pageok
pageok
pageok
"Illinois Supreme Court rejects [Illinois Attorney General] Madigan bid to declare Blagojevich 'unfit'":

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."

Crunchy Frog:
No big shock there. More interesting is the 111-0 vote in the Illinois state house to open up impeachment procedings.
12.17.2008 4:36pm
Houston Lawyer:
How about Moseley Braun for a place warmer.

I sense a vacant Senator's seat for a while since the prosecutor has no incentive to cut a deal with the governor.
12.17.2008 4:36pm
Michael B (mail):
While I don't generally comment in "purely" legal threads, her petition made no sense to this layman, after reading Democratic AG Madigan's petition within the context of the applicable law. It seemed extremely flimsy legal, or quasi-legal, reasoning.

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!
12.17.2008 4:40pm
Anon21:
Michael B: The petition should probably be considered political grandstanding, not a serious attempt to have the Governor removed. And, truth be told, there are worse things politicians could be grandstanding about than removing an astoundingly corrupt Governor from office.
12.17.2008 4:56pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
The people of Illinois probably want their full complement of Senators, without the stigma of having one picked by a crooked governor. Who knows how long impeachment will take, or even if Blago will be ousted?
12.17.2008 5:30pm
Michael B (mail):
Anon, thanks, and while I agree this is not worth getting excited over in that sense - because if ever there was a case that warranted political grandstanding, this one surely ranks high on the list - what struck me is the simple fact she is the Attorney General, the highest legal official in the state. But, yea.
12.17.2008 5:45pm
Dave N (mail):
Michael B,

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.
12.17.2008 5:51pm
Dave N (mail):
As disgraceful as Blago is, the Court got it right. Illinois (nor any other state for that matter) does not need a precedent for a state attorney general ousting the governor outside of the normal state constitutional provisions.
12.17.2008 5:54pm
Adam B. (www):
It's a shame Illinois doesn't have some equivalent of the 25th Amdt, sec 4 -- the "if the VP and half your cabinet declares you unfit, you're temporarily out" until the letter fight.
12.17.2008 6:22pm
KeithK (mail):
What I don't understand in all of this is why Blago doesn't go ahead and appoint someone now. Doesn't he seem the type to give a big "f--- you" to everyone by making an appointment at this time?
12.17.2008 7:40pm
Oren:
Keith, the person appointed would not accept the position (and, as I recall from an earlier thread on this site, one cannot be made a Senator against one's will). In the unlikely event that he appoints someone as shameful as himself, the Senate will expel the appointee by unanimous vote.
12.17.2008 8:48pm
EH (mail):
This is about burying the Senate Torture Report.
12.17.2008 8:50pm
Oren:
s/shameful/shameless/

Odd that those two words have such similar meaning. . .
12.17.2008 9:06pm
ReaderY:
The Illinois Supreme Court got it right

No impeachment + No trial = No judgement
12.17.2008 9:28pm
Steven Jens (mail) (www):
Perhaps I am mistaken, and Obama has already resigned his seat, but I believe the reason Blago can't appoint anyone right now is that there is no vacancy right now.

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.
12.17.2008 9:49pm
Dave N (mail):
Steven Jens,

You are mistaken. President-elect Obama resigned his Senate seat effective November 16.
12.17.2008 9:58pm
Sean O'Hara (mail) (www):
You are mistaken, Steven Jens -- Obama has resigned and is currently plain old Citizen Barack.
12.17.2008 9:59pm
Cornellian (mail):
What I don't understand in all of this is why Blago doesn't go ahead and appoint someone now. Doesn't he seem the type to give a big "f--- you" to everyone by making an appointment at this time?

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?
12.17.2008 10:43pm
Anon21:
Cornellian:
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.
12.17.2008 10:58pm
PLR:
Who knows how long impeachment will take, or even if Blago will be ousted?

He'll definitely be ousted, the legislators hated him long before they had the perfect excuse to get rid of him.
12.18.2008 10:32am
KeithK (mail):
As Anon21 says it's not quite cut and dried whether Reid can easily refuse to seat anyone. Now I guess Oren is right that anyone reasonable wouldn't take the seat under the circumstances and anyone that was clearly beyond the pale would probably get a unanimous vote down in the Senate. It would be an easy way to pose as "tough on corruption".

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.
12.18.2008 1:30pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

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.