Illinois Supremes leave Blago alone

The only way this going end , is have an elections which the Democrats are afraid of.

The the Democrat's would have a tough time for a canidate not tainted to run..

So, much for a media lynching or a shameful rush to justice. Now, let justice take its course. I never voted for Governor Blagojevich, but, here in America, every person has a right to a trial, before it is determined whether he is guilty or not !! We still live in a democracy, don't we !!??
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Posted by: Inky | December 17, 2008 4:11 PM

Yeah, that's it. The Republicans have the Democrats running scared in Illinois. Yep, shaking in their boots at the thought of facing the likes of Alan Keyes, Helicopter Jim Oberweis, Steve Sauerberg or Judy Barr Topinka.

Posted by: Inky | December 17, 2008 4:11 PM

Yeah, that's it. The Republicans have the Democrats running scared in Illinois. Yep, shaking in their boots at the thought of facing the likes of Alan Keyes, Helicopter Jim Oberweis, Steve Sauerberg or Judy Barr Topinka.

Posted by: Liz | December 17, 2008 4:43 PM

jdy Barr would be excellant.,
the Democrats have no parallel.

jdy Barr would be excellant.,
the Democrats have no parallel.

Posted by: Inky | December 17, 2008 4:58 PM

Who can argue with the overwhelming success of her run for Governor?

I don't think the AG had a foot to stand on here. I think the "unfit" provision she argued was more for a disability than for being a crook. It will also be difficult to impeach; the Illinois House would need access to Fitzgerald's tapes, witnesses, etc., and I don't see how that could happen in the short term without compromising Fitzgerald's investigation. The Illinois legislature wants to move quickly on this to seat a Senator and prevent Blago from appointing anyone in the mean time. Blago's lawyer said today that it would be unfair to impeach Blago without giving him subpoena power and the right to review the evidence against him. Pretty reasonable. Rep. Curie foolishly said he doesn't have the same rights as in a courtroom. That's great. Instead, set up a kangeroo court where he has none. If Blago did what is alleged, I want him in prison. But the guy deserves a fair shake, and this impeachment committee so far looks like the blind leading the stupid.

* * * * *
Posted by: Herbie H. | December 17, 2008 5:59 PM
.
I agree with the first part about the AG trying to use the wrong part of the Illinois Constitution to get Blagojevich removed. Article V, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution provides for the replacement of the Governor in case of “death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability, . . .” If being accused of an impeachable offense qualified as another “disability” then it would have rendered useless “conviction on impeachment” as a ground for replacement.
.
But I’m not so sure about what you have said regarding Blagojevich’s rights to review the evidence and subpoena witnesses for the “impeachment” process. Maybe I'm splitting hairs on the procedure, but I have always understood "impeachment" - versus "conviction after impeachment” - to be an accusatory process analogous a grand jury proceeding (as opposed to an adversarial hearing like a preliminary hearing). Article IV, Section 14 of the Illinois Constitution sets forth the authority for the impeachment process much the same way the U.S. Constitution does for the feds. (Cf. U.S. Const., Art. I, §§ 2 & 3.) We know that the impeachment process in the House of Representatives, like the process before a grand jury, is not an adversarial proceeding in which the accused gets to participate. The rights to notice, counsel, examination of the evidence, cross-examination, confrontation, and to call witnesses to present a defense apply to the trial before the Senate (under both Constitutions). So, are you sure Rep. Curie wasn’t referring to impeachment before the House rather than the trial?

It's a "political question" from which the Court in a prudential exercise of its discretion may properly abstain.

Meanwhile, Rod looking upbeat and combative today.

This case is headed to trial--or both cases, the criminal case and the bill of impeachment.

And guess what? He may very well win the criminal case.

The other one will be a "no-win" because it will look like a mud wrestling contest.

Why isn't he in Springfield with his attorney? Heck, why isn't our governor in the ACTUAL Governor's office ever? I'd like to see a law where if you want to be governor, you need to govern from the capital. Kind of like some munincipalities have for their fire and police.

