Now it’s Burke’s spouse who’s paying for his purely political ‘sins’

Is Anne Burke now as much a political … 

Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke, the spouse of the alderman now under criminal indictment, is coming under her own partisan fire from people upset with politics-as-usual – rather than actions meant to benefit themselves instead.

Burke is the alderman who is going to push to the limit a defense that his actions in the City Council are merely the way things get done. It seems his wife will wind up having to make the same arguments over-and-over.

… target as husband Ed?

FOR IN THE case of Anne Burke, she has the authority to make appointments to fill vacancies within the judiciary of Cook County. It would seem that she used her power to place people with whom she has political ties.

Which has more activist-types offended that Anne Burke didn’t give preference to “their” people instead of “her” people.

Her first offense occurred earlier this month when she used her authority to appoint a white attorney to be a judge in a sub-circuit meant to cover much of Chicago’s West Side. The intent when the sub-circuit was created in the 1990s was that it would somehow result in more judges of an African-American persuasion being picked.

Now, politicos of Latino ethnic origins are offended.

THEY SEE A different sub-circuit – one meant to cover city neighborhoods such as Pilsen, Little Village and Back of the Yards (all of which have become Spanish-speaking enclaves) and stretching out to Cicero. Where there also is a predominance of people who habla en Espanol.

Yet as various Latino aldermen and legislators are pointing out, that judicial post was given to Cara Smith, whose qualifications were serving as an aide to the Cook County sheriff’s police, where Sheriff Tom Dart is a long-time ally of Alderman Burke.

There also are signs that she gave Burke’s aldermanic re-election campaign last year a significant campaign contribution, which has those of a more criminally-conspiratorial mindset thinking she bought the judicial post. Anyway, she was sworn in to the post on Monday.

GARCIA: As critical of her as much as him

It wasn’t given to an attorney of Latino origins. For all I know, there were no such attorneys who were even considered for the post.

THE LATINO POLITICOS, including Rep. Jesus Garcia, D-Ill., who sent along a letter of support, are trying to make this an issue of ethnic prejudice, just as those interested in the initial appointment wanting to see it as a case of black political empowerment being undermined.

Of course, there’s also the fact that the Latino activist types tried seriously in the aldermanic elections this year to undermine Ed Burke and get him defeated from the City Council post he has held for half a century.

Garcia was prominently behind that effort – which failed, as voter turnout was particularly strong in the precincts of his ward that still have sizable white-ethnic populations – rather than the parts that have become solid Latino (mostly Mexican-American) neighborhoods.

So I don’t doubt this is partisan politicking, just as much as the Burkes’ activities may have its own political taint.

THEY COULDN’T BEAT him on Election Day (Ed solidly won re-election as alderman without a runoff, while Anne won a 10-year term to her Supreme Court post last year), so they’ll dredge up other dirt.

The image the alderman may be giving off

Which may, or may not, be true. In politics, “dirty pool” is downright fair – or to be expected – from all sides.

So I don’t doubt that much of these allegations is about trying to make up for Burke electoral victories – which some of those of an activist mentality likely regard as defeats for the good of the people. At least their people.

And taking a few pot shots at Ed Burke’s wife may hurt him just as much as anything they fire off directly at him. Although it does create the possibility that Burke will take great offense to Anne being criticized and could add people to his personal ‘enemies’ list.

WHAT’S THAT OLD cliché, remembered by many as a line from the film The Godfather? “Revenge is a dish that tastes best when it is served cold.”

The bottom line is that we could be in for an ugly political war, with Ed Burke doing his best to be none other than “Don Corleone” himself.

  -30-

Will Toomin be big enough judge to settle legal tiff tied to Jussie Smollett?

The aftermath of the criminal case once pending against actor Jussie Smollett almost seems like it is devolving into a version of the old playground game “Keep Away” – only it seems nobody wants to be deemed “it” and have to ultimately issue a ruling on the case’s legal merits.

MARTIN: Looking to avoid conflict

For Judge LeRoy Martin, Jr. (the son of one-time Chicago Police Superintendent LeRoy Martin) decided on Friday he wants another judge to have to decide on whether the case ultimately has to be resolved by a special prosecutor.

LEGAL OFFICIALS WHO are pushing for a special prosecutor are upset that the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office ultimately decided to drop the criminal charges against Smollett – who allegedly had hired a pair of men to stage a racially-motivated attack against him.

Those legal minds want to believe it is now the state’s attorney’s office that may have acted improperly, and may wind up being found to have engaged in some sort of illicit activity.

Or maybe not!

Perhaps it is that no judge wants to be put in a position where they could wind up having to preside over legal proceedings regarding their “Officer of the Court” colleagues?

