Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: FOID delays causing problems
Next Post: “This is not good”
Posted in:
* Very top of the page at The Southern Illinoisan’s website…
Overstreet is a Republican running for the Illinois Supreme Court against Democrat Judy Cates.
The ad links to a page sponsored by the Clean Courts Committee. The recently created campaign committee filed a $421,400 A-1 the other day. Click here and you’ll see the contributors are all major trial lawyer firms.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 4:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: FOID delays causing problems
Next Post: “This is not good”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As an Illinois attorney, I am disgusted that any major trial firm would support such political hit piece on a fellow judge and the judiciary-at-large. This is beyond disgraceful that the ad would even try to tie voting to the sex crimes of defendant in a legal case. I am appalled that such an ad would be funded by trial lawyers of all people. This makes me want to puke.
Comment by James Cook Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 6:27 am
The Uihlein’s are probably writing a check as we speak Overstreet is their kind of candidate.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 8:20 am
I was recently in Southern Illinois, and thought to myself that the GOP and Griffin probably messed up by dropping big cash against Kilbride instead of first ensuring they had Overstreet secured.
Kilbride won in 2000 in part because Carl Hawkinson, the Senate Judiciary chair and former state’s attorney, took the race for granted, believed he couldn’t possibly lose to a political newcomer, and sat on his behind until mid-October.
It is a powerful add, and combined with a Democratic wave could be just enough to drown Overstreet.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 8:24 am
Precinct Captain -
Hawkinson got a big influx of cash the last two weeks from the Speaker of the US House (ironically, a pedophile).
It was too late.
Uhlein cant write a check to Overstreet, he would have to give the money to an independent committee, who would have to cash the check on October 19th, buy airtime, produce an ad, and then maybe have five good days to air it…,
Meanwhile Democrats would be talking about how Uhlein gave money to accused pedophile judge Roy Moore.
Its a tricky situation. Does Ken Griffin want to be tied to a guy he never met that let a pedophile walk as well? Probably not.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 8:41 am
We spent a lot of time talking about map reform, and talking about the process Iowa uses for drawing it’s maps, but maybe we should be talking about the process Iowa uses for the nomination of judges followed by allowing Iowa voters to vote to retain them.
===Does Ken Griffin want to be tied to a guy he never met that let a pedophile walk as well? Probably not.===
Some folks might ask why the right wing astro turfs rumors about left wing child sex rings, but then they hear about the book that Attorney General Barr’s father wrote after hiring a completely unqualified Jeffery Epstein to work at the school he wrote and find out that all of that is actually true and go, “Oh. Well now that makes sense.”
Everyone in politics has a personal limit somewhere. If this is where Ken’s “Eff that guy” point is I’m not going to criticize that.
Comment by Candy Dogood Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 8:51 am
This looks like the 5th District opinion. It was a 3-0 decision as the defendant was convicted in absentia improperly, because he was hospitalized at the time and the trial court didn’t make sufficient inquiry into his whereabouts. Seems like any righteous anger here should have been directed at the trial court, as that’s where the error was made. The decision was filed in June and sent him back for a new trial. I would bet this defendant is still being held given how serious the charges are, so he may have been released from prison but is not out walking around.
https://courts.illinois.gov/R23_Orders/AppellateCourt/2020/5thDistrict/5190114_R23.pdf
Comment by Ron Burgundy Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 9:20 am
Ron Burgundy doing that kind of research that took you about - what 5 minutes - is way too hard. Why not just take the negative hit at face value and repost it on your blog and let commenters swing away?
Comment by Ill Annoyed Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 9:32 am
This won’t make a difference. In the last three election cycles, the Republican candidates for circuit and appellate seats have been outspent by their Democrat opponents by as much as 6-1. None of the races were even close.
Comment by Downstate Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 9:46 am
==This looks like the 5th District opinion. It was a 3-0 decision==
Not only is it 3-0 but the opinion was by Justice Wharton with Overstreet and Barberis concurring.
Comment by Bigtwich Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 10:05 am
This race was always going to be negative at the end. The partisan leanings require Judge Judy to go negative. What surprises me is that she (and the major trial lawyers firms) would pick a Wharton decision to do their bidding. If Judge Judy doesn’t win, that fact will have the longest lasting consequences in Southern Illinois. If she does win, it will mirror the politics of St. Clair County, which is why Judge Judy likely now won’t even win her home county. Not certain that trading a win in St. Clair for some downstate rural votes was worth it for her, or her trial lawyer friends, at the expense of Justice Wharton and the system of justice that he believes in.
Comment by Geezus Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 10:19 am
Here’s the history of the case. It looks like the defendent made bail. On 10/7 an attorney appeared on his behalf and a continuance was granted. Maybe someone who understands this stuff better can make more out of it than I can
https://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_history.jsp?court=IL061015J&ocl=IL061015J,2015CF45,IL061015JL2015CF45D1
Comment by stateandlake Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 10:19 am
Bigtwich– Good catch.
The appellate court also remanded the case for a new trial. Thus, the appellate court did not “release” the defendant on the streets. Rather, the defendant is awaiting a new trial. The appellate court’s opinion is simple: You cannot try a person while they are in the ICU. This is a simple application of the Constitution and Supreme Court rules. Very misleading and false ad. You would think these high-power attorneys could read a case (or have an associate do it for them) and correctly discern what was decided.
Comment by Abe's Colleague Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 10:28 am
Wait a second…so this bad guy is represented by a lawyer from the Belleville-based Kuehn law firm, big supporters and contributors to Judge Judy for Supreme Court?
Comment by Geezus Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 10:30 am
I wonder if the reasoning behind spotlighting a case dealing with a child rapist is to garner support from QAnon followers
Comment by ThanosSnapJudgement Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 10:31 am
To borrow a headline: “Ads Continue Running Despite Fact Checks”
Comment by hot chocolate Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 10:35 am
===To borrow a headline===
Yep. And unlike TV stations, which have to run ads from a congressman’s committee, the Southern was free to reject this one.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 10:38 am
So was this blog
Comment by hot chocolate Friday, Oct 16, 20 @ 10:39 am