications are so lacking. I understood that the democratic party only nominated candidates found qualified by the Chicago and Illinois bars.... so I am even more upset with them. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-57364150338060954032013-08-20T19:18:53.492-05:002013-08-20T19:18:53.492-05:00Mike -- Thank you for your nice comment.
Anon -- ...Mike -- Thank you for your nice comment.<br /><br />Anon -- I also appreciate your thoughtful remarks. I think we may agree more than we disagree. However, while I have opinions, I don't express my opinions about the slate generally or about particular candidates on this blog.<br /><br />I will say that we are likely to continue to elect judges in this state for the foreseeable future. Since we have a political process, it stands to reason that lawyers interested in judicial service will have to seek political help to win election. I am not apologizing for or touting the benefits of slatemaking. I just don't think it makes sense to get upset when would-be candidates talk about political credentials when asking for the support of politicians. (I think a lot of the talk of 'loyalty' that Mr. Brown found so unsettling comes from the fact that, in most cases, the lawyers appearing before the slatemakers actually had very thin <i>political</i> credentials.)<br /><br />One of the things that I hope this blog can do is to help lawyers seeking judicial office connect with the electorate. I may be naive, but I like to think that the best qualified lawyers will distinguish themselves in the process. But the people will decide who is really the best qualified.Jack Leyhanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884163579967286888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-68517494418178994222013-08-20T11:40:32.528-05:002013-08-20T11:40:32.528-05:00Brown's column addresses a larger point missed...Brown's column addresses a larger point missed by the blogger in his response. The "loyalty" question is a constantly moving target. Three candidates who were slated previously ran against the Party, some multiple times. Another, who was found highly qualified by the bar associations, also ran against the Party in the past, but he was jettisoned because of WHO sponsored the person he ran against; thus proving that not all slated candidates are created equal.<br /><br />While the committeemen are partisan, they were ELECTED to their positions and, I submit, owe a moral duty to the electorate to slate a diverse group of well-qualified attorneys with actual litigation experience. What someone has done for the Party should be an afterthought for the committeemen after qualifications are vetted. It is not that way in Cook County and that is wrong. <br /><br />I take offense to the "well this is Chicago politics" defense of our system of electing judges. Just because an unfair undemocratic process has been in place for decades does not mean it works, or that it produces good results. The electorate, our clients, and our ability to earn gets hurt in the end by judge's elevated to the bench solely because they are related to someone, or have the right clout. With a number of well-qualified candidates seeking the Party's endorsement for the appellate court, I am completely aghast at two-thirds of those who were slated, and if you handle appeals, you should be too.<br /><br />The Supreme Court must share some blame for this too. I doubt our court system would implode if the current 10 countywide vacancies sat vacant until election. Instead, the Supreme Court rushes to fill vacancies to reward friends and to give a head start to cronies; some of whom have never tried a case in their career or have been found not qualified. Once these people get on the bench, it is nearly impossible to get rid of them and we are the ones saddled with them for the next 20 years. <br /><br />The system is broken and will remain that way until people demand better; at least Brown tried to bring that to readers' attention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24546933.post-38061812895387621292013-08-20T07:42:09.958-05:002013-08-20T07:42:09.958-05:00Now THERE's an accurate point of view you neve...Now THERE's an accurate point of view you never see in the newspaper articles covering slating. Gee, about half of the Mark Brown piece could have been preloaded and edited from Abden Pallasch's last article on point. -- Michael StromMichael A. Stromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12177054515049474877noreply@blogger.com