ANYWAY, IT IS what led to the decision by Martin to back away from the case. For what it’s worth, the legal minds wanted Martin out because they note his own son, LeRoy III, is an assistant state’s attorney for Cook County.

TOOMIN: May have to resolve Smollett affair

Meaning it might wind up being even more of a conflict for Martin, the presiding judge over the Cook County court Criminal division, to ultimately have to issue an opinion on this matter.

Although the Chicago Sun-Times reported he doesn’t think it’s automatically a conflict. As he says, “the idea that a judge should recuse because they have a close family member working in the office, (the system) would literally grind to a halt.”

But he went ahead and recused himself anyway, saying he didn’t want the appearance of a conflict of interest to linger – which would wind up making this case even more of a legal scandal than it already is regarded as.

MARTIN MAY WELL have made one sensible decision with regards to the Smollett case – which is going to gain national attention regardless of how it turns out. That’s what happens when an actor gets busted in a way that he’s probably now best known for his arrest – rather than his acting ability.

FORT: Smollett case petty compared to Jeff

Martin says he wants Judge Michael Toomin to take over the case and ultimately make the decision as to whether a special prosecutor needs to be brought in to investigate the Cook County prosecutors who ultimately decided that Smollett didn’t do anything illegal.

No matter how fake or phony the police insist the whole affair was.

This case is going to become a nationally-known mess. Yet Toomin may well be the one judge in Cook County whose record is filled with so many “big” cases that this one will wind up being regarded as petty nonsense by comparison.

TOOMIN, WHO IS 81, is the judge who allowed a special prosecutor to ultimately handle the criminal case against R.J. Vanecko, the grandson and nephew of former Chicago mayors Richard J. and Richard M., who eventually had to plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter and wound up getting some jail time.

He’s also the judge who handed down a lengthy prison sentence for murder to Jeff Fort, the leader of the one-time South Side street gang El Rukn, who remains incarcerated on even harsher charges at a federal facility in Florence, Colo.

Then there was the case against Harry Aleman, who killed people for organized crime in Chicago and literally tried to bribe legal officials to get around a criminal conviction. With Toomin ultimately presiding over the trial that resulted in Aleman dying in prison.

SMOLLETT: Once a Mighty Duck

Just a few of the many cases Toomin has handled during nearly four decades as a criminal judge, and which could make him unintimidated at the notion of handling a case involving an actor best known for playing a musician on “Empire,” along with one of the kiddie hockey players from the old “The Mighty Ducks” (remember Emilio Estevez?) films.

  -30-

Just what constitutes Justice?

VAN DYKE: What will be left of life?

I can already hear the rants from people who fear that justice (or is that Justice! with a capital “J”) won’t be served in coming weeks.

The would-be defendants whom some are eager to see prosecuted to the maximum extent of the law (if not beyond the extend, with the mythical “book” being thrown at them) are none other than Alderman Edward M. Burke and former police officer Jason Van Dyke.

BURKE: Does he still have a political life?

VAN DYKE, OF course, is the white police officer who was found guilty last year of criminal offenses in the 2014 shooting death of a teenager who happens to be black.

While Burke is the long-time alderman named in a criminal complaint suggesting that he went too far in terms of shaking down a business that wants to remodel a Gage Park neighborhood Burger King franchise.

The very franchise, in fact, where Laquan McDonald, the black teenager, was shot nearby on that night in ’14 when he didn’t stop fast enough to satisfy Van Dyke’s concerns.

It seems that federal prosecutors would like to strengthen their criminal case against Burke by getting a grand jury to indict him on some sort of charge – perhaps something far more significant than he currently faces.

WHICH IS WHY attorneys were in court this week. In theory, prosecutors had until Friday – the next scheduled court date – before they would have to put up or shut up, so to say. Instead, an extension was granted. May 3 is now the significant date.

A fact that will anger those people so eager for a Burke criminal conviction that they dream of it being the factor that knocks him out of the running for the Feb. 26 municipal elections.

Legal notoriety? Or is all publicity good?

Even if the 14^th Ward aldermanic race stretches to an April 2 run-off (which is very likely), it means the elections will be over before we know exactly what will become of Burke on the criminal justice front. He could easily wind up being re-elected before actual charges are known.

It will complicate the desires of those who just want Ed Burke out of office – and really don’t care much about the specific details. It sort of makes it easier for Burke to focus on campaigning for re-election if actual criminal charges are theoretical.

AS FOR FRIDAY in court, it now means nothing for Burke. But for those eager to see criminal justice action that day, the focus will be solely on Van Dyke.

