When
things happen in the dark, you can understand why people have
their doubts. I'm speaking of this past week's surprise announcement
that state Appellate Court Justice Anne Burke had been appointed
to the Illinois Supreme Court. She will take the place of her
dear friend and mentor, Justice Mary Ann McMorrow.
McMorrow
is 76 and, with seven years left on a 10-year term, has just decided
to retire. Knee replacement surgery last year and her current
difficulty walking helped speed the decision, she says.
That
happens.
But
that's not the problem with this announcement.
The
problem is that the selection of Justice Burke was done in the
dark. Behind closed doors. Within the club. And so it automatically
gives rise to the inevitable Illinois assumption that the fix
was in.
For
the record, I am a admirer of the substantial accomplishments
of both of these women.
McMorrow
is, without doubt, a pioneer. A trailblazer. The first woman in
143 years to take a seat on the Illinois Supreme Court and a person
of great dignity and decency.
Burke,
62, has her own long list of achievements. Not the least of which
has been her unflinching demand for disclosure and accountability
from an arrogant and reluctant bunch of Catholic bishops. Burke,
in her non-judicial role as head of a lay advisory panel, fearlessly
spoke truth to power when it came to the priest sex abuse scandal
within her own church.
So
let's talk truth to power on this one.
The
truth is that Burke, however talented, first got to be a judge
in 1987 because she was politically appointed by then-Gov. Jim
Thompson to a slot on the Court of Claims. That court is packed
with clout-heavy people including Rose Lipinski, wife of former
Congressman Bill Lipinski, not to mention Ron Serpico, who doubles
as mayor of Melrose Park.
In
1995, McMorrow appointed Burke to the state Appellate Court even
though Burke never served in the lower Circuit Court first. That
caused the Chicago Council of Lawyers, in the election of the
following year, to cite "insufficient experience" as the reason
it found Burke "not qualified."
Other
bar associations disagreed, including the Illinois State Bar Association,
which found her "exceptionally well qualified." Then again, so
did the most powerful alderman in the City of Chicago, Ed Burke.
He is the judge's husband and someone who wields huge power when
it comes to whom the Democratic Party decides to endorse for judge
in Cook County. It was with his strong support that McMorrow herself
was slated in 1992.
One
of the great things that McMorrow did in her time on the Supreme
Court was help establish a blue-ribbon review committee to vet
appointments for Appellate Court. That review committee, according
to Malcolm Rich, executive director of the Chicago Council of
Lawyers, has resulted in "a higher quality of people filling vacancies."
While "not perfect," says Rich, "or totally without politics,
overall the quality has gone up."
That
same kind of blue-ribbon review, however, does not exist for the
Supreme Court. There, justices who decide to retire before their
terms are up get to recommend their replacement. The selection
is made behind closed doors.
That's
what happened here. And it looks, well, political.
Isn't
it?
"It
appears that way," McMorrow conceded when she took my call in
her chambers Thursday. "I can understand the skepticism . . .
but that's really not true."
McMorrow
said she submitted the names of four or five "highly respected"
women, all appellate justices, and her colleagues unanimously
picked Burke.
Could
she say who the other candidates were? No, she told me, it was
an internal process.
Burke,
who spoke to me by phone from her chambers that same day, pointed
out that plenty of political people "have turned out to be pretty
good."
But
the process isn't good at all.
And
this appointment can't be viewed in a vacuum.
Right
now we're waiting to see if the bed-ridden president of the Cook
County Board, John Stroger, decides to step aside before the November
election so that his fellow ward bosses can appoint his replacement
rather than us voters. It's a slippery little way to anoint a
candidate and grease his path to subsequent election. Just like
when Bill Lipinski pulled the same stunt for his son, Dan, in
2004 so Dan could inherit his daddy's job in Congress.
So
are we jaded? Cynical?
You
bet.
And
we should be.
Is
there an antidote for our distrust?
Yes.
Anne
Burke, once sworn in, can help lead the charge for a new blue-ribbon
review panel. This one's job would be to shed some sunshine on
candidates for all future Supreme Court vacancies.
Before
they're chosen.
Copyright
© 2006, The
Sun-Times Company