Shocka! Former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been thrown off the ballot for mayor of Chicago, after an appellate panel ruled that he did not meet the residency requirement.
2 |
Kragar Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:11:20am |
I expect this to be touted as a major defeat for Obama by some parties.
| 3 |
Sol Berdinowitz Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:12:17am |
of course it will, would any political opponent throw away such a golden opportunity?
| 5 |
Sol Berdinowitz Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:13:46am |
having read the article, it is just another example of dirty chicago politics
| 6 |
MurphysMom Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:14:10am |
Mailman's bringing someone a dead fish tomorrow.
| 7 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:14:21am |
WOW, this truly surprises me.
Wonder if he'll appeal.
| 9 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:15:27am |
thrown off
stunning
surprise
the Sun Times sounds happy about it
| 10 |
Kragar Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:15:30am |
| 12 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:17:36am |
re: #5 ralphieboy
having read the article, it is just another example of dirty chicago politics
he was set up!
and he didn't see this coming?
| 13 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:17:39am |
re: #10 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
I thought this was the appeal.
appeal the appeal?
Guess, we need to wait for his statement.
| 14 |
Buck Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:19:15am |
"Service to the United States is when you're in the military," attorney Burt Odelson told the Chicago Tribune. "It's not when you're in service to the president of the United States."
That seems very weak, but a judge agreed...
| 15 |
Tumulus11 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:19:58am |
. To make it official, Rob Halpin must have tossed out Amy Emanuel's wedding dress.
| 17 |
William Barnett-Lewis Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:22:22am |
I do not get the reasoning - in Wisconsin he'd be fine as his permanent residence would have remained since his intent to return was clear. Purely political.
| 18 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:22:45am |
from the comments...
Carpetbagging turd will find a venue with a judge that will let him have his way - regardless of law. Rahmie won't be stopped by laws.
ouch!
| 19 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:22:54am |
This is bad news. Rahm Emanuel is a partisan Democrat, but he is competent and sane. Carol Mosley Braun, the next biggest contender, is a fool who would be disaster as mayor.
| 20 |
darthstar Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:23:13am |
Rahm will be fine...dude's rolodex hangs down to his knees.
| 21 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:23:23am |
re: #18 albusteve
How on earth can he be called a 'carpetbagger'? He's from Chicago.
This is kind of idiotic.
| 23 |
Kronocide Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:25:07am |
re: #21 Obdicut
How on earth can he be called a 'carpetbagger'? He's from Chicago.
This is kind of idiotic.
Yeah, my first thought. I thought he lived there before serving as COS for Obama.
| 24 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:25:28am |
re: #19 Dark_Falcon
This is bad news. Rahm Emanuel is a partisan Democrat, but he is competent and sane. Carol Mosley Braun, the next biggest contender, is a fool who would be disaster as mayor.
sounds about right from a couple of the comments
| 25 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:25:34am |
And here I thought Rahm and Obama, those Chicago mafiosi homeboys, had everything under control. Oh, Pam, you had me sooo convinced about the corrupt Chicago style!
//
| 26 |
Kragar Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:26:38am |
re: #25 Sergey Romanov
And here I thought Rahm and Obama, those Chicago mafiosi homeboys, had everything under control. Oh, Pam, you had me sooo convinced about the corrupt Chicago style!
//
Next, they'll be coming to seize all our guns with their ACORN youth brigades.
| 27 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:26:44am |
re: #21 Obdicut
How on earth can he be called a 'carpetbagger'? He's from Chicago.
This is kind of idiotic.
Agreed. This whole residence thing has been intended to keep Emanuel off the ballot. The most recent polls had him pulling away, so for the activists this was their last chance to stop him.
| 28 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:26:58am |
re: #21 Obdicut
How on earth can he be called a 'carpetbagger'? He's from Chicago.
This is kind of idiotic.
I think the idea is that now he is a carpetbagger....since the panel ruled against him...just semantics to take a shot at him
| 29 |
jaunte Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:27:08am |
From the opinion…
Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that, under subsection 3.1-10-5(a) of the Municipal Code, a candidate must meet not only the Election Code’s voter residency standard, but also must have actually resided within the municipality for one year prior to the election, a qualification that the candidate unquestionably does not satisfy. Because the candidate does not satisfy that standard, he may be eligible for inclusion on the ballot only if he is somehow exempt from the Municipal Code’s “reside in” requirement.
[Link: capitolfax.com...]
| 30 |
Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:27:53am |
re: #26 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Next, they'll be coming to seize all our guns with their ACORN youth brigades.
IF they're as successful as Rahm... fear not!
/
| 31 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:28:06am |
re: #25 Sergey Romanov
And here I thought Rahm and Obama, those Chicago mafiosi homeboys, had everything under control. Oh, Pam, you had me sooo convinced about the corrupt Chicago style!