For he’s the one found guilty of second degree murder and multiple counts of aggravated battery with a firearm. Theoretically, he could get multiple sentences for each charge that could have a minimum of 96 years in prison.

A sentence that would appease those people eager to see a cop go to prison for what they will forevermore see as a racially-motivated slaying. But prosecutors admitted this week there is a way to interpret the sentencing guidelines so that Van Dyke could theoretically get 15 years of actual prison time.

At age 40 now, he’d be 55 upon release. Which would still allow him a chance to have some life left in freedom – even though it will be his aging years, as the rest of what’s left of his youth would be spent in prison somewhere.

IT WILL BE interesting to see how Judge Vincent Gaughan interprets the law in this case. I have no doubt everybody’s going to be outraged – from those who want Van Dyke to get some form of probation up to those who want him to get a lengthy, demoralizing prison term then want him to die at the hands of his fellow inmates.

GAUGHAN: Expected to impose sentence Friday

Which is a sick attitude to have, but it is one that becomes all too common amongst the general public. The very reason why we don’t let public sentiment play too much of a role in criminal cases.

Similar to those who would like to see Ed Burke get hauled off to the pokey, so to speak, as punishment for all the ideologically-motivated acts he committed throughout his 50 years in the City Council.

Public sentiment all too often leads to rash acts that, in and of themselves, are an injustice.

  -30-

‘Justice Kavanaugh’ inevitable, if Age of Trump’s partisan trends prevail

I have had trouble getting all that interested in the political brawl taking place concerning the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court justice – largely because there has been no evidence to indicate this will be anything other than a partisan scuffle. Albeit one of great intensity!

KAVANAUGH: Future high court justice?

With Republicans in Congress controlling the process for confirmation and President Donald Trump having nominated Kavanaugh as part of a plan to reinforce his own image as being in control of federal government, it seems like a futile gesture to expect anything to happen to stop Kavanaugh from getting the post.

SO FOR THOSE people who are desperately hoping all the tales we’ve been hearing about what a drunken oaf Kavanaugh was as a young man (and one whose behavior toward women is despicable), I’d say, “Get a clue!”

Even with some Republican partisans on Friday indicating they’d like to see the FBI do a cursory investigation (which is all you’d get with a one-week delay), I suspect all they want is the appearance that they contemplated objectors.

In the end, they’ll vote to confirm Kavanaugh because they like the idea of a Supreme Court stacked in their favor – one that would gladly strike down all the ideas (abortion, gay rights, etc.) they find so morally reprehensible.

And all of those people wishing for something to happen to halt Kavanaugh, they’ll gain stories to tell of the tacky and irresponsible behavior by Congress that rivals the recklessness by which Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the high court back in 1991 – despite the tales of his own sexually-harassing behavior.

ALL OF THESE thoughts popped into my head Thursday night when I heard someone who watched that day’s confirmation hearings claim it didn’t matter what the U.S. Senate did – Kavanaugh was damaged goods.

He’d never be able to serve as a credible justice on the high court. He might as well drop out to show some sense of dignity.

To which I retort “Hah!”

TRUMP: Wants Kavanaugh 'win' badly

I’m sure the thoughts going through the minds of all the Kavanaugh backers is that Thomas got confirmed despite the trash talk about himself, and he now has nearly three full decades of service as a Supreme Court justice.

THEY’LL THINK THIS is something Kavanaugh can overcome, and they’re likely to use the happenings of this week as further evidence of how “out of touch” non-ideologue people truly are. Athough I see it as evidence of how out-of-touch with reality ideologues are if they can find anything acceptable with such conduct.

This really is going to become a hardline partisan vote. Even if Republican legislators have concerns about Kavanaugh’s character, they’ll see the opportunity to strengthen their hand for partisan political control.

All that speculation about women being disrespected? They probably agree with Trump, who earlier this week said he’s inclined to believe Kavanaugh because he thinks women tend to exaggerate this kind of stuff.

My own concerns got reinforced when I learned of Joe Donnelly. He’s the senator from Indiana who, as a Democrat, managed to win a seat held long-time by Republicans.

WHICH HAS REPUBLICAN operatives convinced that defeating him is a priority. They want to “take back” what they think he stole from them (although anybody who is serious realizes the Republican who Donnelly defeated in 2012 lost because of his own political ineptitude and disrespect for the female persuasion).

DONNELLY: Sticking by his party, not his state

Yet even with Donnelly receiving intense pressure to “go with the flow” and support Kavanaugh, he is saying he’s a “no” vote. Perhaps he realizes that backing Brett won’t gain him any partisan support – while costing him self-respect.

