Supreme Court: Emanuel on Chicago mayor ballot

Supreme Court: Emanuel on Chicago mayor ballot

newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that Rahm Emanuel can stay on the ballot for mayor of Chicago.

The decision comes without a moment to spare; early voting for the Feb. 22 city election begins Monday, Jan. 31.

The high court's decision upholds/overturns a 2-1 Illinois Appeals Court decision Monday that ruled Emanuel ineligible on the grounds he did not meet the requirement of being a Chicago resident for a year before the election. Emanuel returned to Chicago last fall to run for mayor after serving as White House chief of staff to President Barack Obama.

(visit the link for the full news article)

newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...

Honestly, I'm a little disappointed I was hoping they would uphold the decision of the appellate court. Oh well.


I do find it interesting that election officials told people they might want to hold off on casting early ballots. Wonder if they have any more tricks up their sleeves?

Ats requires me add more comments, but the story is only two paragraphs itself, don't have much more to say. Thanks and sorry for this last paragraph.

Your link is messed up (You need to chop off the url after html).

Source

I didn't see the problem with him being on the ballot anyway.
.

Boooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did you people really think that the fix wasn't in for Emmanuel?

He was hand picked long ago...Moving right on up the ol' ladder there, just like it was planned.

Don't be so naive.

What a scam and joke, at least one of the courts managed to uphold the law and their dignity. The fix is in and the system is so far corrupt this less breaking news than it is "well obviously..."

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Your link is messed up (You need to chop off the url after html).

Source

I didn't see the problem with him being on the ballot anyway.
.

edit on 1/27/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

It is the idea that they bend the letter of the law for the elite and the rich. It's not that he is on the ballot. It's that there are two sets of rules.

If somebody who just moved there tried to get a service only available for residents, do you think the same courts would bend the law in their favor?

On Topic-

As to Chicago, they get what they deserve. They don't come any more radical or dishonest than this guy. I think Chicago likes the notoriety from it's long string of crooked politicians. It almost would not be Chicago without it. Surely you remember Obama never actually won an election there. He got everyone else disqualified on minor technicalities and won by default. This is all business as normal there it seems.

Isn't it odd how when the victim of a technicality is on the other side it's no issue, but when it bites back, somehow it is wrong. Gotta love Partisans. I get a kick out of watching the in your face Hipocracy these days from both sides. It's like watching a Football Game knowing that both sides are cheating. You can only hope they both loose.

reply to post by KnowledgeIsPowre


Exactly. I knew from the point he left the White House that he would be the next mayor. It just makes no sense why he would leave without a guarantee .

From the decision...
"They did, however, leave behind at the Hermitage House several larger household items including televisions, a large piano, and a bed, as well as several personal possessions such as family heirlooms and books. The candidates Hermitage House was leased to another family for the term of Sept 1, 2009 to...."

Well nothing says resident like leaving your piano on your rental property. Funny how supreme court judges can use terms like LEAVE BEHIND and LEASED in the ruling stating that he is still eligible, but hey, what do I know.

reply to post by KnowledgeIsPowre


Yep, I'm pretty sure I left some stuff in a storage unit in TN, wonder if I can run for office in TN even though I don't live there.

Good luck Chicago.

you'll need it.

The Law. Got to love it and the process.

See. we (the "other side" aren't rioting and yelling in the streets. I wonder what would have happened if it was the other way around.

Honestly, I don't any fanfare at all-cause they apparently just don't care anyway-as a whole.

Anyway, he'll be in good company and feeling at home-again )

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd2c6c65de04.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by searching4truth


Of course he's on the ballot. He's been pre-selected as the mayor.

Anybody who has been paying attention knows this - his election campaign has been aimed at the elite, not at the broad mass of people, yet we can expect him to win with a healthy percentage.

Thank heavens for voting machines, right Rahm? He will go down in history as the first dual-citizen mayor of Chicago, the Midwest capital of radical Marxism since the Socialist conference of 1918.

reply to post by HattoriHanzou


I know - its kind of a mystery to me why they'd even go through all of this. As soon as it was announced you had to know that he had it in his pocket.

I'm not shocked. The system is broken from top to bottom. Our politicians care more for corporate interest than the people who actually voted for them. The judges have been bought and paid for long ago.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I'm not shocked. The system is broken from top to bottom. Our politicians care more for corporate interest than the people who actually voted for them. The judges have been bought and paid for long ago.

It's not "broken" it's been "fixed" by lawyers and crooks.

Nevermind Sorry!

I'm sure I will get called a Dirty Liberal, but I don't see the problem. The guy owned property, paid taxes, and voted in Chicago. In almost every other state in the country you would be considered a resident if you did those things.

I have a feeling most of you wouldn't be crying if we were talking about a Republican.

Originally posted by antonia
I'm sure I will get called a Dirty Liberal, but I don't see the problem. The guy owned property, paid taxes, and voted in Chicago. In almost every other state in the country you would be considered a resident if you did those things.

I have a feeling most of you wouldn't be crying if we were talking about a Republican.

Sure we would. The dude didn't *LIVE* there.

Besides, why do you assume that people who aren't Democrats are Republicans? That's an oddly black and white way of viewing the world. Either you're with us or against us, eh?

Originally posted by HattoriHanzou

Sure we would. The dude didn't *LIVE* there.

Besides, why do you assume that people who aren't Democrats are Republicans? That's an oddly black and white way of viewing the world. Either you're with us or against us, eh?

No, ATS has swung pretty hard to the right. Most of the time people around here back the Republican and proclaim to hate both sides. Now, believe it or not, I'd support a Republican in this same situation. Rahm was born in Chicago and has lived there pretty much all his life. Everyone knew he intended to stay in Chicago. He kept his residence there. It's not like he's a carpetbagger.

From the source:

The Chicago election board and a Cook County Circuit judge had earlier both ruled Emanuel met the residency requirements.

The Supreme Court unanimousy said the appellate court was in error in overruling them. "So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear," the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling today. "This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous."

The court has 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans, even the Republicans thought it was crap.

reply to post by anon72

The Law. Got to love it and the process.

You were completely fine with the "law and the process" when the appellate court over ruled the circuit court and the board of elections.

But now you seem to not be fine with the Supreme court of IL over ruling the appellate courts decision.


Hmmmm.....I thought the law was the law and all that. A lot of you sure did a lot of cheering in the other thread about respecting the courts decision and all that.