//
it's not over yet, I doubt....maybe he can stall the election waiting for a SC ruling
| 32 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:28:42am |
re: #26 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)
Next, they'll be coming to seize all our guns with their ACORN youth brigades.
they only do that in New Orleans
| 33 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:29:20am |
re: #25 Sergey Romanov
And here I thought Rahm and Obama, those Chicago mafiosi homeboys, had everything under control. Oh, Pam, you had me sooo convinced about the corrupt Chicago style!
//
Oh, believe me, this election is all about the Chicago Way. The activist interests backing the other candidates can't match Rahm and his alliance of the Chicago Machine and the city's business interests. So they resorted to a judicial power play to get rid of him. That's also a part of nasty Chicago politics.
| 34 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:29:35am |
re: #25 Sergey Romanov
And here I thought Rahm and Obama, those Chicago mafiosi homeboys, had everything under control. Oh, Pam, you had me sooo convinced about the corrupt Chicago style!
//
There's no doubt that the Chicago system is about as corrupt as they come. I know I joke around a lot about the Richard Daley Chicago Machine. That being said, it's also not nearly as bad as the wingnuts make it out to be, either.
| 35 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:30:21am |
re: #29 jaunte
From the opinion…
must have actually resided within the municipality for one year prior
sounds pretty cut and dried
| 36 |
William Barnett-Lewis Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:30:45am |
re: #32 albusteve
they only do that in New Orleans
In New Orleans, you have to worry about the cops taking your guns, not ACORN...
| 37 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:31:20am |
re: #36 wlewisiii
In New Orleans, you have to worry about the cops taking your guns, not ACORN...
I knew that
| 38 |
rwdflynavy Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:31:56am |
re: #21 Obdicut
How on earth can he be called a 'carpetbagger'? He's from Chicago.
This is kind of idiotic.
Exactly! Hillary Clinton running for office in NY, THAT is a carpetbagger! Rahm not so much.
| 39 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:33:49am |
re: #14 Buck
"Service to the United States is when you're in the military," attorney Burt Odelson told the Chicago Tribune. "It's not when you're in service to the president of the United States."
That seems very weak, but a judge agreed...
That's a load of crap. If this were to hold true, no elected official could possibly be re-elected. There's a reason U.S. Senators and Congressmen are buried with military honors - they were in service to the country. If this is the only thing eliminating him from eligibility, I call shenanigans.
| 40 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:34:06am |
re: #34 thedopefishlives
There's no doubt that the Chicago system is about as corrupt as they come. I know I joke around a lot about the Richard Daley Chicago Machine. That being said, it's also not nearly as bad as the wingnuts make it out to be, either.
I'm constantly amazed at the references to the Richard Daley Machine and the Mafia in connection with Chicago.
That is not what is in the forefront of Chicagoan's minds when we think of the "The Chicago Way". It's more about power and money, not tommy guns and dead bodies.
The City Works, in it's own particular Way. Having someone that is able to keep it going is important. In some ways, more important than the corruptness of the Mayor.
| 41 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:34:12am |
re: #33 Dark_Falcon
Oh, believe me, this election is all about the Chicago Way. The activist interests backing the other candidates can't match Rahm and his alliance of the Chicago Machine and the city's business interests. So they resorted to a judicial power play to get rid of him. That's also a part of nasty Chicago politics.
he didn't meet the requirement of "actually resided in the municipality"
| 42 |
wrenchwench Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:34:31am |
You can be sure that your bread will land butter side up if you butter both sides. However, it will also always land butter side down.
| 43 |
wrenchwench Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:35:37am |
re: #39 thedopefishlives
That's a load of crap. If this were to hold true, no elected official could possibly be re-elected. There's a reason U.S. Senators and Congressmen are buried with military honors - they were in service to the country. If this is the only thing eliminating him from eligibility, I call shenanigans.
You're saying members of congress who never served in the military get military honors? That ain't right....
| 44 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:36:18am |
re: #23 BigPapa
He did, but the question is whether he lost residency when he moved away from Chicago to serve as COS for President Obama.
Emanuel’s attorneys are expected to use Lampkin’s dissenting opinion to appeal the case to the Illinois Supreme Court.In today’s ruling, Hoffman wrote: “We ... order that the candidate’s name be excluded (or if, necessary, be removed) from the ballot from Chicago’s Feb. 22, 2011.”
Emanuel had won two previous rulings — by the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners and a Cook County judge. The case was appealed to the appellate court, which handed down the ruling before noon Monday.
Opponents have argued Emanuel is not a resident of Chicago because he rented out his North Side home while serving as chief of staff to Obama. The renter —Rob Halpin — refused to allow Emanuel to move back in after Mayor Daley’s announcement last year that he would not seek re-election. Halpin briefly ran for mayor himself.
