Chicago way: Rahm Emanuel back on the ballot
Remember when I noted yesteray how Rahm Emanuel cackled at his press conference after expressing confidence that he’d prevail in the mayoral ballot case?
Cue the cackle again.
He’s baaaack:
The Illinois Supreme Court has granted Rahm Emanuel’s stay. Which means he’s back on the ballot.
Earlier today Emanuel’s spokesman Ben Labolt said the mayoral candidate had plans to turn to the U.S. Supreme Court if he didn’t receive a favorable ruling from the state.
Not a moment too soon, Burt Odelson directed the board of elections to print Emanuel’s name on ballots, which are being printed today.
Back to business as usual: The Teamsters give a thug-hug endorsement to Emanuel.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Subscribe to the Michelle Malkin newsletter
February 22, 2012 12:44 PM by Michelle Malkin
33 CommentsSurprise: UK’s Version of ‘Buffett Rule’ Failing to Bring in Expected Revenue
February 22, 2012 11:05 AM by Doug Powers
47 Comments
The high priests of eco-destruction
February 22, 2012 07:50 AM by Michelle Malkin
118 Comments
Gallup: Unemployment Climbing Back to 9% for February
February 21, 2012 02:56 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
Overnight Open Thread: Dems Try to Manufacture New Voting Bloc
February 20, 2012 10:24 PM by Doug Powers
55 CommentsDisability Claims Up As Unemployment Benefits Run Out
February 19, 2012 11:16 PM by Doug Powers
70 Comments
It Wouldn’t Be Saturday Morning Without Another Friday Night Solyndra Document Dump to Sift Through
February 18, 2012 09:52 AM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Categories: Politics
Sister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day: “There is no male equivalent for abortion”Hot Air
» Open thread: The last debateRedstate
» Obama the Tax Cutter? Think AgainHot Air
» Poll: Romney on the rise in Arizona?Redstate
» Daily Links – February 22, 2012Redstate
» Dahlia Lithwick Hates Medical Research
As if the printing hadn’t already started with Rahm’s name anyway.
Chicago gets the gov it deserves. No surprises here.
You called it, Michelle.
Like I said on another thread, they can parse the “reside in the municipality at least one year prior to the election” as “at least one year of your life prior to the election”. It doesn’t say “immediately prior”.
Rotten to the core. From the top to the bottom.
Hmmmm. This means that being Mayor of Chicago pays Rahm more than if he didn’t run and kept the donations.
Wow! that is the most efficient Supreme Court ever. Do they rule on all cases this quickly?
Judges Thomas Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie must be real dopes or nuts to have not seen how simply wrong they would be to vote against Emanuel.
No (fixed) justice no peace!
See above.– 12 million dollars at last count.
They need Rahm Emanuel to run and they need him to win. They need him to win because when Sock Puppet runs again in 2012, Chicago is the staging point. Ballerina boy is just the guy to open up the bottomless checkbook to host every conceivable thing possible for Fearless leader.
Burt Odelson’s children released by kidnappers.
Government printing money and printing ballots marked with pre-selected Democrat candidate winners… it’s all for the good of the people. Federal slush money and rural Illinois outstate tax money is the only reason Chicago stays afloat.
I’m thinking it worked out as Leno predicted. (paraphrasing) Just because the court says you can’t be on the ballot, doesn’t mean you can’t buy your way into the mayors office. After all this is Chicago.
A stay is not the same as a ruling. This is basically a TRO, meaning the court thinks that, in the absence of the stay, the harm to Emmanuel would be irreparable, even if he were to eventually win on the merits. It also probably mean that they think he is likely to prevail on the merits if and when the court does decide to take this up.
I have to admit I get confused about what conspiracies it is OK to believe in. Obviously Chicago is corrupt, and the Chicago Democratic Machine is a conspiracy, and has been for 50 years. So why is it not OK to believe in the Obama birth certificate conspiracy? Are we to believe Chicago politics can not reach Nancy Pelosi or the State of Hawaii?