When it finally occurs, this is going to be a purely partisan vote. Republicans will prevail – they have the greater numbers politically. Which means this will become yet another bit of evidence as to why this Age of Trump we now live in is a reprehensible one.

And anybody who seriously thinks the Kavanaugh confirmation vote can be deferred until after Election Day to be decided by a Democratic-leaning Congress? That’s pure political fantasy, no matter how much many of us would desire it!

  -30-

Electoral confusion?!?

I happened to be taking my father’s dogs out for a Sunday morning walk when we stumbled across a house that had campaign signs galore posted all over the front lawn.

Carmelo, a Golden Retriever/Poodle, surveys the confusion of some voters as Election Day approaches in eight days. Photograph by Gregory Tejeda

So many that the end result was a chaotic mess – with some of the signs actually being for conflicting viewpoints come Election Day.

DO WE HAVE people who think they’re politically aware who don’t have a clue how they’re voting? Will next Tuesday wind up being the end result of political chaos run amok?

Anything is possible. There are times when I think the only definitive thought would-be voters have in their heads is whether they want “four more years” of Bruce Rauner as Illinois governor.

As for the ones who don’t, I doubt there’s a true consensus of thought behind any one candidate, or even one political party. Which could be Rauner’s best chance of winning re-election.

But as for the rest of the ballot, I won’t be surprised to learn many people will walk into the voting booth without a clue how they’re going to vote.

WILL WE HAVE people picking and choosing at random just so they can fill out their ballots? Or will we have people leaving the bulk of their ballots blank because they don’t have a clue who, or what, to cast votes for?

I know some suburbs are putting “home rule” referendum questions on their ballot – asking voters if their municipal officials ought to have full authority to deal with local issues involving taxes.

There are some people who put their full faith in their local officials over any other, while others think government officials deserve to have as little authority as possible.

Yet I have heard some people come right out and say they’re inclined to skip that question, particularly if the concept of “home rule” in general is one that is alien to them.

OF COURSE, THERE’S also all those judges to pick from – and I’m sure that’s going to cause intimidation for many voters.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that as a reporter-type person who has written about courts in Cook County, I have an edge over other voters. I’ve actually heard of many of these judges – in some instances, I’ve covered cases in their courtrooms.

I’m not above refusing to vote for a judge who acted like a pompous blowhard while I was in his presence.

Which makes as much sense to me as those people who cast votes for as many of the white, Irish-sounding names they see. To the point where I’m astounded at the many judicial candidates who have their campaign lawn signs in Kelly green-colored letters. Putting the thoughts of St. Patrick’s Day into our subliminal thoughts.

AS FOR ME, when I cast my ballot last week at an Early Voting Center, I actually went with my own ethnic origins in cases when I was unfamiliar with all the candidates – hence, a slew of Spanish-sounding names got my vote. Although I’m also aware there’s been enough ethnic intermixing in our society that it doesn’t take a “Rodriguez” or “Martinez”-like name to be Latino.

I’m also sure there are others who have equally-goofy ways of distributing their votes in cases of cluelessness. Besides, when you think about it, does it really make sense to seek out a Bar Association endorsement list and pick off all those names? Those lists tend to be the legal establishment, and I’m sure there are those who’d rather be shaking up the established courthouse regulars for our societal good.

So those of you who have yet to cast your votes, I’ll wish you luck on wading through the many anonymous names that comprise the bottom half of the ballot that you probably haven’t paid attention to.

And I’ll wonder if your reaction will be something similar to one of my father’s dogs, who I swear let out a sigh when he saw the mass of signs cluttering a lawn that he probably would have put to better use by relieving himself.

  -30-

Trump, ideologue allies suffer immigration defeat (for now, at least)

If Donald Trump were truly interested in “making America great again,” he’d never have tried becoming president. One can argue it is his combative nature on behalf of conservative ideologues that IS what’s wrong with our society these days.

Will Supreme Ct save us from Trump excesses?

Our inability to work together on issues despite our differences about the details is what ultimately will cause a chasm that splits our society beyond repair. Compromise is the “American Way,” even though many of the ideologues refuse to accept that notion.

IT IS BECAUSE of this that we’re going to have to turn to our court system to ensure that havoc is not wrecked upon us all. Which the ideologues will contend is unjust and evidence of unelected judges imposing their will upon us all.

Although it really is the way the system of checks and balances is supposed to work – Congress creates laws, the president approves them and the courts are there to ensure that if the politicos screw up, the damage will be repaired.

Which is what’s happening with regards to immigration and the concept of “sanctuary cities” – places where the local police don’t automatically share all the information they come across with federal Immigration officials.