No way that he's a carpetbagger, but his opponents in Chicago may have a point if he doesn't meet the necessary residency requirements.
Illinois law requires candidates for municipal offices be residents of the city for a year prior to elections. Emanuel, who resigned as White House chief of staff last year to run for mayor, was challenged on the issue by several Chicago residents. It becomes a timing issue, and whether he was a resident of Chicago for the year necessary to qualify or not.
| 45 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:36:18am |
re: #43 wrenchwench
You're saying members of congress who never served in the military get military honors? That ain't right...
I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure there was something attached to a congressman's funeral that was normally reserved only for military members. Perhaps being buried in a flag-draped coffin?
| 47 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:36:59am |
re: #39 thedopefishlives
That's a load of crap. If this were to hold true, no elected official could possibly be re-elected. There's a reason U.S. Senators and Congressmen are buried with military honors - they were in service to the country. If this is the only thing eliminating him from eligibility, I call shenanigans.
he didn't meet the requirements....can you argue against that?
| 48 |
jaunte Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:37:20am |
From the dissent:
Of particular relevance to the case before this court,
Dillavou quotes the language of Clark and Kreitz, which provides
that, once established, a residence will not be lost by an
individual’s absence from that residence unless the individual
demonstrates such an intent. Dillavou, 260 Ill. App. 3d at 132-33.
The majority’s attempt to maneuver around the supreme court
decision in Smith is futile. Smith cannot be distinguished from
the relevant issue the majority should have addressed here, i.e.,
whether the candidate abandoned his Chicago residence. Smith
reviewed whether the appellant was eligible for his appointment to
the judiciary in accordance with the constitutional requirement to
have been a resident of Illinois for five years next preceding his
appointment. Smith, 44 Ill. at 23-24. Smith focused on the
relevant issue, i.e., whether the appellant lost his Illinois
residency where he had resided in Illinois for many years before he
left to live and work in Tennessee for several months and then
returned to Illinois. Smith, 44 Ill. at 24. Smith determined the
prosecutor failed to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that
the appellant lost his Illinois residency. Smith, 44 Ill. at 24-
25.
[Link: capitolfax.com...]
(pdf of decision at link)
| 49 |
wrenchwench Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:37:21am |
re: #45 thedopefishlives
I could be wrong, but I was pretty sure there was something attached to a congressman's funeral that was normally reserved only for military members. Perhaps being buried in a flag-draped coffin?
That I can see.
| 50 |
Lidane Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:37:41am |
re: #25 Sergey Romanov
And here I thought Rahm and Obama, those Chicago mafiosi homeboys, had everything under control. Oh, Pam, you had me sooo convinced about the corrupt Chicago style!
//
Seriously. You'd think that Rahm would have it all in hand, considering how much of an evil genius he's supposed to be.
Honestly I'm not surprised this happened. He'd been in DC for quite a while before resigning to run. I figured he'd get tossed off the ballot, if he managed to get on it in the first place.
| 51 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:37:55am |
Somewhere, Jesse Jackson (and Jr.) are celebrating
| 52 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:38:36am |
re: #47 albusteve
he didn't meet the requirements...can you argue against that?
If he truly, genuinely didn't meet the requirements - no. If the only circumstance was that he was working in D.C. for the President, then yes. As lawhawk's post illustrate, the circumstances are a little more elaborate, and I'd tend to agree that the ruling looks more plausible now that more of the facts are known to me.
| 53 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:38:52am |
re: #50 Lidane
Seriously. You'd think that Rahm would have it all in hand, considering how much of an evil genius he's supposed to be.Honestly I'm not surprised this happened. He'd been in DC for quite a while before resigning to run. I figured he'd get tossed off the ballot, if he managed to get on it in the first place.
that's it, right there...I mean the rule is explicit enough
| 54 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:40:49am |
re: #52 thedopefishlives
If he truly, genuinely didn't meet the requirements - no. If the only circumstance was that he was working in D.C. for the President, then yes. As lawhawk's post illustrate, the circumstances are a little more elaborate, and I'd tend to agree that the ruling looks more plausible now that more of the facts are known to me.
re: #52 thedopefishlives
If he truly, genuinely didn't meet the requirements - no. If the only circumstance was that he was working in D.C. for the President, then yes. As lawhawk's post illustrate, the circumstances are a little more elaborate, and I'd tend to agree that the ruling looks more plausible now that more of the facts are known to me.
post #29 lays it out quite clearly...there are no provisions or other bullshit
| 55 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:41:08am |
re: #40 ggt
I'm constantly amazed at the references to the Richard Daley Machine and the Mafia in connection with Chicago.
