Patterico's Pontifications

1/27/2011

Breaking: Rahm’s Good to Go For Mayor

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 3:27 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Breaking news. The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that Rahm Emanuel can indeed be on the ballot.  I haven’t read the decision yet, but you can, here.

And you can see my previous analysis of the middle court’s decision, here.  I wasn’t convinced last time that the middle court was right, so I am not, initially convinced that the Supreme Court is wrong.  But maybe I will feel differently after reading it.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

35 Responses to “Breaking: Rahm’s Good to Go For Mayor”

  1. I don’t if anyone else has seen this twitter feed, but it’s a spot – on parody of Rahm. Have no idea who writes it, but word on the street is that his staff reads it daily:

    http://twitter.com/MayorEmanuel

    Dmac (498ece)

  2. What a relief. Another socialist in the pool.

    Sadly, Rahm may be the best of the bunch.

    Might be time to relocate.

    the wolf (7cffb6)

  3. Well, the devil you know…

    BTW, should have mentioned earlier link is definitely NSFW – lots of f – bombs in there.

    Dmac (498ece)

  4. This is me, being shocked.

    Scott Jacobs (218307)

  5. “Before proceeding to the merits, we wish to emphasize that, until just a few days ago, the governing law on this question had been settled in this State for going on 150 years”

    I think they might be implying that the lower court engaged in some form of judicial activism…

    Newtons.Bit (d4b383)

  6. Might be time to relocate.

    I’d worry a lot less about what Rahm’s going to do compared to our spineless Dem legislature. Bankruptcy is the only way out for these a–hole p–ssies. Never seen a constituency more petrified of public employee unions, and that includes CA.

    Dmac (498ece)

  7. Aaron, glad you started a new thread so more people can see it. I had put the info on the old Rahm thread because I didn’t know what to do with it, otherwise. I think this ruling is the proper one and I am glad this craziness is almost OVAH!!!

    If, as it appears is possible, Rahm can garner 50% of the vote, there will not need to be a run-off. Chicagoans will save lots of money not having to hold a second election, and the mental health of the region will be better for not having to watch months of political ads.

    elissa (815e34)

  8. Rahm Alahm a Ding Dong. He be my vote. My guess is that he will get the 50%. All the left wing wackos I know, meaning most of my my neighbors, etc are a votin’ for the Rahm child. Ain’t Chicagha great!!!!

    BT (74cbec)

  9. AW, when you get the chance would love to hear your thoughts on the ruling. I’ve only read a few summations so far, and think it’s far to say that the IL Supremes ripped the Appellate Court a new one. Sarcastic doesn’t begin to describe it.

    Dmac (498ece)

  10. Not only did the residency challenge garner Rahm weeks of free publicity, but it (almost unbelievably} served to make him a sympathetic figure when it looked like he was being unfairly picked on. Who would have ever thought the words “Rahm Emanuel” and “sympathetic figure” would ever be present in the same sentence?

    elissa (815e34)

  11. A 25 pg decision strikes me as about 15 pages too long for any common sense to have prevailed. And as I read it, there was much obfuscation. As for the “this question had been settled in this State for going on 150 years”, that just means that the fix was in 150 years ago for another guy. It means that Chicago was corrupt 150 years ago, folks. Nothing more.

    Rahm says he intended to move back to his previous residence. Fine and dandy. However, he has yet to due so, and the lease on that property runs to well past the election date. As for items left behind — what? some paints cans and some chairs maybe? I’ve got crap left behind in San Fran we I moved away some 6 years ago. VERY VALUABLE stuff I assure the court. As for he continued to pay prop taxes in IL. Well, duh. He owns the house that he leased out. He’s supposed to pay those taxes, isn’t he?