Was there ever a doubt?
This could ONLY make sense to a lawyer. How can they form an opinion BEFORE they take up the case?
They are not dopes, nor are the two judges (one at the circuit level and one at the appellate level) that ruled in favor of Emanuel. It comes down to some pretty interesting statutory interpretation and a lot of case law, a good part of which favors Emanuel.
They can smell the emanations of the penumbra of residency.
Patty Blago: ‘Son of a f%$#ing b#@8h.’
They didn’t. Al they are saying is that they can’t remove his name from the ballot YET. Because of the timing of the election, the printing of the ballots must occur before the SC can rule on the merits. So basically they are saying that printing ballots without his name if he actually ends up winning and being allowed to run is more harmful than printing his ballots with his name and then declaring him ineligible.
Which is probably true. If it turns out he can’t run, they can simply inform people that any ballot that checks him will not be valid, or cross of his name with a sharpie or something. On the other hand, having his name excluded and then having to figure out some way to fairly accommodate it afterward seems much harder.
“President Barack Obama top political adviser Valerie Jarrett said Tuesday that the president thinks Rahm Emanuel belongs back on the ballot”
And the Super Supreme Court of Ill. received their marching orders and in lockstep replied, “Yes Dear leader, you are the won”
Not for one moment.
SOTR–Jarrett spoke on ABC news this morning, and the clouds parted, and it was done.
I still think that keeping him on the ballot is the correct decision. I have nothing but disdain for this creature, but he is a resident that was called upon by the President to work in a temporary job in Washington.
I don’t want to pick a fight. I just believe that Rahm is correct to fight this one.
But, again, I hope he loses so badly that the results mimic Kevin Philips-Bong.
And I’m inclined to agree with Chap. I’m not a lawyer (thank You, God!), but the explanation makes perfect sense.
And, no, I’m not on anything.
I have a little different take on this. Don’t get me wrong…I CAN’T STAND Rambo. However, he has lived in Chicago all his life, he has a house there that has a lot of his belongings in it, and he votes in Illinois. He worked in DC for two years, but it was always known he was returning to Chicago. So, I think it is fair to keep him on the ballot. In addition, he is as corrupt as Chicago is, so it’s a perfect match. There, I said it. How is that for civility??
I imagine dear lsia from AK called to say ‘way to go rahm’, we know how to getter done with the help from our friends in high places!
L
I’d just like to know where they found someone with standing to challenge the lawful eligibility of someone to seek a government executive elective office.
I thought they were all extinct.
Chap, this means they have formed an opinion.
Fair has nothing to do with it. It is all about what the Law requires. We are, or used to be, a Nation of Laws.
.
Well I would say you have a very loose definition of reside.
They get the government they deserve and Rahmbo gets a lifetime sinecure. At least the rest of us won’t have to deal with him anymore. Works out for everybody.
Where was Ballerina Boys home of record while serving under the Sock Puppet?
That’s what I call Ra(h)mming it thru.
This argument could also be used to say, a citizen requirement can’t be used, or an age requirement.
It is a stay pending a hearing, so it is only in effect until the hearing is held.
Not that hard. Just say the Gregoire and/or Franken pre-printed and checked names will count as Emanuel.
Probably schedule this for the day after the election.
Chap, quick question. What is the harm to the voters if Rahm fails in his court case (not that I expect this to happen)? Wouldn’t that negate their vote? Just curious about the legal implication of this case on the voters. Just wondering what your proffesional opinion is on this, because I believe this could have a huge impact on future elections (regardless of party).
I agree…the use of the word “fair” was wrong. If the law is that strict in its interpretation, then it should be applied. There are reasons for most laws. All I was getting at was that he has lived there all his life and he went back there after serving the POTUS. He is truly a product of Chicago thuggery. He belongs there. That is what I meant. I definitely want the law followed.
