 |
| By the time Kwame Raoul ... |
For
as I always comprehended it, the attorney general (for the past 16 years, it has
been Lisa Madigan) has been the attorney for state government. Since our state
is a large-scale operation, she has several assistants on her staff.
 |
| … and Erika Harold are through, … |
IT’S
ALMOST LIKE she’s the head of a law firm whose sole client is Illinois state
government. She’s there to defend the state every time someone within it screws
up, while also making sure the rights our citizenry are not being violated
every which way possible.
It
amuses me every time I hear someone complain that the attorney general isn’t prosecuting
someone, because it’s obvious to me they’re being swayed by some overbearing
vision of what the post is.
Almost
as though they think it’s the equivalent of the “state’s attorneys” that Illinois’
102 counties all have. My guess is that if the attorney general ever tried to
take on such tasks, there’d be a whole lot of griping from those local
prosecutors about how she is grossly overstepping the bounds of her post.
All
of this thought popped into my mind when reading a report recently (from Crain’s
Chicago Business) about the state attorney general’s office and how its
viewpoint is likely to be impacted by the elections to be held Nov. 6.
BECAUSE
MADIGAN HAS made it clear she’s not staying in the post. The Democratic Party
already has nominated a possible replacement (state Sen. Kwame Raoul,
D-Chicago), but there are some Republicans who think their nominee (Erika
Harold) is the lone GOPer who has a chance to win something come Election Day.
 |
| … what will remains of Lisa Madigan's way? |
The
Crain’s report talks of all the lawsuits Illinois has filed, or supported, throughout
the Age of Trump we’re now in that challenge the federal government on various
issues.
With
Raoul saying he is a “last line of defense” from a federal government that
would be very eager to play partisan politics against Illinois. Meaning he’d
intend to pursue all the lawsuits that come from the Madigan Era of the
attorney general.
While
Harold is much less committal. She’s not offering up much details, but some are
reading into her words that she’d be willing to have her staff dismiss the
lawsuits they’ve started against the federal government.
“I
BELIEVE THE attorney general’s office should not be using their scarce resources
to enter into lawsuits for purely political purposes,” she told Crain’s. “I would
only sue the federal government if Illinois law has been implicated or the federal
government has acted in violation of the Constitution.”
Which
is a nice, text book answer that sounds like it came from a law school student
trying to suck up to the professor to get a better grade.
For
the reality is that way too much of the issues and the law are open to
interpretation. One person’s serious cause on behalf of the public becomes an
ideologue’s pet issue that they want to dump all over.
And
could it be the intent of an “Attorney General Erika Harold” to back off of
trying to rile up the federal government in hopes that it might get President Donald
Trump to quit getting riled up against Illinois every time he has so little to
do that he takes to spewing out political bile on his Twitter account.
 |
| Obama, Raoul share just a neighborhood |
ALTHOUGH
I DID find it interesting to read in the Crain’s report that Harold supports
the state lawsuit brought about by Madigan that challenges the Trump administration’s
attempt to withhold $6.5 million in federal funds for local law enforcement in
Illinois as a response to the concept of “sanctuary cities.”
All
of this means we’re going to have a decision to make come Election Day when we
get to the portion of the ballot related to state attorney general.
Just
how much of a pain in the behind do we want our state government’s legal
adviser to be? And to what degree are partisan political issues things that
wind up being a part of the public good?
 |
| Perhaps an image of Harold that needs to be retired |
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment