Althouse: Rahm's back.

January 27, 2011

Rahm's back.

Illinois Supreme Court puts Emanuel back on the mayoral ballot.

54 comments:

Bender said...: Sometimes I wonder why we even bother with this pretence of "laws" and "rules" when judges and politicians simply do whatever the hell they want.; 1/27/11, 6:29 PM
coketown said...: ♪♫ Who took the Rahm from the Rahm-a-lama-ding-dong. ♪♫; 1/27/11, 6:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Let me see a show of hands of those who didn't think this would be the outcome.; 1/27/11, 6:33 PM
TWM said...: The Illinois way . . .; 1/27/11, 6:33 PM
MnMark said...: Everyone who is realistic expected this outcome, but there's still that sense of letdown, a feeling that what remains of one's belief in the goodness and honesty of the nation's judges is being destroyed. That little optimistic part that thought that just maybe the honest outcome would be the one the judges chose.; 1/27/11, 6:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Huh? The Illinois Supreme Court overturned the COA's 2-1 decision based upon 150 years of established law. The two judges on the COA that blocked the Board of Elections decisions pretty much made up their reasoning.; 1/27/11, 6:36 PM
Bob_R said...: Not sure what the case law is, but Rahm (who I despise) had a good set of facts. Long term resident. Property owner. Went to serve in a temporary (term limited) job.; 1/27/11, 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: As I predicted.

So it has come to pass.

The Illinois Supreme Court is so predictably corrupt.; 1/27/11, 6:38 PM
Anonymous said...: "Not sure what the case law is, but Rahm (who I despise) had a good set of facts."

The law says - verly plainly - that a qualified candidate must reside in Chicago for the 12 months preceding the election.

Rahm Emmanual did not reside in Chicago for the 12 months preceding the election.

The Illinois Supreme Court is simply ignoring the plain meaning of the law because they are a corrupt court, and they know there is absolutely nothing ordinary people can do about their corruption.

They flaunt it for all to see.

And leave the citizenry with little other choice but to find new guards for their defense.; 1/27/11, 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, all that's left now is collecting the votes from Chicago's Rosehill Cemetery.; 1/27/11, 6:45 PM
Anonymous said...: At the end of the day, Emmanuel probably shouldn't have tried to run this time out of decency. Alternatively, the people who wrote the law should have defined their terms better.

Those two things aside, though, I don't think you can say that a reasonable, objective person couldn't decide the way the Illinois Supremes decided. Moreover, you have to consider the practicalities here. As bad as a corporate asshole like Mayor Rahm may be, Mayor Moseley Braun is just unfathomably disgusting.; 1/27/11, 6:52 PM
Gahrie said...: Hey, we should be happy...word is they were going to put Lautenberg on the ballot if Rahm didn't make it back on......; 1/27/11, 6:52 PM
Gahrie said...: Is it true that Rahm's lawyers argued that since Rahm was already winning the "ballots found in the back seat of a voting official's car" vote, it was only fair that he be on the official ballot?; 1/27/11, 6:55 PM
traditionalguy said...: The Supremes used the "not clearly erroneous" standard on the finding of facts by the Election Board. So what's new. Courts usually duck these political cases using a "Rule" when they want to and not using it when they don't want to.; 1/27/11, 6:57 PM
Unknown said...: And of course, Tippytoes will win because he's sooo popular.

WV "upsin" What Chicagoans can expect soon.; 1/27/11, 7:02 PM
PaulV said...: Rahmbo would have sold residence if real estate market had not tanked. Why did Rahmbo sign tenant to long term lease if he plan to return?; 1/27/11, 7:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Cook County Factoid: Voter rolls from Chicago's Rosehill Cemetery have elected every mayor since William Ogden (1837).; 1/27/11, 7:11 PM
David said...: The Supremes used the "not clearly erroneous" standard on the finding of facts by the Election Board. So what's new.

They saw it as an issue of fact, not of law. If the issue is of fact, "clearly erroneous" is the standard that appellate courts use to determine whether they should overrule the trier of fact, in this case the Board of Elections. There is nothing surprising or novel about this.

