Myra Bradwell had a legitimate gripe.
Ouch and double ouch here, as Mrs. Burke plays the woman card:
Illinois Supreme Court Justice Anne Burke today rejected the notion that she should recuse herself from deciding on the residency case involving mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel.
“Aren’t we beyond that? Women have minds of their own. We have spouses in every kind of business. Are we returning to the days of Myra Bradwell?” she said, referring to the Illinois suffragette who was initially denied the right to practice law because she was a woman. She went on to become the state’s first female lawyer.
She’s saying the husband would not be similarly advised if roles were reversed?
Comments
Well when you are daley’s hand picked successor what would you expect? Rahm will see that daley’s dream of selling off everything public to private corporations is complete. Rahm will surely make daley look like a boy scout and al capone look like a saint. Good luck with that.
The result of the Supreme’s decision isn’t necessarily wrong; it, too, seems rational and fair. It’s reasoning, however, crafts certainty out of thin air. It belittles the problem, seemingly out of pique. The problems with the underlying law in Chicago and the court’s own precedent it simply pixie dusted away, a means to an end that the concurring justices gently chided them about.
I do believe it’s sexist to think that a female justice can’t be fair and impartial merely because her husband happens to be a political ally of a politician who happens in turn to support another politician who might be affected by the court judgment. Nonsense. I don’t think anyone would challenge a male judge on such flimsy grounds – at least not seriously.
Would challenge a man? Impossible to prove. But if challenged, same standards apply. I took Judge Burke’s extempore defense to be against the idea as presented to her by the reporter. I hope I was right.