You Don’t Have To Be Legally Insane To Be A Judge In Illinois…

but it helps!

“A legal panel in Illinois is weighing whether a judge can return to the bench after being declared legally insane two years ago.”

Well, sure, why not? She’s been pulling down her pre-insane $182K salary since she went bonkers presiding over traffic court in Markham, so why discriminate now that she claims she is on her meds and rehabilitated?

On the other hand, since she is an elected official, the only way to give her the heave-ho is by impeachment, and since she is both black and a woman, this would be highly problematic, to say the least.

On the third hand, don’t we all know judges who we thought should be ruled legally insane, yet continue to sit on the bench and collect their pensions?

On the fourth hand, this will come down to how the Democrat Party decides to handle this wacko—will they put her name on the ballot again?

I’m guessing they will—Lane Evans was elected over and over even though he had deteriorated so severely he could not put a coherent sentence together. Mental difficulties are no difficulty for the Illinois Democrat Party—the party of the mentally challenged!

Advertisements

Author: qcexaminer

None of your damned business.

4 thoughts on “You Don’t Have To Be Legally Insane To Be A Judge In Illinois…”

  1. The insane and corrupt are bad enough, but even at top levels we have the anti-constitution leftists that still insist on government as the supreme being.

    At the Supreme Court level, four judges on the left have signed on to an insane opinion, that free speech is limited to speech that serves the government. They say it is not a God given right recognized by the constitution, but a civil liberty limited by government.

    “Breyer turns constitutional history on its head, by declaring that the purpose of the First Amendment was not to prevent government abuses, but to ensure ‘public opinion could be channeled into effective governmental action.’ “

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/02/breyers-dangerous-dissent-in-mccutcheon-the-campaign-finance-case/

  2. Breyer takes that a step further, concluding that “the First Amendment advances not only the individual’s right to engage in political speech, but also the public’s interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.”

    “Collective free speech” … I think is one Orwellian term they concocted. So when freedom loving tea partiers challenge the collective, they of course must be silenced, founders be damned … apparently.

    Even an ACLU is pushing back …a little at least.

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/348398.php

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s