That is not what is in the forefront of Chicagoan's minds when we think of the "The Chicago Way". It's more about power and money, not tommy guns and dead bodies.
The City Works, in it's own particular Way. Having someone that is able to keep it going is important. In some ways, more important than the corruptness of the Mayor.
Quite Concur. That's why I hope the Illinois Supreme Court overturns this decision. I do not like him, but Rahm Emanuel is the best candidate on the ballot, IMO.
| 56 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:41:29am |
re: #53 albusteve
Not really. In general, residency is treated as valid even if the person goes on a long trip or works somewhere else for awhile. See the above dissent.
It's kind of common sense. I don't get what these judges are thinking.
| 57 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:41:38am |
re: #54 albusteve
post #29 lays it out quite clearly...there are no provisions or other bullshit
So, tell me. You have to fly out of state temporarily to fulfill a contract. Are you still a resident when you get back? Or do you have to change residencies whenever you leave the state for any period of time?
| 58 |
garhighway Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:43:12am |
OT: Via Politco, a leading Republican evangelical tries to start a push towards Romney.
The comments make interesting (and scary) reading.
[Link: www.politico.com...]
| 59 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:43:17am |
re: #25 Sergey Romanov
And here I thought Rahm and Obama, those Chicago mafiosi homeboys, had everything under control. Oh, Pam, you had me sooo convinced about the corrupt Chicago style!
//
This does seem a bit bumbling for a guy who's supposed to control everything.
| 60 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:43:20am |
re: #56 Obdicut
Not really. In general, residency is treated as valid even if the person goes on a long trip or works somewhere else for awhile. See the above dissent.
It's kind of common sense. I don't get what these judges are thinking.
the dissent was overruled...doesn't count, except in lawyers fees...as for common sense, I don't see how the rules could be more clear...there is no generalization, them's the breaks
| 61 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:43:25am |
re: #53 albusteve
He probably figured that he didn't lose residency because he never intended to give up his domicile - and thought he could simply return to Chicago without having any problem with the time. However, when he stopped renting in Chicago that was used as a defining date by the court to rule that he had given up domicile.
The problem is that they continued paying property taxes on the Hermitage house property, had an Illinois drivers license, and otherwise made no actions that would indicate he gave up his residency (from the decision):
At all relevant times, including the time he was in
Washington, D.C., the candidate continued to pay property taxes for
the Hermitage house, continued to hold an Illinois driver’s license
listing the Hermitage house as his address, continued to list the
Hermitage house address on his personal checks, and continued to
vote with the Hermitage house as his registered voting address.
I don't understand how they could have ruled the other way, and to me the dissent's opinion is the more persuasive.
| 62 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:43:33am |
re: #56 Obdicut
It's kind of common sense
Since when have common sense, politics and the law converged to a positive result?
//
| 63 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:44:46am |
re: #60 albusteve
The lower courts/boards were overruled. The dissent was outnumbered. I do think that Emanuel will appeal, and should have a good chance at prevailing at the Illinois Supreme Court.
| 64 |
jaunte Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:45:16am |
re: #60 albusteve
The ruling appears to be ignoring previously determined definitions of 'residency.'
| 65 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:46:07am |
re: #61 lawhawk
He probably figured that he didn't lose residency because he never intended to give up his domicile - and thought he could simply return to Chicago without having any problem with the time. However, when he stopped renting in Chicago that was used as a defining date by the court to rule that he had given up domicile.
The problem is that they continued paying property taxes on the Hermitage house property, had an Illinois drivers license, and otherwise made no actions that would indicate he gave up his residency (from the decision):
I don't understand how they could have ruled the other way, and to me the dissent's opinion is the more persuasive.
Where did he last vote? Even by absentee ballot . . .
| 66 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:46:44am |
re: #58 garhighway
OT: Via Politco, a leading Republican evangelical tries to start a push towards Romney.
The comments make interesting (and scary) reading.
[Link: www.politico.com...]
No offense, GWH, but lets save that for later. Right now we're dealing with a situation in which the wingnuts have no influence. This is mostly a Democratic scrimmage.
| 67 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:46:50am |
re: #62 sattv4u2
It's kind of common sense
Since when have common sense, politics and the law converged to a positive result?
//
(((sorry LAWHAWK))!!!
//
| 68 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:47:21am |
re: #66 Dark_Falcon
No offense, GWH, but lets save that for later. Right now we're dealing with a situation in which the wingnuts have no influence. This is mostly a Democratic scrimmage.
Can you say DERAIL!?!?!
| 69 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:47:35am |
re: #65 ggt
Where did he last vote? Even by absentee ballot . . .
Ah, I re-read. He voted in Chicago.