As much as I think Blago needs to go, this was a great decision by the court from a separation of powers perspective. Had the court tossed him out as "unfit to serve" based on the preliminary allegations we have right now, it would have opened a very ugly can of worms in terms of parties using the courts to attack their political opponents. Nasty stuff indeed.

Inky- Do you have the video of Judy Barr Topinka doing the polka with George Ryan (former Republican governor of Illinois, now a convicted felon in federal prison)?? That's always good for a laugh, eh.
What about Oberweis?? Mr. zero for 5 in terms of elections .It's fun to see his stores empty these days.
Steve Sauerburg, another two time loser. Didn't stand a chance. Alan Keyes, does he even reside in Illinois??
The dysfunctional GOP has nobody!!

Inky- Do you have the video of Judy Barr Topinka doing the polka with George Ryan (former Republican governor of Illinois, now a convicted felon in federal prison)?? That's always good for a laugh, eh.
What about Oberweis?? Mr. zero for 5 in terms of elections .It's fun to see his stores empty these days.
Steve Sauerburg, another two time loser. Didn't stand a chance. Alan Keyes, does he even reside in Illinois??
The dysfunctional GOP has nobody!!

Posted by: Doug R. | December 18, 2008 10:07 AM

Big deal she never marrieed him.

" John W." is exactly right. No where in the Illinois Constitution is it written that the Governor gets a say in the proceedings of an impeachment by the House. I don't even know why the House is talking about due process and long drawn out hearings. As John W. says, the impeachment process is much like a grand jury. At this point I don't think there can be any doubt, despite any ranting on the part of the brilliant Eddie Genson (and that's not sarcasm), that there is "probable cause" to move forward with a trial. The House should quickly set forth all the grounds contained in the criminal complaint by the Feds and move this thing on to the Senate.

It may be appropriate to have a full-on "trial" in the Senate, giving the Governor an opportunity to fully participate, but there is no basis for allowing such participation during the impeachment process in the House.

I say, "it may be appropriate" above because again, the Illinois Constitution sets no parameters for the trial to be held in the Senate. Only if the Senate wishes to create rules that allow full due process as required for criminal and/or civil proceedings does it then become an obligation. Everyone seems to be loosing site of the fact that impeachment and trial of the Governor is a purely political process that is completely extra-judicial. And once the process is completed there is no appeal.

The General Assembly should do away with all these shenanigans and move quickly to get this crook out of the Governor's Office.

Seems there has to be some kind of "due process", doesn't there?

Some rules of evidence. Can't just let them read a newspaper article into the record and then boot out the state's Chief Executive.

Like a board of directors of some corporation.

Or because his poll ratings go below a certain point.

Accusations are not proof of anything.

Of course Congress has the benefit of a number of precedents, most recently of note the Bill & Monica Show.

Eddie G is a very good lawyer and the things he said today were not just random ramblings.

He was sketching out the parameters of due process.

“Seems there has to be some kind of "due process", doesn't there?”
* * * * *
Posted by: ornery | December 18, 2008 8:06 PM
.
Of course there must be some kind of due process. Removal from office by impeachment only takes place after “conviction on impeachment ...” (Ill. Const. Art. V, § 6.) The State House of Representatives must first investigate the matter and vote on articles of impeachment. The State Constitution requires a majority vote for to sustain any articles of impeachment. If no article gets a majority vote, the matter comes to an end. If they do produce articles of impeachment, it is only the beginning. There must still be a trial in the State Senate.
.
In the only impeachment trial held in Illinois, the Senate produced rules of procedure that provided for notice of the charges, the right to counsel, the power to subpoena witnesses, the right of the impeached officer to be present during the examination of witnesses, and for the cross examination of witnesses. (See http://www.impeachment.senategop.net/Assets/senaterules.pdf ) These are the kinds of procedural rules required by due process. If welfare recipients and parolees are entitled to this level of due process protection before being deprived of their benefits or liberty (and they are: Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 266-271 (1970), Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 487-490 (1972)), it only stands to reason that the Governor of Illinois is entitled to the same or better protections before he loses his job. In addition, Article IV, Section 14 of the Illinois Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senators to convict. So, no, removal has to be based on something better than reading newspaper articles, rumor, or poor poll ratings.