State Judiciary

The Illinois Supreme Court is now putting video on the web.

Starting in January, oral arguments before the seven-member court have been posted within a day – sometimes the same day – of their presentation by staff members of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts.

So far that amounts to 14 cases, which run the gamut from an allegation of an ineffective attorney to a defective indictment.

Supreme Court spokesman Joe Tybor said he's received positive feedback from lawyers and reporters, the two groups he deals with most, and said more people are looking at the high court's Web page.

Good stuff.

The Illinois Supreme Court yesterday, after years of delay, released rules regarding parental notification in abortion cases:

Slightly more than 24 hours after the Illinois Supreme Court announced it would write rules allowing an 11-year-old abortion law to take effect, it issued those rules.

The law would require abortion providers to notify a family member of any underage girl seeking an abortion 48 hours before the procedure is performed. The law would not require the relative's consent.

The rules issued Wednesday say a girl afraid to tell family members could ask a judge to waive the notice requirement. If a judge rules against her, she could quickly appeal to the appellate court, then the state Supreme Court, with a court-appointed lawyer. No oral argument would be heard.

"I take my hat off to our chief justice, who moves pretty quickly," said attorney Tom Brejcha, who represents anti-abortion groups that favor the law.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lorie Chaiten said the rules appeared suddenly, without going through the court's usual process of public comment. She said she hopes to block the attempt to revive the 11-year-old law.

The ball is now in Attorney General Lisa Madigan's court. Eleven years ago, when the law passed, then-Attorney General Jim Ryan, an abortion opponent, asked the court to draft the rules. A federal judge blocked the law from taking effect because the state Supreme Court would not issue the rules.

Former State Rep. Cal Skinner, though, thinks this law and these rules are all flash and no substance.  His post is titled "Ten Ways to Avoid Telling Your Parents You're Pregnant Under House Bill 955."

This is race week at the Bramfeld writing, roping and shooting compound.  The Sun-Times has an amazing article about the impending demise of more than a quarter-century of consent decree federal court oversight of the Chicago Public School system.

 The highlights are easy to recite, but I recommend the full article for maximum embarassment.

 1980-Federal oversight begins. Public schools 17% white.  Busing used in an effort to get a token white kid or two in every classroom.

 2006-Federal oversight about to end. White kids now 9% of the public school population.  Busing abandoned, except for getting kids out of their own neighborhoods by choice.

Vacating the consent decree is contingent on some unspecified "bilingual" goals being met.  I entertain the unreasonable hope that this means getting rid of bi-lingual education.

Winners-Lawyers, oil companies.

Losers-Everybody else.

Lesson-let's hear what you have to say.

John

The Illinois Civil Justice League (don't they sound like Superheros?) actually noticed my post from yesterday about national Democratic special interests trying to hijack Illinois campaign finance laws, and posted a response on thier blog:

[W]hat the "cleanies" want is "Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee." In essence, they are proposing to change the rules to limit political speech for only select groups. And, if the "cleanies" get their way in Springfield this year, only one side of the debate will get an opportunity to take the field. Last I looked, independent "referees" were not in the business of keeping one team off the field.

I've also shamelessly cribbed a quote from this post to add to my (short) list of testimonials over on the left.