So in other words, a court can take up any case at any time and make a snap judgment at any time just so long as a future ruling favorable to Emmanuel is plausible? What about the irreparable harm done to Emmanuel’s opponents with this decision/stay? A later court ruling is by definition moot. Emmanuel’s presumed election will have been certified.
Not an opinion with any force of law, which is the only type of opinion that matters.
Actually, I don’t give a rip what they do with that jerk or any of the other candidates. They are all a bunch of Mafia thugs and Chicago is rotten to the core. I am SO GLAD the Bears lost. Apologies to anyone on this thread who lives there, but it is the truth.
Granting this stay guarantees Emmanuel the election. Clearly the court knows this. Wow. What a great scam. It is fascinating, in a creepy sort of way, to see a well-oiled criminal machine in operation.
There used to be separate courts of equity and courts of law. Now, they are usually mashed into one, but it doesn’t mean that our system still does not contain both aspects. Not taking Emanuel of the ballot was an equitable decision, based on the weighing of possible harms. Perfectly within the court’s power and well rooted in our English common law roots.
I think they will hear the case and decide before the actual election. They just can’t get to it before the ballots have to be printed. So one way or the other people should know whether Rham is eligible. The immediate question then becomes whether the greater harm is to have someone on a ballot that doesn’t belong there or to not have someone on a ballot that does belong there. The Court chose the latter.
For some reason, I can’t type “off” today.
Whether or not the argument “makes sense” is irrelevant. Rahm Emanuel will be on the ballot for one reason, and one reason only: he’s a Democrat in a state where the Supreme Court is controlled by Democrats.
After watching how the Democrat-controlled Florida State Supreme Court tried to throw the election of 2000 for Al Gore;
After watching how the Democratic-controlled state Supreme Court in New Jersey countenanced the illegal switching of Frank Lautenberg for Robert Torricelli in 2002 when it was clear that Torricelli was going to lose in the general election;
After watching how the Democrat-controlled Washington State Supreme Court allowed Christine Gregoire to steal the governorship election from Dino Rossi in 2008;
After watching how the Democrat-controlled Minnesota State Supreme Court enabled The Clown to steal his Senate seat in 2010 –
Can there be any doubt of the outcome in this case? No.
I used to work as a lawyer, and the legalistic description of the stay procedure is fine as far as it goes. But it’s meaningless, because when Democrats control the judiciary federal and state laws become purely advisory when they would otherwise work against Democrat political interests.
I will be surprised if the ruling does not go in his favor.
On January 25th, 2011 at 2:40 pm, chapoutier said: Thanks Chap for the thoughts. My question is does Illinois have a provisional ballot? If so why would they not deem it better to leave Rahm off the ballot for the time being and then have info at the polls/mail about him being eligible after the case is decided. Recent election results show that a write in can work (Murkowski in Alaska) if the information gets out there. Just a thought.
Correction on The Clown: 2008, not 2010.
And we all saw how much of a mess deciding write ins can be.
You can certainly make an argument either way, but I think it is reasonable to think that more harm would come to Rahm by NOT having his name on the ballot and then having to explain a write in procedure for the many, many people that will want to vote for him if declared eligible as opposed to the possible harm to the other candidates by declaring ineligible any votes for him on a ballot that does contain his name.
But again, I am sure there is a reasonable argument for the opposite. Mine is not to justify, just to explain.
Oh, I don’t have a problem with the stay. I agree with you about the potential harm. I’m just saying that the ultimate ruling should be with regard to the actual requirements of the law defining the eligibility of candidates. His intentions, or any consideration of ‘fairness’ are irrelevant.
And I’m still steamed that the SCOTUS allowed NJ Dems to violate state election law to let Lautenberg replace that crook on the ballot for Senate when he withdrew past the deadline for candidates to register.
I’m for whatever helps Chicago complete implode. If there is God, Rahmbo is the final nail. I see Detroit in their future.
completely
As Ballerina Boy’s lawyer asked the Supreme court Justices:
You still have family in the old country?
(you might need to be long of tooth to know that one)
But the Justices parole officers are pleased.