Trump, in his bid to appease those individuals amongst us whose idea of immigration reform is a mass increase in the number of people deported from the United States, wanted his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to crack down on the federal funding his office provides to police departments in such cities – including Chicago.

MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL (who as a former member of Congress and White House chief of staff has a few clues about how to manipulate the federal government process) made it clear earlier this week Chicago wasn’t going to do anything to change the way it conducts itself on this issue.

That now has the backing of a federal judge – U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued an order Tuesday preventing the federal government from cutting off such funding for police.

Ironic in that Trump always goes on about the crime rate in Chicago and the violence, but then would want to take a whack at the funding the Chicago Police Department has available to him.

ORRICK: Will his ruling stand?

Trump on Wednesday turned to his Twitter account and began tweeting like a twit – lambasting the U.S. Court of Appeals based in San Francisco. That court is the one that will wind up hearing whatever challenge is filed to Orrick’s injunction, but it hasn’t acted yet.

ALTHOUGH I SUSPECT that to Trump, one judge looks just like another judge – they’re all interchangeable and that, in his mind, they’re all supposed to rule in his favor.

But a part of me also thinks Trump is just more interested in being a grump. Complaining about sanctuary cities, complaining about courts, ranting about that wall he wants built along the U.S./Mexico border but which action will not occur until at least autumn.

Trump is of the political type that wants to tell you that everything you think is “wrong” (because it’s not exactly like yourself) is “somebody else’s fault,” Support him, and he’ll commiserate with you. On this issue, it's the fault of the "flakes" in Frisco who won't follow his commands!

But he certainly doesn’t have solutions to the problems that face society. That’s hard work – as evidenced by the lack of much significant activity during the president’s symbolic First 100 Days. The time in which we determine if he gets off to a good start.

ADMITTEDLY, TRUMP GOT a Supreme Court justice appointed to fill a long-festering vacancy on the nation’s high court. But with the current political circumstances, the process was geared in his favor. It would have been the ultimate evidence of incompetence on Trump’s part if he had failed.

Which be the key to comprehending whether anything of lasting significance will be accomplished in the next roughly 1,360 days.

BARRON: Will his dad behave?

A rigged Supreme Court that overturns any lower court that dares rule in ways contrary to the desires of The Donald may be the only way Trump can get government to do anything.

Then again, we may find that even those justices on the high court will turn out to surprise us and for that, we should be grateful, even though we’ll inevitably get reports emanating from the White House about all the temper tantrums being thrown by Barron’s dad!

  -30-

Is there nobody who’s safe any longer?

If ever there were people who had a degree of safety implied by their occupation, I’d have thought a judge and a priest would be amongst them.
 

MILES: Won't be presiding in Ct any longer

Yet the news reports out of Chicago – when not being cluttered with that passenger being forcibly removed from a United Airlines-affiliated flight or the spills in Lake Michigan contaminating the Indiana portion of its shoreline – have given us a judge and a priest who were crime victims.

WHILE THE PRIEST seems to be alive and well and grateful he wasn’t more seriously hurt, the same can’t be said for the judge.

Cook County Associate Judge Raymond Miles is now dead at age 66, following an altercation with an armed man who apparently was harassing his girlfriend outside his Chatham neighborhood home.

Police now say they doubt the armed man was that interested in the criminal division judge and was more interested in getting the woman – who also got shot during the Monday morning incident.

In fact, some news reports are indicating that the woman was intended as a robbery target, and got shot in the leg when she didn’t want to give up her purse. Hearing a scuffle caused Miles to come rushing out of his house to her aid, which then resulted in his getting shot as well.

THIS MAY MEAN we can put aside our original paranoias that said someone tried to have a judge killed to try to influence a case, or retribution for a negative legal ruling. Or whatnot.

Although police said they suspect the armed man had actually been following the woman for a couple of weeks to learn about her and try to figure out the best time and place to rob her.

Which means he likely had an idea that the woman had a connection to a judge, or someone working in the courts in some capacity. Which would still make this a case where someone thought along the lines of Rhett Butler (remember “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!”).

 

MOLYNEUX (and McDuff)

And we now have a deceased officer of the court. All because a would-be thief became upset when the woman whom he had targeted for his robbery, it seems, turned out to not have any money in the purse he had just robbed.

AS IT TURNS out, the Cook County sheriff’s police says it investigates an average of 10 death threats per year against judges. But the number of incidents of violence against judges is just too minimal.

Judge Miles is someone who’s going to stand out in the memory of the Cook County judicial system.

As may Rev. John Molyneux, a pastor at the Our Lady of Guadalupe parish in the South Chicago neighborhood. It seems that on Tuesday morning, he was walking his dog, McDuff, in the neighborhood streets near the church when a young man approached him at 91^st Street and Baltimore Avenue and expressed interest in the dog.

