But first they want a clarification about exactly what the judge wants them to do…The delay came after a closed-door session, where some county board members raised questions about U.S. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer’s decision to overturn a January 2010 vote by the board that denied the permit…
“Either you tell us we violated the rules and what we’re going to do, or you let us make the decision,” Larsen said. “You can’t tell us to take another look at it and then tell us what decision to reach. That violates separation of powers.”
I must be missing something here. Is there a chance the Board doesn’t want to do what the judge suggested? The article says several times that this is not the case. Here is one example:
None of the issues raised by board members are “deal-breaker concerns,” Cronin said. He said board members just want to have a discussion about how to achieve the desired outcome.
“We just want to talk a little bit about how we get there,” said Cronin, adding that county officials “would like to put the matter behind us sooner rather than later.”
Do they want the judge to be more explicit so that she provides political cover for the decision? We’ll have to wait and see what happens…
Pingback: Opposition to a proposed mosque in suburban Palos Park | Legally Sociable