Now should they properly have treated it as an issue of law? You would have to study the whole case very carefully to know that.

Our commentors don't seem to like the result. Appellate courts aren't supposed to rule based on their personal preference of result.; 1/27/11, 7:14 PM
Anonymous said...: "...As bad as a corporate asshole like Mayor Rahm may be, Mayor Moseley Braun is just unfathomably disgusting."

But she would be better sport for Atlhouse's regulars. Imagine the threads that that she-clown could generate.; 1/27/11, 7:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Hypotheticals: You own a home in Chicago. You rent it out because you will do the following things:

1. serve in the military
2. serve as a diplomat
3. serve as president
4. serve in Congress
5. serve in the Peace Corps
6. serve as an astronaut
7. go to the North Pole by dog sled

Which of them, if any, disqualifies you from residency in Chicago? Why?; 1/27/11, 7:27 PM
Anonymous said...: "... Emmanuel probably shouldn't have tried to run this time out of decency..."

ROFLMFAO. That's the joke of the day right there.

He'd have to have some first, right?; 1/27/11, 7:39 PM
bagoh20 said...: They get what they deserve. Enjoy, Chicago!; 1/27/11, 7:47 PM
Anonymous said...: " ...you have to consider the practicalities here. As bad as a corporate asshole like Mayor Rahm may be, Mayor Moseley Braun is just unfathomably disgusting."

What kind of fucking dumb ass statement is this in a representative democracy?

Listen, dude: The people of the city of Chicago, through their elected representatives, passed an imminently reasonable law. It says that any candidate for mayor has to live in the city for the 12 months preceeding the election. This keeps carpetbaggers out of their town.

It's a pretty simple law. It does not require interpretation - except to get around it.

The Illinois Supreme Court is corrupt and deliberately ignored the plain meaning of the law. No other conclusion is reasonable.

This court is illegitimate. Nobody should obey this court. One would hope that the people of the city of Chicago rise up against the injustice these corrupt men visited upon them today.

We live in a democracy. Unelected judges have no right to ignore the laws we pass.

And that is what this rogue court did today.; 1/27/11, 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...: The official forecast is for rain.

That's what the court says, at least. They know it's coming because Rahm has unzipped his fly.; 1/27/11, 7:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Florida: The law says that a candidate must have "resided" in the city for a year. You are forcing a meaning on the word "reside" which favors the political end you seek.

Also, I stand by my contention that you do not live within 1000 miles of here. As for me, I live and work in the epicenter of this great city.; 1/27/11, 8:03 PM
Mark said...: "...a feeling that what remains of one's belief in the goodness and honesty of the nation's judges is being destroyed."

Honesty, maybe, but I defy anyone to say that letting Carol Mosely Braun become Mayor of Chicago would in any sense of the word be "good".; 1/27/11, 8:09 PM
damikesc said...: The law says that a candidate must have "resided" in the city for a year. You are forcing a meaning on the word "reside" which favors the political end you seek.

So, if I leave Chicago after living there for 30 years but keep my property as a rental and never return for 30 years --- I am still "residing" in Chicago, even though my tax filings (that were amended at the last minute) said I didn't?

There isn't wording clear enough that a judge won't simply ignore.; 1/27/11, 8:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Florida reminds me of -- and probably is one of -- the people caterwauling when sensible conservatives and libertarians were sad and grumpy that Christine for U.S. Senator from Delaware.

Well, dude: who is the Senator now?

Similarly, you can complain all you want about Emmanuel meeting residency requirements in a very sketchy way. But the alternative is potentially much worse.

Finally, it's just not true that our elections here are rigged. What is true is that there's no way a Republican is going to win any city office. If you are serious about defeating Emmanuel, get off your ass and support one of his opponents, just not Moseley Braun for God's sake.; 1/27/11, 8:15 PM
ark said...: I wonder how many of the people who are appalled at the ruling have read any of it.

I read the first few pages, which were enough to convince me that the court did the right thing (as they were a synopsis of what followed).

