Study says (Illinois) high court rulings are pro-business

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | September 4, 2002 | ABDON M. PALLASCH

[BillyBoy]

Study says high court rulings are pro-business

September 4, 2002
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH, LEGAL AFFAIRS REPORTER

Even though Democrats hold a 5-2 edge on the Illinois Supreme Court, the Democrats on the court vote like Republicans, according to a study published Tuesday in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin.

The paper tallied all the cases decided since the seven justices took office in February 2001 and found that, two-thirds of the time, they ruled in favor of the defendants--corporations and entities over the plaintiffs.

Some Republicans had warned that the court justices--many elected with money from the Democratic Party and trial lawyers--would start upholding verdicts against corporations.

Far from it, the survey found. Cook County Democrats Mary Ann McMorrow, Charles Freeman and Thomas Fitzgerald had the most pro-defendant scores, the Law Bulletin said.

Attorney Joseph Power, who donated $63,000 to three of the Supreme Court candidates, joked he should have given it to charity.

"If someone came to me as a candidate and said, 'I want to be honest. I'm a conservative, generally in favor of corporations and insurance companies and against victims--paraplegics, quadriplegics, a child who drowns,' I would not support that candidate because of that philosophy," Power said.

While the three Cook County Democrats had the most pro-defendant scores, ruling with victims only 30 percent to 31 percent of the time, the court's two Republicans, Robert Thomas and Rita Garman, were close behind with 32 percent each.

Downstate Democrats Thomas Kilbride of Rock Island and retiring Chief Justice Moses Harrison of Fairview Heights had the most pro-plaintiff scores, siding with plaintiffs 46 percent and 50 percent of the time respectively.

[BillyBoy]

I'm not sure what to make of this. I find it hard to believe that a bunch of Chicago machine politicians would vote with conservatives, but I must admit that the Illinois Supreme Court has often voted the way I prefer lately. Aside from ruling against the John Edwards-type ambulance chasers (mentioned in the article), they'd also overturned a lot of the bleeding heart drivel enacted by the Illinois House, and they have declared a bunch of RINO George Ryan's "agenda" unconstitutional. Aside from the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court has been probably 10X more conservative than the "Republican" Governor on the death penalty.

Here's the kicker, though. None of our judge are appointed. In Illinois, we elect our supreme court from various districts. Cook County actually gets THREE judges ("at large"-- nice move by the Scumocrats in ensuring the Cook suburbs will be held hostage by Chicago). Downstate Illinois gets four, with the 2nd district starting in northern Illinois gradually moving down to southern Illinois by the 5th district. The districts are supposedly based on population (yeah right-- it hasn't been readjusted in 30 years!)

Chief Justice Harrison is from deep in southern Illinois. Normally the ONLY people that win here are either local folksy Republicans or socially conservative DINOs. Harrison is neither, he's actually one of the most liberal justices, especially on "rights of the accused" (translation: pro-criminal). The three Cook County machine Dems are depicted as moderate conservatives here. That's a bit hard to swallow, but Fitzgerald (absolutely NO relation to our Senator) is obviously an improvement over his predecessor (former Chicago Mayor and EVIL bastard Michael Bilandic). McMorrow is likely be the next Chief Justice when Harrison retires in 2004. I will NOT vote to retain her this year.

The most conservative (with quite a following among Illinois freepers) is Justice Bob Thomas from the GOP stronghold of DuPage. Sports trivia buffs may remember Thomas when he was a kicker for DA BEARS back in the 80s. If Bush is looking for a U.S. Supreme Court judge from Illinois, I humbly suggest Thomas.

We should actually have a 4-3 REPUBLICAN majority on the Supreme Court, except the stupid party dropped the ball and didn't bother to campaign in "safe" seats that they were SUPPOSED to win (Justice Kilbride is from a heavily Republican central Illinois district). But if the Supreme Court Dems are morphing into DINOs (remember Justice White on the U.S. Supreme Court??) we may have the last laugh. Who knows, maybe it's Souter in reverse.

Justice Garmen is the only one with a contested election this year and SHOULD cruise to reelection (unless the GOP does incredibly bad). She does have a primary challenge on the right. The Illinois GOP never bothers to run anyone against the Cook County Dems on the Supreme Court (go figure)

That's my 2 cents. Wonder what other Illinois freepers think of this latest development?

[BillyBoy]

For those of you from outside Illinois, here's the members of the...

ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT

Chief Justice Moses W. Harrison II
(D-Collinsville)
Fifth District

Justice Charles E. Freeman
(D-Chicago)
First District

Justice Mary Ann G. McMorrow
(D-Chicago)
First District

Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald
(D-Willow Springs)
First District

Justice Robert R. "Bob" Thomas
(R-West Chicago)
Second District

Justice Thomas L. Kilbride
(D-Rock Island)
Third District

Justice Rita B. Garman
(R-Danville)
Fourth District

What candidate website's look like when supreme court judges are elected:

Re-Elect Rita Garmen for Illinois Supreme Court

Steigmann for Illinois Supreme Court

[vbmoneyspender]

Did this newspaper count votes in favor of criminal defendants as voting "like Republicans."

