“Judicial system reeks with Democrat political bias against guns & more,” AmmoLand reported November 29, recounting original documentation by rights advocates at the Mom-At-Arms website showing two Illinois Supreme Court Justices who ruled on a challenge to the state’s “assault weapons” ban were enthusiastic “gun control” supporters and had received substantial political contributions from lawsuit defendant Gov. Jay Pritzker.
Corroborating those charges was another petition, one filed by State Representative Dan Caulkins with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Illinois court’s decision. Per a Newsweek report citing WRSP-TV, “‘The petition argues that Justices Elizabeth Rochford and Mary Kay O’Brien participated in the case despite receiving campaign contributions from those who support the ban.’ Both Justice Rochford and O’Brien received disproportionate campaign contributions, and both made a commitment to support the legislative policy of banning assault weapons.’”
Two developments have been added to the SCOTUS docket since then.
First was a “Waiver of Right to Respond,” filed on Dec. 1 by Illinois Solicitor General Jane Elinor Notz. “I DO NOT INTEND TO FILE A RESPONSE to the petition for a writ of certiorari unless one is requested by the Court,” she wrote. “I am filing this waiver on behalf of all respondents.”
Then, on Dec. 4, Caulkins and petitioners filed a “Supplemental Brief to Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” maintaining, among other things:
- “Newly discovered material (by Caulkins) discloses Seven Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars additional (to the $2.6 Million direct financial contributions in the original Petition) indirect campaign expenditures supporting the candidacies of Justices Rochford and O’Brien by a political committee backed by Defendant, Illinois Senate President Don Harmon.”
- “The expenditures for the benefit of Justices Rochford and O’Brien were concealed from the public until several months after the election.”
- “Neither Justice Rochford, nor Justice O’Brien, disclosed or otherwise acknowledged the All for Justice expenditures supporting their campaigns originating with one of the Defendants, including his counsel of record in this case, when issuing their Orders denying the Motion for Recusal/Disqualification.”
It’s fair to ask how, in anyone’s universe, such conduct would not be grounds for removal from the court, disbarment from the practice of law, and criminal prosecution. Yet, apparently, Illinois officials and their state lawyers are so arrogantly secure in their belief that the Supreme Court will not take this matter up that they feel it’s not even worth acknowledging.
One thing’s for sure – the major media doesn’t think this is worth telling Americans about. Why do you think that is?
Caulkins’ new cert petition follows:
Do you like this page?