Basically, the court said that once you become a resident of Chicago, that residency is not given up lightly: In order to do so, you have to intentionally do something that establishes you as a resident of somewhere else.

For example, Emanual might have exchanged his Illinois driver's licence for a DC license, or file a tax return saying that he was a DC resident, or change the address on his checking account to be a DC address, or tell his friends that he did not intend to return to Chicago after completing his government service in DC, or sell his Chicago home and buy one in DC, and so on and so forth.

But he didn't do any of these things, and the supreme court said that given the circumstances, the legal issues had been well settled for 150 years.

If this case were unprecedented, I might be tempted to believe that the court was making up principles to force the outcome they desired; but as it isn't, I'm not.; 1/27/11, 8:16 PM
Anonymous said...: Damikesc:

Which of these disqualifies city residency? Why?

1. service in the military
2. service as a diplomat
3. service as president
4. service in Congress
5. service in the Peace Corps
6. service as an astronaut
7. going to the North Pole by dog sled

Which of them, if any, disqualifies you from residency in Chicago? Why?; 1/27/11, 8:16 PM
Methadras said...: I'm shocked, shocked...

Told you so...; 1/27/11, 8:53 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: The Dems have ruined and looted most of the great big cities. The reigning party in Chicago deserves Rahm - he served as a board member of Fwannie & Fweddie and chief of staff to the worst president in our history. I am sure he will screw up Chicago and reduce a great city to an also ran in spite of its natural assets and history.

Good luck to Seven and others who will never see the dying of the light until it's too late. But will fight to the death the thought of a Diversity Hire as Mayor like Carol Mosley Braun.; 1/27/11, 9:09 PM
Bartender Cabbie said...: imagine that; 1/27/11, 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: AJ -- I'm not saying that this is a just result. I'm saying that it's a fair reading of the law, particularly in light of the many, many other readings of the word "resident." A contentious word. I'm also saying that we could do a hell of a lot worse than Emmanuel.

I will also add that Richard Daley has been an incredible, awesome mayor. I plan to write him in.

Finally, apparently no one will try my hypotheticals. That makes me sad.; 1/27/11, 9:13 PM
Anonymous said...: I volunteer to work to elect Rahm. He is the next Mayor. I will work to re-elect Obama-Biden.

No one can stop us. We have NYT, NPR, all center/center-left bloggers. We have young people. We will win again, again, and again.

No one can stop us. No one.; 1/27/11, 9:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Also, just so we are clear, I don't vote on ethnicity or gender. Mosley Braun proved her Third World country corruption (literally) as a United States Senator.

Emmanuel is a scummy asshole, and you need to be able to at least rub shoulders with corruption to make any large city go, but her level of corruption is simply shudder-worthy. She should be in jail.; 1/27/11, 9:18 PM
rcocean said...: We're all missing the big picture here. Chicago may elect its first Israeli-American Corrupt,liberal, Democrat Mayor instead of Mosley-braun who'd be its first female, AA, corrupt liberal democrat Mayor.

People need to focus on the substance.; 1/27/11, 9:37 PM
BJM said...: Rahm should be careful for what he wishes.; 1/27/11, 9:38 PM
kimsch said...: Of course if Dicky Daley had just let Rahm know ahead of time that he was not going to run for re-election, Rahm could have declined to extend the lease on his home and moved back beforehand.

wv: glurac; 1/27/11, 10:09 PM
write_effort said...: The first interpretation amounted to penalizing people who take positions with the fed gov't in Washington DC. It lacked internal logic: do this and we'll take away your residency.; 1/27/11, 10:10 PM
Peter V. Bella said...: The Chicago Board of Elections has a very good track record in the courts. They won. Rahm won. If he wins the election Chicago loses.; 1/27/11, 10:14 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: I'm actually happy with this. Removing the front running candidate with a court decision weeks before the election stank.

Not that Illinois politics doesn't need some rules, but this was an odd time to start enforcing them when they never were before.