===
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
should be a convenience store,
NOT a government agency.
Speaking of cronies giving payback to cronies…Did you know that Elena Kagan was on the court that disallowed further investigation into the birth certificate? Or something like that. She had something to do with overturning a lawsuit. Then Obama appoints her to the Supreme Court. No connection, of course.
That’s not true. There was a governor who was removed several months after taking office when it was ruled he did not meet the legal eligibility requirements for residency. Don’t remember his name, or the state, but it was about a hundred years ago, there-abouts.
In that, yes. But the problem is that the law isn’t clear cut. The majority judges seem to think that the term “reside” presents no statutory ambiguity. Yet they failed themselves to explain exactly what it must mean. On the other hand, there have been numerous examples of the courts clearing up candidate eligibility issues by looking at voter residency principles, and those principles generally favor Rahm’s side. But again, you would only get to that if you accept that the relevant statute is ambiguous.
So what do you do?
Chap, do you have the exact wording of the relevant statute?
Here.
There is no further statutory definition of “reside” in that particular section, except to say that you do not lose your residency just because you are shipped off during active military duty. And actually, that may work against Rahm, as they could argue that the fact that they carved out one exception means that they intentionally meant to NOT carve out others.
And, fwiw, here is the statute that specifically applies to voting, but which Rahm claims should be used to clear up ambiguity in the candidacy requirement:
I would posit that there is a difference between “reside” and “resident”.
You can surely be a resident of a municipality without residing there. I think the wording makes clear they wanted the candidates to actually live there,
… as opposed to being a ‘resident’ but living elesewhere.
Sorry, I’m typing while wearing a cast, and I hit the wrong button.
The fix is on.
Mom, Dad, Thank you soooo much!
Full disclosure: Born in Cicero, IL (Chicago south side). Parents moved to Indiana during race riots.
Thanks Chap. I can certainly understand that no one really wants a messy election as they tend to lead to many conspiracies as to the legitimacy of the one elected. Like you, I can see where both sides would have the ability to make an argument as to why it is either right or wrong to place Rahm on the ballot.
Makes me wonder if Illinois state legislature will go back and try to ammend the statute to place the filing deadline earlier, so as to have these questions fully answered well before the printing of the ballots.
As I expected, ineligible has no meaning in Chicago.
Why should it? Even the dead vote there…
As I said yesterday on this subject, was there any doubt in anyone’s mind that the ballerina was not going to be on the ballot…it’s Chicago, home of our illegitimate president.
Odopo got on and won his 1st political race by having his opponents removed from the ballot…what a guy, I see why you libs are so fond of him…birds of a feather come to mind.
If Chicago is so corrupt as everyone alludes to, where is the justice department to bring justice for the people of Illinois?
Why is Mayor Daly and his cronies not being rounded up and charged with criminal activity just like the mobsters they rounded up last week in New York?
Isn’t corruption a crime? Has there even been an investigation? Or is this the same as the Blago fiasco where the criminals talk out of both sides of their mounth to adoring adulation from the very people they are stealing from?
*Chicago, the mistake by the lake!
**Gotta take some heat off Cleveland.
Obeyme needs to have Rahm in Chicago as Mayor. He is going to fully utilize the “Chicago Machine” to get re-elected, by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Obeyme picks up the phone, calls Chicago, and viola! – all kinds of “stays” just happen. Please.
I have been asking that question for 50 years. It is the reason I am NOT a Republican.
He rented out his house. I think a pretty good case can be made that it’s not “permanent” if you can’t live in it. He owns it, but for the period it’s rented, it’s not his abode.
That would be the court’s take also, except for the fact they have a gun to their head.
It’s too bad the fine word merit is so abused with regard to the “Shower Buddy”!
That he will prevail is not in doubt, except for the naive. A miracle is needed.
“He rented out his house. I think a pretty good case can be made that it’s not “permanent” if you can’t live in it. He owns it, but for the period it’s rented, it’s not his abode.”