    “My kind of town, Chicago is…”
    and
    “I move that somebody open a wind-uh.”

    viktor (73db5e)

  12. This seems to be the crux of the decision, and I have highlighted it in bold:
    From these facts, the Board concluded that the candidate met the
    qualification for candidacy, contained in subsection 3.1–10–5(a) of the
    Illinois Municipal Code (Municipal Code) (65 ILCS 5/3.1–10–5(a)
    (West 2008)), mandating that he had “resided in” Chicago for the one
    year preceding the February 22, 2011, mayoral election. The Board
    noted that the objectors and candidate agreed that “residence” in this
    context means “permanent abode,” and that two elements are required
    for a permanent abode: (1) physical presence; and (2) an intent to
    remain there as a permanent abode. The Board cited case law
    establishing that, once a permanent abode is established, residence
    continues until abandoned
    . The Board concluded that the objectors
    had failed to establish that the candidate abandoned his residence,
    basing its conclusion on the evidence that the candidate maintained
    significant contacts with Chicago, intended to return to Chicago and
    to the Hermitage House, and had lived in Washington, D.C., solely for
    the purpose of working for the President.

    liontooth (ab09a0)

  13. The Appelate Court got a spanking.

    BTW, I went to law school with Judge Ballard and Justice Thomas, and practiced before Justices Freeman and Theis.

    They’re good.

    nk (db4a41)

  14. Amy’s wedding dress and a piano left behind are not exactly “paint cans”, now are they?

    elissa (815e34)

  15. Elissa beat me to it – if Viktor thinks that his wife’s wedding dress was “crap,” then he’s going to be a very lonely guy for the rest of his life. Well done, Viktor.

    Dmac (498ece)

  16. Rahm has an exciting future to look forward to:
    Mayor;
    Governor;
    Felon!

    AD-RtR/OS! (432a69)

  17. IIRC, he maintained his voter’s registration and DL at the Chicago address. That alone should have been enough to decide the issue. (In fact, I’m pretty sure that under Florida law that in itself would have been considered proof of continuing domicile.)

    kishnevi (6627b7)

  18. reminds me of a 1976 bumper sticker for democratic primary “If Ted wins – we all lose”

    looking at the list of candidates – it doesnt matter who wins – everyone living in chicago loses.

    joe (93323e)

  19. from the decision, emphasis mine:
    They did, however, leave behind at the Hermitage House several larger household items, including televisions, a piano, and a bed, as well as several personal possessions such as family heirlooms and books. The candidate’s Hermitage House was leased…

    Rahm was getting paid (around 60K) to store his own stuff at his Chicago property!

    liontooth (ab09a0)

  20. As for the “paint cans”, please folks, I was being facetious. Just got divorced, btw!

    To be clear, I do not care who is mayor of Chicago.

    He’s a resident because he’s registered to vote at a house he does not live in that is leased out until well beyond the mayoral election. Does this strike anyone else as odd? I’d like to think it’s not just me. It fails the smell test.

    viktor (73db5e)

  21. Well chalk one up for me on this, I certainly predicted the outcome, I knew corruption would win out, again.
    Anything goes, baby.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  22. “20. I’d like to think it’s not just me.”

    No worries, everyone knows what you say is proper, just, and the American way, far less can admit it.
    We just don’t do that anymore. We do “whatever” under the guise of “tax money talks no matter where ya walks” or lay your head.
    We’re one big supastate now, under the FEDS.
    Pay to play no matter how far away you live your day.
    Another wonderful “freedom upheld” (LOL), so glad the corruption is endless, and of course, said to be perfectly correct, lest one be a subversive or entirely foolish, or both, and crazy, of course, one agrees with the decision.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)

  23. SiliconDoc and viktor
    I thought the same about “reside in”, but reading thru the decision the IL Supreme Court was right and Rahm is a resident as defined by Illinois law.

    The key provision is that “once a permanent abode is established, residence continues until abandoned”.

    viktor it IS crazy that, “He’s a resident because he’s registered to vote at a house he does not live in that is leased out until well beyond the mayoral election” but that is what the law allows!

    The following from the IL Supreme Court demonstrates the chaos if Rahm isn’t considered a resident:
    “consider the example of Representatives in Congress who often spend 4-5 days a week in Washington. If a Representative from a Chicago congressional district owns a condominium in Washington, where is that representative “actually living” or “actually residing” when Congress is in session?

    Under the majority’s test, would the candidate have been ineligible to run for mayor even during the time he was serving in Congress? The same confusion would arise with respect to State Representatives or State Senators who must spend considerable amounts of time in Springfield.

    Applying the traditional test of residency to all of the above examples leads to the commonsense conclusion that all would remain Chicago residents even when away. Under the appellate court’s test, considerable doubt would arise as to whether any of these people could meet a residency test that requires one year of “actually living” or “actually residing” in the municipality. Once the practical implications of adopting a standard for residence that means “actually lives” or “actually resides” are considered, one can readily appreciate why such a standard has never been adopted and why the standard used in Illinois has endured for well over a century.

    liontooth (ab09a0)

  24. Woo-hoo. Another victory for the machine.

    Actually, it looks as if the machine is correct.

