Illinois Supreme Court's latest resign-and-replacement shuffle has gone largely unscathed, sparking concerns that the system is more of a tradition than a transparent process. When Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald retired in 2010, Justice Mary Jane Theis was appointed to replace him and later ran as an incumbent in the following election cycle. When she decided to step down, she selected Appellate Court Justice Sanjay Tailor to fill her seat until the 2028 election.
This type of resign-and-replacement move is common at the Illinois Supreme Court, with eight justices being appointed before an election since the 21st century began. While Theis's successor seems qualified, critics argue that the system lacks transparency and accountability. Under the current process, retiring justices have the authority to select their replacements, which can be seen as a privilege rather than a responsibility.
Despite the lack of controversy surrounding Tailor's appointment, experts point out that the Illinois Constitution allows the General Assembly to establish a more formal replacement procedure if it chooses to do so. However, legislators seem reluctant to interfere with the judicial branch's patronage powers, fearing repercussions from the court.
The system's opacity has been criticized for lacking the same level of scrutiny as other government branches. The media's lack of coverage on these resign-and-replacement shuffles may contribute to this lack of transparency. With the judicial branch wielding significant power and influence without guaranteed accountability, concerns about its handling of succession arrangements remain.
Some notable examples of justices who were appointed through open seat elections include Mary Kay O'Brien, Elizabeth Rochford, and Bob Thomas. Conversely, the appointees have also been seen as qualified, with examples like Rita Garman and Anne Burke serving on the court before winning election. However, critics argue that this system is not necessarily better than a more formal replacement process.
Ultimately, the Illinois Supreme Court's resign-and-replacement scheme requires greater transparency to ensure accountability and build trust in the institution.
This type of resign-and-replacement move is common at the Illinois Supreme Court, with eight justices being appointed before an election since the 21st century began. While Theis's successor seems qualified, critics argue that the system lacks transparency and accountability. Under the current process, retiring justices have the authority to select their replacements, which can be seen as a privilege rather than a responsibility.
Despite the lack of controversy surrounding Tailor's appointment, experts point out that the Illinois Constitution allows the General Assembly to establish a more formal replacement procedure if it chooses to do so. However, legislators seem reluctant to interfere with the judicial branch's patronage powers, fearing repercussions from the court.
The system's opacity has been criticized for lacking the same level of scrutiny as other government branches. The media's lack of coverage on these resign-and-replacement shuffles may contribute to this lack of transparency. With the judicial branch wielding significant power and influence without guaranteed accountability, concerns about its handling of succession arrangements remain.
Some notable examples of justices who were appointed through open seat elections include Mary Kay O'Brien, Elizabeth Rochford, and Bob Thomas. Conversely, the appointees have also been seen as qualified, with examples like Rita Garman and Anne Burke serving on the court before winning election. However, critics argue that this system is not necessarily better than a more formal replacement process.
Ultimately, the Illinois Supreme Court's resign-and-replacement scheme requires greater transparency to ensure accountability and build trust in the institution.
. This whole system feels like a backroom deal more than a transparent process. It's not just about who gets appointed, but also why they get appointed - is it based on merit or some other factor? And what happens when someone who's not exactly qualified gets chosen because of their connections? 
.
This whole resign-and-replace thing is so un-transparent, I'm surprised anyone's even paying attention. They just hand-pick a new justice and hope for the best. No public input, no scrutiny... it's kinda like a secret club. The media doesn't really cover this stuff either, which is just great. I mean, who wants to know how their justices are being picked? It should be out in the open, you know? 
. And yeah, maybe it doesn't have the best media coverage, but that just means we need more investigative journalism about what's really going on behind the scenes 
. The problem isn't the system itself, it's that people are too quick to assume judges are all out of touch with reality 
.
it's like, we're living in 2025 and our state's supreme court is still doing things from 2000? shouldn't there be more oversight or something? i mean, critics are right that the lack of transparency is pretty concerning. those resign-and-replacement moves sound super secretive... how can we trust that justice Mary Jane Theis actually chose Sanjay Tailor for a good reason and not just because it was a favor to her buddy from law school? 
maybe if we, as citizens, start asking some tough questions and demanding more accountability from our leaders, we can make a difference.
I mean, I'm not saying Bob Thomas wasn't qualified or anything, but come on... let's be real, this system is a bit suspect. Can we just get some transparency here? 
and then expect us to trust they're making the best decisions for the state 
? Shouldn't it be up to the people to decide 
. Its time to shake things up and make this process way more public 
But, if we look at the numbers, since 2000, there have been 8 new justices appointed through this process, with only 2 facing any real opposition 
Out of those 2, one was removed from office for misconduct 
. Maybe if they had more eyes on it, we'd see more of these resign-and-replacement shuffles getting the attention they deserve 
. I mean, who gets to decide who becomes a judge? The retiring judge just picks their BFF from the Appellate Court and voilà! 
They don't even have to justify their choice or explain why they're choosing that person over everyone else.
.
. I mean, who needs accountability if you can just keep things quiet and let the good judges keep on keeping on? It's like a big game of judicial musical chairs and everyone's just playing along 
. We need some shake-up in this system, stat! 
. And don't even get me started on the lack of scrutiny from the media – it's like they're intentionally trying to shield these appointments from public oversight 
.
. Maybe it's time for the Illinois General Assembly to step in and establish a more formal process 
...
. The way it is now, with just a resignation and a new name, feels kinda underwhelming 
. Plus, I think it's time for some reform to make sure everyone's on equal footing when it comes to qualifications 
. Transparency matters, you know? 
The lack of transparency in this whole system is really concerning to me... It's like, how can we trust them with making such important decisions without knowing who's really behind the scenes? 
. And when you think about it, the fact that the retiring justice gets to choose their own successor is super suspicious 
. What if they're picking someone with a hidden agenda or something? 
.
the fact that retiring justices get to pick their own replacements is kinda shady