6 Two 3 Nine

Expert Unexpert Advice

Posts Tagged ‘Illinois Supreme Court

It’s Official and Unanimous – Rahm’s On the Ballot

leave a comment »

Resident

7 out of 7 Illinois Supreme Court Justices agree that Rahm Emmanuel is in fact a resident of Chicago.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that Rahm Emanuel can stay on the ballot for mayor of Chicago,  saying in a unanimous decision that he meets the state’s residency requirements despite spending most of the last year as White House chief of staff.

“The voters deserved the right to make the choice of who should be mayor. And what the Supreme Court said basically, in short, that the voters should make the decicions of who will be mayor,” a victorious Emanuel said after slapping backs and shaking hands with commuters at the Clark and Lake elevated train stop near his downtown headquarters.

“The nice part was to be able to tell the news to voters, because a lot of people had not heard it,” Emanuel said.

The court essentially took the position of the Appellate minority, and by that I mean their position is that the Appellate majority are a bunch of political hacks who wouldn’t know established jurisprudence if it jumped up and bit them square on the ass.  Allahpundit at Hot Air points out:

So harsh is it, in fact, that two justices wrote a separate concurrence criticizing the court for being unduly vicious towards the appellate court. (“[T]he tone taken by the majority today is unfortunate…”)

Surprise surprise, one of the two dissenting concurrences came from Ms. “I Think For Myself and Don’t Care That My Husband Rules the Chicago City Council With an Iron Fist” Justice Burke.  Can’t imagine she likes seeing them get this kind of lashing when all they did was what her husband ordered them to.

Maybe This Whole Thing Was Just What Rahm Needed – Rahm Finally Over 50%

leave a comment »

50%

I don’t know how I missed this, but yesterday there was an interesting poll on CapFax.  It’s a poll from We Ask America, sponsored by the Chicago Retail Merchants Association (so take it for what you will), and it shows not only people overwhelmingly want Rahm on the ballot, but he’s finally crossed over the magic number.  I guess it’s a case of don’t know what you got till it’s gone.

It makes sense, considering Rahm coming off the ballot made people look into the abyss and see there’s no one there they could even imagine wanting as Mayor.  It’s fitting that the number of undecideds gets a significantly bigger bump without Rahm than any of the other candidates.  The upside to this is that if Rahm stays on the ballot, this thing should be over with the primary, which means we won’t have an additional month and a half of this nonsense.

Written by updowndownup

January 27, 2011 at 8:47 am

Response to “And the Ordinary People Said” on Rahm Residency: I Really Hope “Ordinary People” Aren’t This Dumb

leave a comment »

 

Foolishness

Over at “And the Ordinary People Said” blog on Chicago Now, Marksallen has attempted to string together an argument entitled “Why the Illinois Supreme Court Must Remove Rahm Emmanuel From the Ballot”.  It’s remarkably trite, but I’d like to go through it piece by piece.  I’ll try to avoid being a snob about the parts that don’t even resemble the english language (e.g. “Even in his response to the ruling and throughout this challenge period Rahm Emanuel has offered no respect for the legal anticipated legal opinion versus political opinions saying that it is the ‘public opinion’ that matters over the legal opinions.”) as I’m sure every blogger could be found guilty of such mistakes at some point.

 

His first argument:

A ruling in favor of Rahm staying on the ballot does a disservice to the Federal elected officials, and more specifically The White House staffers who like Rahm went to DC to “serve the President,” and without the same financial status of Emanuel paid two sets of rent for their DC apartments as well as maintaining the costs of sustaining their local residences to the point that whenever they decided to visit their home residence, there was never any confusion of where those federal elected officials or White House staffers could lay their heads. Why should these federal officials and White House staffers pay the expense to sustain both residences to keep their home residence and not Rahm.?

So the argument here is that allowing Rahm on ballot wouldn’t be fair to David Axelrod?  Does this even require a rebuttal?  If so, I guess it would be this: it has absolutely nothing to do with law.  If the people who maintain homes both in Chicago and DC do so because they mistakenly thought they’d need to do so in order to vote in Chicago, that’s 100% on them.  The unspoken premise of this argument is “If someone misunderstands the law and acts based on this misunderstanding, the laws must be applied as per the misunderstanding so that everyone is equally constrained by this individual’s mistake.”  This, obviously, is ridiculous.

And how far does “intent” go when considering the clear “residency” requirements that forced city workers, police and firefighters to actually prove where they laid their heads in order to keep their city jobs?

According to the law, it would go very far.  That said, it’s a lot harder to claim you have an intent to return if you move outside of the city while working in the city.  It’s much easier if you’re working in Washington DC, unless you think that a daily commute from Chicago to Washington DC wouldn’t be all that bad.

Aside from that, even if you take intent off of the table, the Supreme Court is responding to the Appellate decision, which hinged on the word “residency” not meaning “residency”.  The only defense of this aspect of the decision offered was this:

over 30 ordinary citizens offered their objections on Emanuel’s qualifications as a “voter” versus that of a “candidate,”

If we’re going on the law, it wouldn’t matter if every single person in the city of Chicago offered their objections on this subject.

If you look over the rest of Marksallen’s posts, what he’s actually trying to argue becomes much clearer.  He’s arguing that Rahm needs to be off the ballot because Rahm takes votes away from Carol Moseley Braun.