Being allowed to vote is a rather decisive way of recognizing residency, IMHO.
| 70 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:48:28am |
| 71 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:48:43am |
re: #63 lawhawk
The lower courts/boards were overruled. The dissent was outnumbered. I do think that Emanuel will appeal, and should have a good chance at prevailing at the Illinois Supreme Court.
hell yes...I would bet he'll be the next mayor...he just has to play the game out to the top, and the residency rules will be found unfair...still, it's hard to argue against the rule, unless you want to lawyer up and make generalizations and appeal to the tax angle and what have you...but that's just what the SC will do....he's in, no question
| 72 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:49:31am |
| 73 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:50:10am |
re: #64 jaunte
The ruling appears to be ignoring previously determined definitions of 'residency.'
where?...that's not been posted...maybe there is some previous rulings
| 74 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:50:44am |
re: #71 albusteve
It's not arguing against the rule, it's arguing they're applying the rule wrong. He has a residence there, a drivers license there, and he votes there. I think it's absolutely clear he always intended to return there to live after working in Washington, and that the nature of his work in Washington was temporary by nature.
| 75 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:50:51am |
| 76 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:51:34am |
re: #69 ggt
Ah, I re-read. He voted in Chicago.
Being allowed to vote is a rather decisive way of recognizing residency, IMHO.
but he didn't live there....I have met residency status in Jamaica, but I live in New Mexico....they are two different things
| 77 |
SanFranciscoZionist Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:52:02am |
Still a pity...I loved having a team in the White House called Rahm and Barack.
(Yes, I know the President's Hebrew name is Baruch, not Barak. It was still funny.)
| 78 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:52:02am |
| 79 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:53:37am |
re: #74 Obdicut
It's not arguing against the rule, it's arguing they're applying the rule wrong. He has a residence there, a drivers license there, and he votes there. I think it's absolutely clear he always intended to return there to live after working in Washington, and that the nature of his work in Washington was temporary by nature.
he's required to live there...he hasn't and that is absolutely clear
| 80 |
Douchecanoe and Ryan Too Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:54:35am |
re: #79 albusteve
he's required to live there...he hasn't and that is absolutely clear
He's required to have residency. He's not required to live there. You yourself made the distinction.
| 81 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:54:35am |
re: #76 albusteve
but he didn't live there...I have met residency status in Jamaica, but I live in New Mexico...they are two different things
I think the ruling applied to "residency" requirements. You can live many places, but you can only claim residency in one (or two--they want your tax money)
| 82 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:54:40am |
re: #79 albusteve
he's required to live there...he hasn't and that is absolutely clear
You're not listening, Steve. At all. Why?
Did you read the dissent?
| 83 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:55:29am |
Mmmm.
Not so sure I'd want a really pissed (at me) off Rahm Emmanuel in my city.
With or without clothes.
This might be a mistake.
| 84 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:55:53am |
re: #71 albusteve
Actually, I'd argue that the appellate court didn't follow the residency rule properly - and that's the same tact that Emanuel's legal team would. After all, the same argument carried the day at the lower levels. This is the first panel to find against him (the others had ruled that he was a resident for purposes of the election law).
| 85 |
windsword Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:56:37am |
Wait, you mean you can't be mayor of the city you don't live in? I, for one, am shocked.
| 86 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:56:47am |
re: #82 Obdicut
You're not listening, Steve. At all. Why?
Did you read the dissent?
but the ruling did not favor the dissent....the residency rule is very clear, yet you choose to ignore that factoid
| 87 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:57:15am |
re: #84 lawhawk
Actually, I'd argue that the appellate court didn't follow the residency rule properly - and that's the same tact that Emanuel's legal team would. After all, the same argument carried the day at the lower levels. This is the first panel to find against him (the others had ruled that he was a resident for purposes of the election law).
Did the ruling fall to the single word "service"? Is that the argument his attorney's used?--perhaps it was unwise.
| 88 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:57:43am |
re: #86 albusteve
but the ruling did not favor the dissent...the residency rule is very clear, yet you choose to ignore that factoid
Never mind. You're just bound and determined to ignore anything that's said to you.
Don't really see the point of that. Whatever.
| 89 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:58:07am |
re: #85 windsword
Wait, you mean you can't be mayor of the city you don't live in? I, for one, am shocked.
But you CAN vote there if you're dead!
| 90 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:58:07am |
re: #79 albusteve
he's required to live there...he hasn't and that is absolutely clear
Try actually reading the dissent...and the Municipal Code itself.