    Nonetheless, since Chicago is bound and determined to be the next Detroit, good luck with that.

    Ag80 (e03e7a)

  25. Another victory for the People’s Democratic Republic of Illinois, where the dead still vote every two years like clockwork. My grandfather passed away in 1964, but I’m sure he’ll be casting his vote for Rahm next month.

    navyvet (db5856)

  26. “here comes the new boss, same as…”

    Doesn’t really matter. Chicago deserves “dead fish” Emanuel.

    vote for pedro (e7577d)

  27. The glory and the terror of democracy is that it ensures that the people get pretty much the government they deserve.

    Chicago, he’s all yours.

    Murgatroyd (fd5fcd)

  28. Viktor, you’re missing the point ahout the leased house. Owning a house and leasing it to someone else doesn’t make you a resident. But if you already are a resident and move to another area temporarily, keeping your house and leasing it out to someone else – rather than selling it outright – is indeed evidence you left with the intent to return.

    To those caterwauling about the “corruption” of the decision – please. Forget for a moment who the candidate is; the law is bigger than one person. Every judge to look at the case agreed that Emanuel was a resident for purposes of voting, and for just about every other purpose besides candidacy. To argue he is not eligible as a candidate is to argue, in effect, that “resident of” means one thing and “has resided in” means something totally and completely different. The judges who made up that novel theory richly deserved the spanking they got.

    Xrlq (425ece)

  29. I think that this is great news. This way, you’ll keep him in the Windy City, where he can only hurt you, and not the rest of us.

    The Dana who doesn't live in Chicago (3e4784)

  30. You know, if we followed the appeals court decision, our congresscritters would have to stay in their home districts for more of the year than they are in Washington. That sounds like a good thing to me.

    The snarky Dana (3e4784)

  31. We seem to be missing the Big Picture here. With Rahm, Chicago has now declared that you can move out of state with your whole family, rent out your old house, and stay out of the state for years at a time, but still be considered a resident for the purpose of running for office, AND taxation. So all of you wealthy individuals in Illinois who only think you will be able to avoid the massive upcoming tax increase by leaving, good luck. You may leave, but your money still belongs to The Machine.

    Georg Felis (9b7a0f)

  32. Rahm owes it all to a long forgotten Civil War vet.

    I know the topic of the Emanuel mayoral candidacy has limited interest outside Illinois and many who comment here are so focused on Rahm’s politics and past transgressions, and on Chicago’s ills that it is hard for them to see how interesting and enlightening the case really is. For me, personally, to encounter the application of “intent” and “strict construction” outside a classroom and in a real world case that matters, and realize that it is not always quite so clear who is doing the “judicial activism”, has been a fascinating education.

    For anyone following this case who enjoys history and the law, the following article from today’s SunTimes outlines the guy, and the 150 year old court case that “saved” Rahm’s candidacy.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/miller/3521830-452/court-smith-illinois-emanuel-supreme.html

    elissa (3290f8)

  33. “To argue he is not eligible as a candidate is to argue, in effect, that “resident of” means one thing and “has resided in” means something totally and completely different.”

    Xrlq – Amending his tax returns late last year to actually claim Illinois residency and pay Illinois taxes probably helped a bit.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  34. I wonder if Brad Friedman took note of these proceeding given his years of harassment of Ann Coulter and her voting patterns.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  35. 23. Comment by liontooth

    Go ahead, swallow their BS whole. The congresscritters travel home all the time and stay at their residences throughout the year on the weekends, etc- see Pelosi’s wonderful new cross country jet.
    Also when congress isn’t in session.
    —-
    It’s absolutely amazing how now we have the ZERO NADA NOTHING that qualifies for reasonable.
    Reasonable is the person spends some time at their residence throughout the year.

    Nope now we have NO TIME AT ALL WHATSOEVER NOT A *** ******* MINUTE, and ….

    The sheeple agree.
    That’s great. Love it. I love how stupid my fellow Americans are.
    Man, it’s unbelievable.

    SiliconDoc (7ba52b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7564 secs.