The man then asked for a dollar, which the priest handed over. The man then produced an object the priest took to be a pistol and demanded more money.

THE PRIEST TURNED over his wallet and the man ran off.

Molyneux told the Chicago Tribune he’s not angry about the incident, and said he wants to show compassion. “I really think the opposite of love is not hate, the opposite of love is fear and we cannot live in fear,” the priest said.

Although this may too be an incident where first impressions are misleading. There is some indication the priest was dressed casually, and the robber didn’t know he was targeting a priest.

Priest robbed w/in block of his church

But still, we have one man trying to defend his female companion, while another was walking his dog. Not exactly the images of people we’d presume ought to be targets for crime – particularly since the amounts gained by both robbers combined sounds like it was less than what I have in my wallet right now!

  -30-

I cast votes for a whole slew of judges, but don’t ask me who any of them are!

I went to an early voting center on Wednesday and spent about 15 minutes going through the process of casting a ballot for the 2016 general election cycle.
 

Yes, I did!

The highlight may well have been getting my sticker that informs the public in so many languages that “I Voted!” Gee, aren’t I special?!?

FOR ANYONE WHO has read my commentary, it shouldn’t be any surprise that I couldn’t cast my vote against Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations quickly enough.

Aside from Miss Hillary, I also cast my votes for Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate (Tammy Duckworth), Cook County state’s attorney (Kim Foxx) and Illinois comptroller (Susana Mendoza). I also said "no" on road funds and on merging the recorder of deeds with the clerk's office, but "yes" for the earned sick time measure.

In the case of comptroller, I have noticed that many official endorsements are backing her opponent, Leslie Munger, on the grounds that Mendoza is tied in too tightly to Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago; without noting that her opponent is nothing but a lackey for Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Independence is a dirty word, it would seem, when it comes to lower-level political posts.

BUT I HAVE to confess that when going through the process of filling out a ballot this time around, I was caught noticing the level of cluelessness I felt going through all those judges.

 

Would this "judge" have been better?

Some of whom I was asked to make a mark beside their name for retention, while others I was asked to vote “yes” or “no.” There were a couple of cases where I was asked to pick a name.

Yet as I write this, some five hours after I actually cast my ballot, I’m not sure I could name any of the people I voted for to serve as judges within Cook County. That truly is sad. It really is clueless on my part, and borders on political irresponsibility.

Yet I doubt I’m alone in this regard. I suspect that most of us don’t have a clue about judges, and have probably trained ourselves to not think twice about this. After all, how can you be bothered about screwing something up if you don’t give it any thought at all?

 

MENDOZA: She got my vote!

BEING A REPORTER-type person, I did recognize a few names of judges – either because I may have once covered some type of story that occurred in their courtroom, or perhaps because some of these names have popped up on enough ballots throughout the years that they’re somehow stuck in my brain.

Similar to how I can remember ballplayers of the early 1970s when I was a kid – Johnny Jeter is just one of many names that takes up valuable brain space that probably could be better devoted to something more useful in life.

But for the most part, I don’t know the legal qualifications of the people whom I voted for – which is exactly what (I suspect) the legal types like about it. Why get ourselves all worked up worrying about qualifications.

So long as they look authoritative while wearing a black robe, that’s all that matters to some people. Even if we wind up with incidents such as the one in at the sixth district circuit courthouse in suburban Markham where a judge let someone else don her robe and get a feel for the job -- even though the person wasn't a judge at all!

OF COURSE, I suppose I could have followed some of those ridiculous rules that political people concoct; in particular that one about liking the sound of Irish ethnicity names.

 

I know more about .244 hitter than judges

If anything, that so-called rule makes me inclined to vote against Irish names when I cast my ballot, figuring they don’t need my vote to win. Heck, there have been some times when I was sarcastically inclined to automatically vote for every Spanish ethnic name on the ballot as a way of mocking the so-called rule.

Not that such acts are any more responsible. Because in the end, the rule of thumb that ought to apply is, “You get what you vote for.”

And if you’re the type who didn’t put any thought into the ballot aside from wanting to back Donald Trump (or dump all over him), then you deserve whatever form of political abuse your mind concocts from the actions of government in coming years.

  -30-

Election Day won't bring to an end our national partisan political stalemate

There’s nothing terribly surprising about failed presidential candidate John McCain talking about how his Republican counterparts in Congress are prepared to be obstructionists with regards to any effort by a “President Hillary Clinton” to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court of the United States.
 

