.png)
Earlier this month, a Mom-At-Arms journalist published some research that detailed Governor Pritzker's donations to two IL Supreme Court justices who are now hearing a case before them (in May) in which Pritzker is a defendant regarding the IL gun ban that was brought forward by state rep Dan Caulkins. That article (which blew up after Washington Gun Law cited it in a YouTube video) can be viewed in full here:
The article was picked up by Greg Bishop of The Center Square, to which we were given credit full credit for bringing this stuff to light at a time where it matters.
It was expanded on as well in certain aspects. It started spreading to the point where the governor was questioned about his actions at press conferences (which he dismissed the revelations as "right wing").
It then got to the point to where the offical government account for the Illinois Supreme Court was censoring comments on its tweets (hello, ACLU?) that mentioned the money given to the judges. That story here:
Today, 3/31/23, the plaintiff (state rep Dan Caulkins) has now officially asked that the state Supreme Court justices involved with Pritzker's money recuse themselves. This included some of the public information we cited in our articles that broke and expanded on these issues:
Full filing above. The power of the blog.......
Oh, and the GPAC stuff above. Yep! From mid-March
Oh yeah. Checkmate. Time to recuse, Judge Rochford. You wouldn't go against your own words when you campaigned regarding "...even the appearance of bias." would you?
Aaaaaaand here. An interview when she was a candidate:
What other issues do you intend to address during your campaign?
Inclusion of all people is a priority in my work and personal life every day. I am a past Chair of the LCBA Community Outreach & Diversity Committee and I continue to be an active member. Addressing bias in the courthouse and the community is a lifelong journey of self-examination and improvement. My experience includes co-chairing an Illinois Judges Association initiative called “Building Confidence in the Legal System,” an educational series focusing on racial and other inequities in and around the courthouse.
Also, as cited in the first Mom-At-Arms article (SCOTUS ruling), it appears Justice Rochford knows the case well and was part panel of a case in 2016 in which she concurred on the opinion of the ruling judge that cited the SCOTUS ruling that talks about the appearance of judicial bias and a vested personal interest in the case.
As a reminder to what that SCOTUS case ruled:
And here's justice O'Brien when she was campaigning committing to uphold the equal protections clause (the center of the gun ban case they are set to hear at the ILSC), which means if she doesnt recuse and ends up siding with the state, she basically is proving (perceived bias) she is influenced by anti-gun groups and the defendants of the case. As a reminder, a Macon county judge ruled that the gun ban law violates the state equal protections clause (some are more equal than others) and that's why the state appealed it to the IL Surpeme Court.
The Macon County ruling:
