Here's the brief laying out the Attorney General's arguments and the motion for temporary relief pending a final decision, asking the court to "temporarily and preliminarily enjoin[ Mr. Blagojevich] from acting as Governor." Note that Abner Mikva — a former Congressman, D.C. Circuit Judge, and Clinton White House Counsel, as well as an advisor of President-Elect Obama's — is on the brief.
Mikva was also a monitor in the 2004 Ukrainian elections, which reminds me of a joke I had heard in the 1990s.
Thanks to Keith Blackwell for the pointer.
UPDATE: Here's the heart of the AG's argument about why Gov. Blagojevich should be removed for "disability" (the legal test) (PDF p. 15):
The pervasive nature, volume, and severity of the illegal acts charged in the complaint indicate that Mr. Blagojevich is unable to distinguish between his financial interests and his official duties and between illegal acts and legal conduct, rendering him incapable of legitimately exercising his authority as Governor. The nature and volume of those acts clearly evidence a disability that has rendered Mr. Blagojevich unable to serve. As a result of the federal complaint relating to his official acts, Mr. Blagojevich's future official acts -- many of which are the subject of the federal complaint -- will be subject to challenge as illegal or improperly motivated. Because the integrity of Mr. Blagojevich's future official acts will be in question, his ability to provide effective leadership has been eliminated and the state government is paralyzed.
Given the serious criminal charges that he faces, it is also very likely that Mr. Blagojevich's future official actions will not be calculated to advance the best interests of the People, but rather will necessarily be designed to improve his public standing and position with regard to the pending criminal charges. Furthermore, Mr. Blagojevich clearly will not be able to devote his attention to his official duties because of the pending charges and likely criminal trial.
Further, Mr. Blagojevich's ability to borrow money in his official capacity is compromised. The State has postponed a $1.4 billion short-term debt offering because of the uncertainty over whether the State can provide the necessary accompanying certification that no threatened or pending controversy or litigation challenge Mr. Blagojevich's title to office. The State is also at risk of having its bond rating lowered due to concerns over the pending criminal charges.
Here's more on the bond rating item.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- "Illinois Supreme Court rejects [Illinois Attorney General] Madigan bid to declare Blagojevich 'unfit'":
- More on the Illinois Attorney General's Asking the Illinois Supreme Court to Remove Gov. Blagojevich:
- Illinois Attorney General's Petition to Have Governor Removed:...
- Government Attempt to Get Newspaper Editorial Board Members Fired:
- SEIU ties in the Gov. BLAGOJEVICH Complaint.
- Holiday Sale: An Open Senate Seat From Illinois.
Will the names of those who are on the call list be spelled out in public documents?
To be clear, I have no doubt that Blago is a guilty scumbag who should be removed, and I do not believe for a second that Fitzgerald is making this all up. But it seems like anyone with the power to remove him should see some actual evidence first.
It is inconceivable to me that a court would use such reasoning. Surely a conspiracy of lawprofs must have a view on this...
So being charged with a crime is a disability?
So why isn't Blago the Blimpaler covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Can he still be guv'nur if he wears a helmet to work?
What could possibly go wrong?
Blagojevich isn't disabled, he isn't crazy, he is a crook.
Inconceivable? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
8-)
I'm also concerned at Madigan doing this, given that she's been publicly considering a gubernatorial run in 2010.
The desire for money and power is the driving force behind all political leaders. It is naive of the American public to be shocked when one of them is caught breaking the law. They all break the law but most cover their tracks. Politicians pay millions to get a job that often pays only 250 thousand dollars a year. They easily make that money back by selling influence. Knock on the door of any politicians office and you will find Blagojevich.
Thanks for the correction. I keep having these crazy thoughts about courts.
(1) and (2) are endemic in all politicians, the indicted and the (not yet) indicted. (3) is the heart of the matter, but very silly - I wish more states had trouble raising debt because of the low quality of their politicians, but alas, the market lends even the more cretinous money because the security is not the "title" of office but the taxpayers' yoke.
If this thing works, maybe we can start filing disability petitions against pretty much all politicians. At least, that way, the politicians would spend their time fighting for office rather than doing anything in office (and, almost by definition, a politician's official acts are not in the public interest).
Nick
It probably depends on the standard of proof the Illinois legislature has to meet. Does anyone here know the standard(s)?
(I suspect that Madigan is more-than-half-hoping that he actions will push Blago toward resignation.)
In any event, the real point of the comment: Had the pleasure of using Abner Mikva as a mediator about 5 years ago. (He must be what, 397 years old now now and still spry? Did he throttle Deagal in his youth?) Wonderful guy. Not so great as a mediator in that case, but still.
And great joke.
Nor is a certified frootloop's testimony very convincing.
Given that impeachment of the governor in the Illinois House and trial in the Illinois Senate is likely, should the Illinois Chief Justice recuse himself in the instant action?
The instant action, of course, proceeds under the original jurisdiction of the Illinois Supreme Court. But if the Chief Justice presides over the court in this action, it might give rise to an appearance of prejudice at trial in the Senate.
If the Illinois legislature is not willing to take the responsibilities and risks that go with impeachement and no jury has convicted him, there is no basis whatsoever for removing him from office.
Were it otherwise, a corrupt Federal Executive could remove state officials willy-nilly simply by framing them.
I think the Attorney General is wrong, but being wrong is not a crime. Restraining the concept of "crime" from expanding to fit any situation one wishes to apply it to is just as important to preventing abuses of power as restraining the concept of "disability" Some disputes simply have to be allowed to blow over without courts becoming involved.
Incompetence
Neglect of duty
Malfeasance
Violating the law
All reasons to impeach.
Section 8 of the Illinois Constitution vests the supreme executive power in the Governor, not the Attorney General. Usurping that power in an incompetent way that is neglectful of one's duty is malfeasance that violates the law. It need not be criminally punished activity.
The constitution itself provides for this method of removal and the legislature has left it up to the courts to define disability. The constitution gives the courts, not Madigan, the power to remove. She won't be removing anyone. This has nothig to do with guilt or innocence, only whether he is disabled, under these particular facts.
(User - the use of 40 year old dictionays is because the constution was written around 1970)
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.