How Appealing points to a Chicago Tribune article with this headline, and also points to the brief orders from the court on this subject. (There apparently is, and will be, no opinion explaining the judges' reasoning in detail.)
UPDATE: The Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman says "the Illinois Supreme Court did exactly the right thing."
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- "Illinois Supreme Court rejects [Illinois Attorney General] Madigan bid to declare Blagojevich 'unfit'":
- More on the Illinois Attorney General's Asking the Illinois Supreme Court to Remove Gov. Blagojevich:
- Illinois Attorney General's Petition to Have Governor Removed:...
- Government Attempt to Get Newspaper Editorial Board Members Fired:
- SEIU ties in the Gov. BLAGOJEVICH Complaint.
- Holiday Sale: An Open Senate Seat From Illinois.
I sense a vacant Senator's seat for a while since the prosecutor has no incentive to cut a deal with the governor.
And she's the AG of Illinois. But she's not only the AG, she was also prospective "candidate #2" on Blago's list of candidate's to fill Obama's empty seat in the senate!
Don't forget that Lisa Madigan is also the daughter of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, a long-standing political enemy of Blago's. Coincidence? Not in Illinois.
Odd that those two words have such similar meaning. . .
No impeachment + No trial = No judgement
I wonder whether the court deliberated whether the petition she filed was sufficient to declare Attorney General Madigan to have a "disability" disqualifying her from office.
You are mistaken. President-elect Obama resigned his Senate seat effective November 16.
Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has already said he'll refuse to seat anyone Blago nominates. So who would accept an appointment under those circumstances?
Under Powell v. McCormack, it's unclear that he has the right to refuse to seat a person with the requisite constitutional qualifications. He might be able to expel the person, but that would require a higher threshold of votes than a simple majority (which is what I'd presume Reid would argue the threshold would be for judging such an appointee not fit to take his/her seat), and might conceivably not pass, depending on how well-connected or sympathetic the appointee was.
Now, I'd agree that Reid could certainly make life miserable for this temporary appointee, and that no serious politician would have an incentive to accept a Blagojevich appointment at this point. But it doesn't seem to be as simple a matter as Reid makes it out to be.
He'll definitely be ousted, the legislators hated him long before they had the perfect excuse to get rid of him.
The fact that the ploy wouldn't work doesn't necessarily preclude Blago from doing it. He could still do it just to piss people off. I guess he's not quite as brazen and crazy as I imagined him to be.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.