From the dissent:
Nothing in the text or context of these statutes distinguishes “has resided in” as used to define a “qualified elector” from “has resided in” as used to define the length of time a candidate must have been resident in order to run for office. Moreover, if the legislature had intended the phrase “has resided in” to mean actually lived in, as the majority proposes, then the legislature surely would have chosen to use the more innocuous word live rather than the verb reside and the noun residence, which are charged with legal implications. […]
The majority attempts to support its creation of a completely new candidate residency standard with an exhaustive (or, rather, exhausting) discussion of section 3.1-10-5(d) of the Municipal Code regarding the military exception. The candidate here was not in the military and did not attempt to claim an exemption under section 3.1-10-5(d). Nevertheless, while the majority spends five pages of its opinion on a subsection of the Municipal Code that has no applicability to the present case, the majority does not write a single sentence explaining how it defines “actually resided in.” It is patently clear that the majority fails to even attempt to define its newly discovered standard because it is a figment of the majority’s imagination.
How many days may a person stay away from his home before the majority would decide he no longer “actually resides” in it? Would the majority have us pick a number out of a hat? A standard which cannot be defined cannot be applied. If the majority had picked even an rbitrary number of days that voters need not sleep in their own beds before they violated this new arbitrary standard, then at least we would be able to apply this new standard. Should a court consider just the number of days a voter or candidate is absent or are there other relevant factors under the new standard?
The actual text of the Code (as cited by the majority opinion):
"A person is not eligible for an elective municipal
office unless that person is a qualified elector of the
municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one
year next preceding the election or appointment ***." 65 ILCS
5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008).
Nothing here is "absolutely clear"; it is preposterous to say so.
| 91 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:58:18am |
re: #84 lawhawk
Actually, I'd argue that the appellate court didn't follow the residency rule properly - and that's the same tact that Emanuel's legal team would. After all, the same argument carried the day at the lower levels. This is the first panel to find against him (the others had ruled that he was a resident for purposes of the election law).
I'm sure they will too....and the wording will have to be changed to comply
| 92 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:59:16am |
We had something like this happen here, except that the NYT doesn't care if a farmer was disqualified for running for an Oregon legislative job because his farm might lie in district 3, but his house didn't. (It was a big farm.)
| 93 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:59:21am |
Notably, there isn't anything in that section of the code to distinguish between "resided in" and "lived in."
| 94 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:59:24am |
re: #88 Obdicut
Never mind. You're just bound and determined to ignore anything that's said to you.
Don't really see the point of that. Whatever.
If I may ,, Steves point is that you keep pointing to the "dissent" without properly using the word "minority" prior to it
Not taking a side,, just going for clarity
| 95 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 10:59:50am |
re: #88 Obdicut
Never mind. You're just bound and determined to ignore anything that's said to you.
Don't really see the point of that. Whatever.
Rahm did not actually live at the residence...why are you ignoring that?....nevermind, whatever
| 96 |
iossarian Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:01:35am |
re: #23 BigPapa
Yeah, my first thought. I thought he lived there before serving as COS for Obama.
Is that a kind of arugula?
| 97 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:01:48am |
re: #94 sattv4u2
That's what a dissent is, dude. It's a minority opinion. That's why it's the dissent.
| 98 |
Decatur Deb Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:02:32am |
Rahm wanted to be in Chicago, making politics hard for Chicago Republicans. I want him back in DC with the President, making politics hard for all the Republicans.
| 99 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:02:36am |
Did he root for the Cubs? How does he like his pizza?
These are very important questions.
| 100 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:02:58am |
re: #97 Obdicut
That's what a dissent is, dude. It's a minority opinion. That's why it's the dissent.
I understand that, "dude"
But you're making it sound as if the dissent should have carried the day, NOT the majority opinion
| 101 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:03:13am |
re: #90 gehazi
Try actually reading the dissent...and the Municipal Code itself.
From the dissent:
The actual text of the Code (as cited by the majority opinion):
Nothing here is "absolutely clear"; it is preposterous to say so.
right, the question is, what does 'resided' mean....it will be ruled that it doesn't mean you lived there....so your residence is not where you live...your residence is property you own, wherever that may be...Ha!
| 102 |
Dark_Falcon Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:03:24am |
re: #95 albusteve
Rahm did not actually live at the residence...why are you ignoring that?...nevermind, whatever
Do remember, Steve, that this appellate ruling is not the final ruling. The Illinois Supreme Court has yet to weigh in.
| 103 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:03:41am |
re: #87 ggt
The decision frames the argument as follows:
The issues in this appeal distill essentially to two: whether
the candidate meets the Municipal Code’s requirement that he have
"resided in the municipality at least one year next preceding the
election" (65 ILCS 5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008)), and, if not, whether
he is exempt from that requirement under the Election Code
provision stating that "no elector *** shall be deemed to have lost
his or her residence *** by reason of his or her absence on
business of the United States" (10 ILCS 5/3-2 (West 2008)).
Even if the court mistakenly found against Emanuel on the first part - that he didn't reside in Chicago for the applicable time, he was still protected by the second part - he should not have lost residence by reason of business of the United States. He was the President's Chief of Staff and working in furtherance of the business of the United States.