Which is why I ask, what was his home of record? If he changed his home of record to DC, he is then a resident of DC even if he owns a home in Chicago. I got caught in this trap when I went on my several work assignments overseas. My home was in MO but I used my sisters address for bills and such namely, used her address as my home of record.. I rented out my home in MO. I ended up paying Ohio taxes not MO taxes.
The only thing standing in the way of bailing out Illinois is the House. If the Republicans hadn’t taken the House in November, Congress would have already bailed out the moocher state along with the other moocher states of Mexifornia, New Latino (York) and Islamican (Michigan).
Let them elect Rahm and let em suffer for four years. That’s fine by me.
Ha, I knew this wouldn’t take long.
“Hey Mugsy, take da boyz and go gives a lernin lesson to da Illinois appellate court soz our buddy Rahm can get on da ballot. Who doz dey tink dey is, eh”?
The obvious solution is to print one set of ballots with Rahm’s name and one set without. Of course, Rahm wants the little box beside his name printed with an “X” in the little box on both sets. It will save “the little people” so much time…
If that is the case, and knowing Chicago it may very well be, we can expect another round of lawsuits over the “disenfranchised minority voters.”
Hey, Chicago:
Join the 21st century.
Use electronic ballots.
What part about “you must LIVE as a resident for one year” did the court not get?
Oh yeah. It’s a Democrat. I’m sure if this was a Republican, he would’ve been long gone…
What part of the very long and complicated jurisprudence on the issue of residency as it applies to any number of areas of the law do you not get? My guess is probably “all of it.”
The Appellate court may or may not be right. But only an ignorant person would ever claim that this is an open and shut case that can be dismissed with a simple (and I mean that in an entirely derogatory sense) recitation of a few choice words from one section of a statute.
So if I buy a house in another state, pay the taxes, but don’t live there for a year, I can come back and claim residency then and run for mayor.
Wow, just wow.
Chap – not very becoming of you to be calling people names, now is it? And when did I claim it was an open and shut case? I thought you, who claims to be lawyer, would at least suppress judgment against people you don’t know.
Ask any number of people in the military.
Here.
Sorry, but you’re lame. Rahm is not in the military…
2nd – I’m quoting part of the statute. That’s what the requirement says. If it wasn’t an issue, why put anything in there about residency in the first place?
But I think if Rahm continues to use his middle finger against anyone and everyone who disagrees with him (including the law), he is bound to lose the other middle finger as well.
And you do know that, both statutorily and at common law, working for the federal government is another common exception, like the military, right?
And it does not define “residency.” That is the problem.
I think they defined residency by having lived in there for one year. Pretty clear to me.
But I guess we’ll let the experts clear that up, right? Like the Supreme Court.
Typical Chicago mobster politician
According to one article I read, the (In)Justice Dept. was squashing the New York mob to benefit of the Chicago mob.
Il preme Court decides 5-2 that Rahm lived in Chicago for a year before the election, even though he didn’t.
The rule of law is dead in IL/NJ/MA…..
No, they did not. They said he satisfied the residency requirement for a year before the election.
This is not nearly as unexpected or unprecedented as you want it to be.
He clearly was not living in Chicago a year before the election.
And no, it was not unexpected, it is Chicago, after all.
The rule of law is dead.
And you clearly are not grasping that there is a legal difference between “reside” and “living in.”
Have you even bothered to read any of the legal opinions before you make your audacious claim?
Perhaps you could explain the meaning of “is”.
Not at all the same. Residency has NEVER, not anywhere, been thought or held to mean mere actual presence in a jurisdiction. Otherwise, anyone who simply left the state for a single day would be ineligible. Why don’t you read the court opinion so you could at least be informed in your opinion.
Interestingly, it was unanimous. 3 Republicans were included in the majority which really ripped the Appellate Court a new one. Honestly, I have rarely seen a court be so critical of the analysis and conclusion of a lower court.
None of the three Republicans chose to join the concurrence, which criticized the majority for it’s tone, but ultimately agreed with the ruling.