[Kermit]

Let's say a consumer goes into a store a steals various products. If this consumer is later convicted of stealing, should that ruling be considered "pro-business". Shouldn't judicial rulings be judged whether they are just or unjust, whether they follow the law or don't follow the law, rather than be "pro-business" or "pro-consumer"?

The media cares not a whit about the honesty of courts. If a ruling is labeled in some way, I think the court ignored the law and voted on who they liked better or who was more PC.

[BillyBoy]

I think they are refering to most civil cases.

The 'RAT controlled Illinois House passed a number of "Consumer protection", "Enviromental protection" and tax hike laws with the help of our RINO Governor.

For a court with a 5-2 majority, the Illinois Supremes have struck down a surpsing number of them. They are also (aside from the criminal-hugging Chief Justice) MUCH harsher on death row felons than our RINO Governor and his useless death penalty moritorium (which the Illinois Supremes recommended be scraped)

I don't think that's enough to make them "like Republicans" but it certainly is enough to anger the liberal trial lawyers who hired these guys to rubber stamp their lawsuits and buerucratic legislation. With a 5-2 Dem majority, I would rank the Illinois Supremes as having 3 moderates, 2 liberals, and 2 conservatives.

---------------------------------------------------------

SAMPLE COURT RULINGS

http://macarthur.uchicago.edu/deathpenalty/religious.html On July 10, 2001...the Illinois Conference of Churches and the Reverend Jesse Jackson called on the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider a decision that denied a condemned man's right to appeal. The leaders asked that Jeffrey Rissley be allowed to appeal his conviction and sentencing, a right the court had denied him because he filed a court petition six days too late.

http://www.idph.state.il.us/public/press99/mediaadd.htm SPRINGFIELD, IL – Dr. John R. Lumpkin, state public health director, will hold news conferences on Monday, Dec. 27, at two Chicago-area hospitals to discuss the public health impact of the Safe Neighborhoods [actually Gun Grabbing] Act. Gov. George H. Ryan has called for a special session of the Illinois Senate for Wednesday, Dec. 29, to consider the reenactment of the law, which was invalidated by the Illinois Supreme Court in a December 2 ruling based on the single subject provision of the Illinois Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down the Safe Neighborhoods Act, invalidating a package of crime provisions including laws cracking down on gun running and unlawful use of weapons as well as drunk-driving offenses.

http://www.mcandl.com/tort_reform.html In Best v. Taylor Machine Works, an opinion dated December 18, 1997, the Illinois Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Civil Justice Reform Amendments of 1995 (Public Act 89-7), which made important changes beneficial to defendants in the laws affecting bodily injury, death, negligent injury to property, and product liability. The Court specifically held unconstitutional the two most important provisions of the Act: compensatory damages for non-economic injury and the abolition of joint liability among joint tortfeasors. Having found these two provisions of the law to be unconstitutional, together with two of lesser importance, the Court held that the unconstitutional provisions could not be severed from the remainder, and that Public Act 89-7 is, as a consequence, invalid in its entirety. In declaring the Act invalid, the Court relied exclusively on arguments that the legislation violated the Constitution of the State of Illinois, not the Constitution of the United States. On this, the Supreme Court of Illinois is the final authority, with no recourse to the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, Public Act 89-7 is no longer law in Illinois and the decision is not subject to review.

http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/news/news20024.html The Illinois Supreme Court invalidated a part of the 15-20-life anti-gun crime law and a liquor tax hike used to bankroll the Illinois First program. The state Supreme Court ruled the 15 section of the law unconstitutional because a sentence can be disproportionately longer than one for a similar crime not within the laws reach. In the liquor tax case, the justices said the General Assembly violated the state Constitution one-subject rule and failed to give lawmakers enough time to review the bill.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/top/j05penalty.htm SPRINGFIELD — Gov. George Ryan called for a moratorium on executions in January 2000, and lawmakers are considering a number of reforms recommended by a panel earlier this year. [Justice] Harrison announced his retirement in May, citing personal reasons. Justice Mary Ann McMorrow will be Illinois' first female chief justice when she takes over today... since then, Harrison has dissented in all cases where the court has upheld the death penalty as proper punishment. That position usually put him in the extreme minority, and colleagues lashed back at Harrison's criticism. "Justice Harrison frequently chooses, as he does in this case, to impugn the integrity of other members of the court and to impute improper motives to those with whom he disagrees," Justice Miller wrote in the Bull case. Harrison said the justices generally have respected his position, but they don't yet understand how they've ignored serious problems with the death-penalty system. "I think it's inevitable someday that they'll realize what they've done, and they'll be sorry," Harrison said.

[vbmoneyspender]

Thanks for the response. Looks like I was a little too cynical - I was just having a hard time believing there actually is such an animal as a moderate Democrat.

[spintreebob]

Bill, excellent research. Your constant attention to truth, facts and detail gives you a lot of credibility when you express conclusions.