I don't think it's an overreach to say that the CoS is a position doing the business of the United States. He's the right hand man for the President of the US. You don't get much closer to the business of the US than that.
| 104 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:04:03am |
I lived in Utah for four years while both the state of Utah and the state of Washington considered me a resident of Washington.
I suspect most of you can say the same about a period of time in your life.
| 105 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:04:19am |
re: #100 sattv4u2
Well, yes, because that's what I believe. What is the problem with that?
| 106 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:04:20am |
re: #102 Dark_Falcon
Do remember, Steve, that this appellate ruling is not the final ruling. The Illinois Supreme Court has yet to weigh in.
I already have, several times
| 107 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:05:35am |
re: #105 Obdicut
Well, yes, because that's what I believe. What is the problem with that?
Non whatsoever
So whats the problem with Steve believing what he believes, BACKED by the (wait for it) MAJORITY OPINION!
See ,, it's a two way street people should live on!
| 108 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:06:03am |
residence and reside are not the same thing...or are they?
Mayor Emanuel has a nice ring to it
| 109 |
Decatur Deb Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:06:09am |
re: #104 EmmmieG
I lived in Utah for four years while both the state of Utah and the state of Washington considered me a resident of Washington.
I suspect most of you can say the same about a period of time in your life.
While I was overseas, being paid in Yankee dollars, I had to pay state taxes to Alabama. When my daughter came back to attend Auburn, they tried to charge out-of-state tuition. (Didn't work.)
| 110 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:06:15am |
re: #104 EmmmieG
That can be a most taxing situation - where both claim you are a resident for tax purposes, and then you have to show that you affirmatively gave up your domicile in one state to become a resident of the other state.
| 111 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:06:38am |
re: #107 sattv4u2
Because Steve, unlike myself, is saying that the rule is obvious, when it is clearly not, because there is a well-thought-out dissenting opinion.
Do you understand?
| 112 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:07:24am |
re: #101 albusteve
right, the question is, what does 'resided' mean...it will be ruled that it doesn't mean you lived there...so your residence is not where you live...your residence is property you own, wherever that may be...Ha!
Obviously the legal distinction between living somewhere and having "residence" somewhere else is far too confusing for anyone decipher. It can't possibly be referenced countless times when it comes to the tax code or immigration laws.
| 113 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:07:50am |
re: #108 albusteve
Resident, domicile, and residence all have different meanings.
For tax purposes, you can have several places of residence, but only one domicile. The same applies here.
| 114 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:08:54am |
re: #110 lawhawk
That can be a most taxing situation - where both claim you are a resident for tax purposes, and then you have to show that you affirmatively gave up your domicile in one state to become a resident of the other state.
College student. Luckily it wasn't a two-state income tax situation.
Although my income was...not worth bothering over.
| 115 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:10:05am |
re: #111 Obdicut
Because Steve, unlike myself, is saying that the rule is obvious, when it is clearly not, because there is a well-thought-out dissenting opinion.
Do you understand?
Will you please stop being so condescending.
(and by the way,, just so you don't accuse me of not answering your question, I do "understand")
AND ,, just because there was a "well-thought-out dissenting opinion" doesn't mean the rule wasn't obvious to (wait for it again) the MAJORITY OPINION
| 117 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:11:25am |
re: #113 lawhawk
Resident, domicile, and residence all have different meanings.
For tax purposes, you can have several places of residence, but only one domicile. The same applies here.
Speaking of which
[Link: www.nydailynews.com...]
| 118 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:11:32am |
re: #115 sattv4u2
Obviously the majority opinion has the force of law, and the dissenting opinion does not. But don't try to pretend that the sheer fact of how the majority rules determines the "obvious" answer to the legal issue in question.
| 119 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:11:49am |
re: #111 Obdicut
Because Steve, unlike myself, is saying that the rule is obvious, when it is clearly not, because there is a well-thought-out dissenting opinion.
Do you understand?
then why is it called an 'opinion'?....the rule is not an 'opinion'....
words have meaning...it's like this
you are residing in Chicago at the very same time that you reside in DC, or Falls Church or wherever....the Il SC will decide you can be two different places at once!....reside, residency, whatevah!
| 120 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:12:12am |
re: #118 gehazi
Obviously the majority opinion has the force of law, and the dissenting opinion does not. But don't try to pretend that the sheer fact of how the majority rules determines the "obvious" answer to the legal issue in question.