And does anyone think the alternatives on offer would be better for Chicago?; 1/27/11, 11:00 PM
MadisonMan said...: I think going to the North Pole by dog sled would nullify your Chicago Residency. There is no reasonable expectation of return. Mostly because you'd die a horrible death when the packs of starving polar bears track you down and have first the dogs as a snack and then you as the main course.; 1/27/11, 11:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, let's assume that it's a well-planned expedition and you intend to return in, say, two years. You rent out your house, too.

And then you do actually come back. And you run for mayor.; 1/27/11, 11:34 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Mad Man:

Haven't you heard? Global Warming er Climate Change has killed most of the polar bears.

Seven:
I don't know - sounds like Emanuel is really just your preferred choice among the crappy, scummy options on the ballot.So you may be crafting your legal defense to meet your preferred choice. Doesn't make you a bad person- we all do that.; 1/28/11, 4:46 AM
Anonymous said...: Basically, the court said that once you become a resident of Chicago, that residency is not given up lightly:

Legal residency is not the issue.

Of course legal residency is not given up lightly.

However the law does not require candidates to maintain "residency."

It requires that they "live in Chicago." Not merely maintain a legal residency there ... but actually LIVE. IN. CHICAGO.

The plain meaning of this law could not be clearer.

There is a difference between maintaining legal residency, and living elsewhere - and maintaining legal residency but also living IN CHICAGO.

The people of Chicago do not want candidates who merely maintain a tenuous legal residency there. That is a reasonable law that the people, through their elected representatives, passed legally.

The Illinois Supreme Court just eviscerated that law corruptly and in doing so created an injustice against the people that MUST be redressed or we have no need for laws nor courts.

The court very well understands this and has chosen to be openly corrupt and force the meaning of words in such a way as to support their political outcome.

The Illinois Supreme Court is corrupt and nobody should feel compelled to follow the orders of a corrupted court.; 1/28/11, 5:40 AM
al said...: I will also add that Richard Daley has been an incredible, awesome mayor. I plan to write him in.

Richard Daley is "incredible" and "awesome" ? Thanks - I needed a laugh this morning.

Daley is the reason Chicago is the mess that it is. Sadly Chicagoans are far too stupid to elect anyone who wants the city to be great again so they will be stuck with Rahm. And the rest of Illinois will suffer as well.; 1/28/11, 6:51 AM
DaveW said...: I'm no fan of Rahm Emmanuel.

However, if I were a resident and property owner in Chicago, and I enlisted and served overseas, I'd like to think I wasn't giving up my ability to run for office locally.

So I'm saying that on it's face the law appears to me to be unfair. I know, life isn't fair. But I really wonder if the lege intended to block someone like this from running for office.; 1/28/11, 7:21 AM
Tank said...: Imus said that, if Emanuel could fix the Supreme Court, he deserved to be Mayor. Well ...

Meanwhile, this is one reason people hate lawyers. Any normal human being reading that statute would think you have to live in Chicago for a year. It's another Bill Clinton moment - "is." Just like in NJ a few years back where the Supreme Court ignored the plain language of a statute to get Torricelli off the ballot after it was clear he would lose.; 1/28/11, 8:12 AM
Drew said...: Was there ever any doubt that Rahm would get what he wanted?

Why are they even bothering to hold an election? We know he'll become Mayor regardless of the actual voting, right?; 1/28/11, 8:21 AM
Fred4Pres said...: I am all for letting the voters decide...but in Chicago you have to be the right type to get this sort of deference from the courts. The right type is a Democrat. A Republican would have been out.; 1/28/11, 8:49 AM
Big Mike said...: @Professor, is there some fancy Latin term for "respect for the judiciary" along the same lines as "res ipsa loquitur" stands in for "it's pretty obvious to a lobotomized field mouse?"

Because I think after the U of Illinois Law School scandals of a couple years ago and the widely-held view that the fix is in and always was going to be in as regards Emanuel, there's a bit less of it in Illinois right now.; 1/28/11, 9:08 AM
Phil 314 said...: Why is it when I saw this headline I imagined Rahm using that classic line from Team America: World Peace; 1/28/11, 9:36 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: I don't like Rahm, but I think this decision is reasonable.; 1/28/11, 10:12 AM