In this short video, Madigan states he has Cullerton’s
"consent and direction [to put his] amendment on SB 1" and believes
"at least four members of the Illinois Supreme Court that will approve the
bill (at the 48 second mark)." Snickering, arrogant Madigan said this
about not including judges in the bill: "That's a practical judgment that
was made. No further comment."
from John Dillon
“Thanks for the video, Glen. I started to make popcorn to sit down and watch it, but instead I gathered up all the dead flies and venomous spiders I could find in old 'winter' corners and ate them as I watched.
“Madigan hesitates when they ask if the Senate will pass it, Glen, then gives that infamous Madigan smirk and says 'sure.' I think it's a bluff, Glen. I think the four judges are a bluff, Glen. I think the whole freakin' preamble is a canard designed to make the old snake look good once again and slide this problem back to JC or Nekritz + Cross to finish. Even the Trib was back in his corner - with some hesitation - but they're so eager to see us bleed they'd follow even an idiot(s) like Ives/Morrison/Oberweis…
“If he had the votes, it would have been on the floor this afternoon. If he had the votes, he wouldn't have played to the cameras - he'd have gutted us. It's a bluff my friend.
“I'll bet you a whole month's social security. Wanna take it?”
JD
Regarding Madigan, John:
Quia mendax est et latro!
gb
John,
You owe me
$2.05.
12-3-13
gb
P.S.
Madigan is full of sterquilinium.
P.S.
Madigan is full of sterquilinium.
What is he implying? That there has been discussions with members of the Illinois Supreme Court?
ReplyDeletefrom Bob Zahniser:
ReplyDelete“Madigan states Cullerton gave consent for SB1 to be amended as has been done, and Madigan believes the amended bill will pass the Senate. Madigan also believes that at least four IL Supreme Court Justices will reject a court challenge to SB1 (He states he has not spoken to any of the IL Supreme Court Justices about the bill, nor does he intend to do so). Madigan says the unions have told him this morning that they will challenge SB1 in court. At present, there is no actuarial analysis of SB1, only speculation based on analysis of shared components of other bills. Madigan believes SB1 will be on the House floor tomorrow [Thursday, May 2]. Cost shift is not part of SB1 but will be considered at some future date. Madigan indicates he is open to change the Tier 2 pensions at a later date. The preamble to SB1 provides intent for purposes of a court challenge.”
Thanks for the video, Glen. I started to make popcorn to sit down and watch it, but instead gathered up all the dead flies and venomous spiders I could find in old "winter" corners and ate them as I watched.
ReplyDeleteMadigan hesitates when they ask if the Senate will pass it, Glen, then gives that infamous Madigan smirk and says "sure." I think it's a bluff, Glen. I think the four judges are a bluff, Glen. I think the whole freakin' preamble is a canard designed to make the old snake look good once again and slide this problem back to JC or Nekritz + Cross to finish. Even the Trib was back in his corner - with some hesitation - but they're so eager to see us bleed they'd follow even an idiot(s) like Ives/Morrison/Oberweis…
If he had the votes, it would have been on the floor this afternoon. If he had the votes, he wouldn't have played to the cameras - he'd have gutted us. It's a bluff my friend.
I'll bet you a whole month's social security. Wanna take it?
JD
from Robin Cederblad:
ReplyDelete“Speaker Madigan, it's quite obvious to me you've never taught. You have no idea what it is like to deal with a classroom (or a number of classrooms) of young people with varying degrees of intelligence. Not only do students vary in terms of how smart they actually are, a number of them deal with other emotional/psychological/cultural/societal issues as well. Of course, these young people also differ in terms of maturity. They have family issues...two parents, one parent, no parent, children of their own. Some are so poor they cannot afford a lunch or new clothes. I wonder when you last clothed or fed a student, helped one (or his/her parent) find a job or housing, saw a young lady through a pregnancy. And, at the same time, you taught them in a 50-minute class period, wrote lesson plans, graded their work, and did every other job expected of you.
“I taught in a large west suburban high school for 34 years. I taught every grade level as well as honors, regular, low level and special ed English classes. I coached several sports and sponsored clubs. I tutored before and after school, during my lunch, and during my plan period. I mentored new teachers in a nationally-recognized program and worked with student teachers. I earned a Masters of Arts degree and an additional 60 hours, many of them in special education since I was forced into that program. Other than coaching, I was paid no money for those "extras," and my school did not reimburse me for my education. I bought all the supplies for my classroom and for a number of students. I served on more committees than I care to remember, attended conferences, served as level leader in my department, received special training in learning styles, and presented curriculum at various functions. And during the week, I taught.
“Throughout those 34 years, I contributed my 9.4% to TRS every paycheck. I was not given a choice about Social Security. I just knew that, after I retired, and if I'd put in the required time, I'd receive a pension. I retired three years ago, as did my husband, who had taught and coached for 38 years. Now we risk having our COLA reduced/postponed/eliminated. We risk losing health insurance. We are both too young for Medicare but, thankfully, we worked extra jobs so we would be able to get that. Luckily, we are in better shape than most teachers in this state.
“New reports have stated that young people are not choosing education as their career, especially in this state. It's no wonder. Teachers are the ‘bad guys.’ We're the ones under attack. Every problem in education seems to be our fault. It is the public employees who are being asked to work longer, pay more and give up their earned and constitutionally protected benefits. People like Ty Fahner and other business people who have their ‘golden parachutes’ have no respect for us or the job we do. Now it's the almighty dollar...how can WE keep it and how can WE get more of it from the public employees.
“I can't do anything about voting you out of office unfortunately. I only hope [your constituents]… see through your greed, your lack of caring, and the legislature's dysfunction and remove you from public office.”
--Robin Cederblad
Re: Michael Madigan and other politicians:
ReplyDeleteThey are not moved by moral considerations. They have no concern for the well-being of the middle class and the unfair burdens of impoverished people; they have no concern with protecting the rights and benefits of public employees and retirees either; they have no concern about the requirements of reason and the laws of morality or the laws of freedom.
They do not care about moral actions. They do not care about breaking contracts and bankrupting social services. They do not care about obligations to others – about the fair distribution of the tax burden, about constitutional guarantees, about demanding more of others than they are willing to demand of themselves and their wealthy abettors.
They have no empathy and altruism. They are not concerned with promoting the well-being of others. They lack the capacity to sympathize. They are isolated in their elitist class. They have no connections to the middle class or the poor.
They demand sacrifices of the middle class and impoverished people and not of themselves. They do not view their conduct from a standpoint of values and interests of those they hurt. They view masses of people as a means to their own political ends.
They do not live up to their agreements or the established rules of justice. They are motivated solely by power, wealth and greed. They do not respect “rights of property and contracts”; they do not respect that “laws of morality are categorical”; they do not care that “the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on its consequences for everyone affected.” They are politicians!