McCAIN: Senator says 'no judges' for Hillary

Obstructionism has been the ways and means of operating our federal government for the past six years that Congress has been in the hands of Republicans who don’t want President Barack Obama to have any lasting effect on the nation.

SO IT WOULD seem that obstructionism will be the way they will deal with a second coming of the Clinton family to the White House.

There’s still that vacancy on the Supreme Court caused by the death of Antonin Scalia early this year. Any hope that the passing of Election Day in a few more weeks will result in a return to normalcy is just a dream.

Either that, or obstructionism has become the new normal.

In some ways, hearing that Senate Republicans would be inclined to refuse to confirm any Clinton appointment to the nation’s high court may be the most sensible thing we’re hearing these days.

AFTER ALL, IT would mean that Republican opponents of a President Clinton would be staying within the process created for our government’s operations. Not that the Founding Fathers ever envisioned government officials would be petty enough to resort to such tactics.

Then again, maybe petty has become the new normal.

Hearing that the Senate would refuse to confirm a Supreme Court nominee sounds more sane than those people who talk of a coup d’ tat within our government – so as to keep “that broad” (they probably use much harsher terms to describe her) from taking office.

 

TRUMP: His followers prepared to wreck havoc

There’s even one website now (usuncut.com) with a video snippet of somebody saying he’s prepared to kill Hillary Clinton should she manage to be able to win the presidential election – which various polls and studies are indicating is somewhere in the vicinity of a 90 percent certainty.

AT THE VERY least, there are those who take Donald Trump’s “stupid speak” of Clinton being prosecuted and incarcerated if he were to win the just a tad too seriously. Let’s only hope that Trump himself has never engaged in a business deal that could be construed by a prosecutor as criminal in nature.

Although I’m sure the Trump-types would dismiss his future indictment as some sort of conspiracy by Clinton to cover up her own wrong-doings.

All of this is relevant because of the likelihood that Republican interests will hold on to their control of Congress. I know many of the e-mail missives I receive from Democratic interests these days always make the point of how we have to dump the GOP control of Congress if a “President Clinton” is to be capable of achieving anything.

Some go right out and try to scare me by saying it is inevitable UNLESS Democratic candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives win – which usually means more campaign cash. Which really means they want me to kick in money, and they’re trying to make me feel guilty because I haven’t contributed a dime to any candidate.

NOT NOW. NOT ever, actually.

 

CLINTON: Is she really such a shoo-in to win?

Although I don’t doubt the truthfulness of an obstructionist Congress. It may well be McCain speaking the blunt truth when he talks about an ongoing effort to keep the Supreme Court short-staffed – unless conservative ideologues get to pick one of their own to replace Scalia (and any other judge who retires or dies in the near future).

All of which means we’re not going to get radical change in the way our government operates these days. Which is sad, because radical change is what we desperately need. And NO, Donald Trump is as far removed from “radical change” as we could get.

It is sad that we have a political mindset by which people can only work with themselves and are incapable of working with others. The only way our government gets anything accomplished is if the “game” is rigged in someone’s favor – and bipartisanship becomes the ultimate vulgar expression.

  -30-

Same day voter registration now a back-and-forth politically-partisan battle

We, the electorate of Chicago and the rest of what comprises Illinois, are about to become the political equivalent of a yo-yo.

This 'judge' might make a more sensible ruling than the real ones have done

Up-and-down. Back-and-forth. Some lawyer types may even try to do “tricks” with us for their own legal amusement. While political activist types will guide them for their own partisan benefit.

I’M NOT ABOUT to predict how this will all turn out. For all I know, the situation may change dramatically between the time I write this commentary and the point in time that you actually read it.

What will be the end result on Election Day? You’d have a better chance of placing a safe bet on whether or not the Chicago Cubs can actually make it all the way through the multiple rounds of playoffs to even get to the World Series – let alone win it!

What’s at stake are the laws in Illinois that literally allow someone to just show up at a polling place on Election Day and fill out a form to register to vote that very day.

No more of this having to make sure you’re registered in advance (Tuesday will be the deadline, if the courts ultimately say so) if you have hopes of being able to vote for your pick for president and other political posts.

THE GENERAL RULE of thumb is that Republicans hate these kinds of measures. They spew a batch of rhetoric about how they encourage voter fraud, but the reality is that they don’t want a lot of people casting votes if they’re not the type to be motivated.

I remember back to when I was a Statehouse correspondent in Springfield, one time then-Senate President “Pate” Philip engaged in a rant about “motor voter” (the measure that allowed people to register to vote when they renewed their driver’s licenses).

He said that registering to vote is a simple matter of visiting your neighborhood village clerk, and he didn’t understand why people should feel a need to accommodate those would-be voters who couldn’t be bothered to make that one trip to Village Hall.

