Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Illinois Supreme Court rules against former lawmakers who voted against pay raises and now want the money
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Center Square…
Attorney Thomas DeVore, who is a Republican running for Illinois attorney general, said at a news conference Wednesday that Democratic legislators overstepped their legal bounds with the SAFE-T Act.
“The court that we have is set up to administer justice. They get to decide how that justice is administered. Bail is one of the primary components of which they have inherent authority and constitutional authority. The legislature cannot impede that or get in the middle of that,” said DeVore.
* If you watch DeVore’s oftentimes odd and disjointed press conference, he’s basically saying that SAFE-T Act proponents were too tough on alleged criminals by denying bail…
Our legislature through the SAFE-T Act is trying to create these categories of bailable offenses, new bailable offenses that exceed those that the Constitution allows. They cannot do that. […]
Attempting to tell our judiciary, our judges, that if someone has allegedly committed a category of crime that’s enumerated in the new statute, that you should detain them, you can detain them, notwithstanding the Constitution says you cannot. That’s what the legislature is trying to do, and that should not be allowed.
A novel argument, for sure.
…Adding… To be clear, DeVore appears to be arguing that people such as accused domestic abusers who, in the court’s opinion, pose a clear threat to someone should be allowed to bail themselves out of jail if they have the money.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Illinois Supreme Court rules against former lawmakers who voted against pay raises and now want the money
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The SAFE-T act seems to follow the Constitutional provisions pretty closely in terms of who can be denied bail so I’m going out on a limb to say DeVore may not know what he’s talking about.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:11 am
Citation needed.
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:14 am
By his logic, wouldn’t mandatory minimum sentencing laws also violate separation of powers and therefore be unconstitutional?
Comment by South of Sherman Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:18 am
So the Safe-T Act is too soft on crime and too hard on crime lol.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:27 am
==To be clear, DeVore appears to be arguing that people such as accused domestic abusers who, in the court’s opinion, pose a clear threat to someone should be allowed to bail themselves out of jail if they have the money.==
Well, I’m sure he has a very good reason for that argument with a particularly specific example.
Comment by Roadrager Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:30 am
The quiet part out loud, one justice system for the rich, famous, or powerful and one for everybody else.
Comment by Precinct Captain Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:31 am
Grifting and being elected the State’s chief legal officer are fundamentally different. DeVore continues to underscore that.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:37 am
@Big Dipper
Yep, the SAFE-T Act is Schrodinger’s Act.
Comment by Techie Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:38 am
I am a simply a citizen, not a lawyer. As I read Section 9 of the State Constitution, two clauses stand out to me. The first states, “all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.” To me, this suggests bail on personal recognizance may be deemed a sufficient surety. I do not read that clause as mandating that money must be used as a surety.
The second clause reads, “when the court, after a hearing, determines that release of the offender would pose a real and present threat to the physical safety of any person.” This suggests to me, that regardless of the SAFE-T Act’s enumerations and recommendations, the burden always rests on the judge to determine in a hearing whether or not the specific person accused of a crime should be required to provide more, or less surety, or denied bond, regardless of the provisions in SAFE-T Act.
In this context, I do not see where the SAFE-T Act violates the Constitution, and to be honest, I do not see what all the fuss is about, save for political bantering.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:42 am
Conservatives always seem to forget to be tough on crime when it comes to domestic abusers.
Comment by Incandenza Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:43 am
Wow. I knew he was a grifter but I didn’t realize he was a moron because this:
“Attempting to tell our judiciary, our judges,”
Umm, yea, that’s the legislature’s job. Remember when it was conservatives who railed for years against judges legislating from the bench (before it became advantageous for them to do so)? Remedial Con Law. Legislators legislate and tell judges what the laws are. That’s kind of how this works. Good grief.
Comment by New Day Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:50 am
-“The court that we have is set up to administer justice. They get to decide how that justice is administered. Bail is one of the primary components of which they have inherent authority and constitutional authority. The legislature cannot impede that or get in the middle of that,” said DeVore.-
It’s almost like he doesn’t know what the Illinois Criminal Code is or who writes it.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 11:52 am
Tommy has a “nice tan”…makeup???
Comment by windy city Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 12:17 pm
If DeVore was arguing car thieves should be able to bail themselves out I might think he was planning to steal a car. You say he’s arguing on behalf of domestic abusers??
Comment by West Side the Best Side Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 1:30 pm
==Conservatives always seem to forget to be tough on crime when it comes to domestic abusers.==
Nailed it.
Comment by Politix Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 2:07 pm
The larger arguments presented were how the SafeT Act had a problem with Separation of Powers set up in ILCon Article 1, and the lack of debate prior to its passage.
Tree:Forest thing
Comment by 40,000 ft Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 2:35 pm
===The larger arguments ===
So? Get your own blog. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 3:01 pm
lol. nah. Trying to retire and stay up at 40k’ on all this.
It is important to know basic constitutional provisions. The Bail section of the Bill of Rights can’t be legislated around regardless of responsible opinions on either side of the issue.
Comment by 40,000 ft Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 3:13 pm
“Trying to retire”
Maybe try harder?
Comment by Anon E Moose Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 3:36 pm
Moose, it’s a long story and a long road to unwind, but it’s happening. Slowly, but surely.
Thanks for your encouraging words, pal.
Comment by 40,000 ft Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 3:50 pm
You sure can flip a script, Rich 😂🤷🏻♂️.
Comment by Dspud Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 7:53 pm