What 'tricks' will lawyers try on same-day registration issue?

Actually, I kind of agree with Pate on that point. But the degree to which some people are willing to fight this is appalling. Because it makes it clear they only want certain people to even be able to vote.

THE COURT BATTLE we’re now enduring is one in which a federal court judge from downstate Illinois was found to strike down the same-day voter registration measure, which does not exist in all 102 counties of Illinois.

Many rural counties that operate on a small scale say it would be too much of a hassle for them to have to permit same-day registration. Which was then used as an argument to say that same-day registration discriminates against rural voters!

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals based in Chicago overruled that lower-court judge. Meaning that as I write this, you will be able to show up at the polling place on Election Day and cast a ballot that will be counted – even if you’ve been too lazy to register yourself to vote.

But I don’t doubt there will be a back-and-forth as someone is bound to try to find a judge to overturn the appeals court. This has the potential to wind up before the Supreme Court.

THE ONLY TRICK is whether there will be enough time for the high court to rule before Nov. 8, and which side will have the final say. Just like how there always are certain candidates whose ballot spots are being challenged in the courts – and we don’t know until Election Day proper whether a vote for them will be legitimate, or the equivalent of one cast for “Mickey Mouse” or “Lara Croft.”

Because if the “final” say is that same day registration is wrong and the Supreme Court comes in and rules after Election Day that it is proper, the effective result is a victory for those who want to cut off certain types of people from voting.

In my own case, I had to change my voter registration this year. I moved recently, although only to a temporary residence. I expect to be doing another move in the near future.

Because I want to be sure I have a say in this particularly-egregious partisan battle of an election, I didn’t want to take the chance of showing up at a polling place on Election Day – only to be forced to say to future generations that back in the ’16 election cycle, I couldn’t vote! That would make me feel stupid.

  -30-

Trump picks a side he wants to be on ideologically. Hillary will have to do the same soon if she wants to win

It has become a common rant by more liberal-minded groups trying to stir up opposition to Donald Trump’s presidential dreams – he’ll appoint a whole slew of justices to the Supreme Court of the United States who will undo everything we have done.

Of course, there are conservative ideologues who don’t trust Trump – they think he’s just a little too big-city Manhattan-oriented to truly represent the concerns of the political party that likes to believe that big cities represent everything that’s wrong with this country.

SOME OF THEM even think Trump can’t be trusted to pick the kind of high court justices they want – the kind who can be counted on to rig the legal system to benefit their partisan political beliefs.

So it wasn’t a surprise that Trump this week made public a list of 11 judges whom he said would be his picks for the Supreme Court – should he get elected in the November general elections.

All 11 are judges who typically come up on the list of conservative political operatives when they dream about having courts that would view liberalism as some sort of crime.

It would seem that the list is part of a tactic by Trump to gain, if not the love, at least the tolerance, of the conservative ideologues whose preferred presidential candidates all were defeated by Donald back during the primary season.

IT IS A tactic to appease the people who might seriously give thought to backing a third-party presidential candidate or, worse yet, not even bother to vote at all.

Which actually is the strategy of the campaign of Hillary Clinton for president. Hope that the American people are so repulsed at Trump’s garishness that they don’t bother to vote – which could make their faction just large enough to win the general election.

I really don’t know how the election cycle will shake out by autumn, although I don’t think there is anyone who is really enthused about picking from either Trump or Clinton.

Then again, maybe I wasn’t alone in thinking that there wasn’t anyone in the running for president during any primary season who was worth my vote. It really was quite the collection of mediocrities that led us to this point of deciding to vote for the candidate less likely to make us spew chunks!

AS FOR TRUMP’S list of judges, it is predictable – a collection of names that only legal geeks would recognize. We’re going to have to take the word of political observers that the legal minds assembled here are truly ideologically hard-core enough to appease the kind of people who want rigid adherence to a law that favors them, and only them.

I don’t think the list means much, in and of itself.

But it is a gesture of the type that could get more people interested in bothering to cast a ballot for Trump. Get enough supporters, and Donald wins the right to live and work in the Oval Office for a four-year period.

Or perhaps it will be Clinton who will wind up having to make more gestures to try to appease enough would-be backers to bother to turn out to vote.

SOMEONE IS GOING to have to give the American people something in the way of a reason for people to bother to turn out to vote.

Because despite all those silly hats about “making America great again,” this is not an election cycle that will get the public all worked up.

This is one where I suspect many people are going to hold their noses pinched shut while casting their ballots, and others will spend their lives living down the shame over just how they will cast their ballot just over six months from now.

  -30-