Nice try, but I never stated that
| 121 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:12:50am |
re: #120 sattv4u2
"doesn't mean the rule wasn't obvious to (wait for it again) the MAJORITY OPINION" ?
| 122 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:13:00am |
re: #112 gehazi
Obviously the legal distinction between living somewhere and having "residence" somewhere else is far too confusing for anyone decipher. It can't possibly be referenced countless times when it comes to the tax code or immigration laws.
the question has to do with election rules, not tax laws
| 123 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:14:23am |
re: #116 Obdicut
You're not making any sense.
Of course not, because you're stuck in the "obvious" conclusion of the opinion of the minority, whereas I'm looking at both the majority (and how they could have interpreted as such) as well as the minority
| 124 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:14:46am |
re: #117 sattv4u2
No surprise there either. Typically, a state like NY will claim that you're a resident for tax purposes if you're in the state (or city as the case may be), if you were present for 183 days or more. Given that Baldwin, Jeter, and others are frequently in NYC, it becomes a fact-based analysis - with records necessary to show that they were out of the state for sufficient time to be considered nonresidents.
Jeter entered into a settlement to deal with his case, and Baldwin will probably do so as well.
| 125 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:14:53am |
re: #122 albusteve
And you're trying to pretend that there isn't any basis for a legal distinction between living somewhere and residing somewhere. That's simply false.
| 126 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:15:19am |
re: #121 gehazi
"doesn't mean the rule wasn't obvious to (wait for it again) the MAJORITY OPINION" ?
Very good
The opinion of the majority was AS obvious to them as the opinion of the minority was to him
NOW you get it!!
| 127 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:15:23am |
re: #121 gehazi
"doesn't mean the rule wasn't obvious to (wait for it again) the MAJORITY OPINION" ?
don't get so shook up....some of us believe in one definition and some, otherwise....it's not a big deal
| 128 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:15:49am |
re: #123 sattv4u2
Nope. I'm just saying the rule isn't 'obvious'. I do think that the minority's opinion is right. I don't think either way is 'obvious'.
I'm not sure why you're failing to get that.
| 130 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:16:22am |
re: #124 lawhawk
No surprise there either. Typically, a state like NY will claim that you're a resident for tax purposes if you're in the state (or city as the case may be), if you were present for 183 days or more. Given that Baldwin, Jeter, and others are frequently in NYC, it becomes a fact-based analysis - with records necessary to show that they were out of the state for sufficient time to be considered nonresidents.
Jeter entered into a settlement to deal with his case, and Baldwin will probably do so as well.
And promptly put his co-op up for sale so he could escape the city (taxes) iirc
| 131 |
sagehen Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:17:09am |
re: #57 thedopefishlives
So, tell me. You have to fly out of state temporarily to fulfill a contract. Are you still a resident when you get back? Or do you have to change residencies whenever you leave the state for any period of time?
I always thought your "permanent residence" is the address on your drivers license, passport and tax returns. If that's the only address you've used for those things, then working elsewhere shouldn't change your legal residency.
Also... it turns out one of the judges who voted in the majority on the case is married to an alderman who a few weeks ago endorsed a different candidate. That judge should have recused him/herself. Expect an appeal.
| 132 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:17:52am |
re: #128 Obdicut
Nope. I'm just saying the rule isn't 'obvious'. I do think that the minority's opinion is right. I don't think either way is 'obvious'.
I'm not sure why you're failing to get that.
And I'm not sure why you're failing to get that if I write a ruling one way, it's because it was "OBVIOUS" to me to do so, and if you see it a different way, it's because it was "OBVIOUS" to you to see it that way!
| 133 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:17:56am |
re: #123 sattv4u2
I'm pretty sure that the only people arguing for an "obvious" opinion are people defending the majority opinion.
The opinion of the majority was AS obvious to them as the opinion of the minority was to him
Woo! "Charles believed what he believed because he believed it for reasons obvious to him; Chuck believed something different because he believed it for different reasons that were obvious to him." Meaningless tautologies.
| 134 |
albusteve Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:18:24am |
re: #128 Obdicut
Nope. I'm just saying the rule isn't 'obvious'. I do think that the minority's opinion is right. I don't think either way is 'obvious'.
I'm not sure why you're failing to get that.
if the rule is not obvious, it's because the definitions involved are not obvious, obviously 'living' somewhere does not make you a resident....heh
| 135 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:19:14am |
re: #132 sattv4u2
Because that's not true. 'You' may write a ruling one way because, even though it's not obvious, it's a close call, you find it falls more on that side. I may see it a different way, even though it's not obvious, because I feel it falls more on that side.
I have no fucking clue why you think everyone's decisions are so black and white.
| 136 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:19:21am |
re: #131 sagehen
I always thought your "permanent residence" is the address on your drivers license, passport and tax returns. If that's the only address you've used for those things, then working elsewhere shouldn't change your legal residency.
Also... it turns out one of the judges who voted in the majority on the case is married to an alderman who a few weeks ago endorsed a different candidate. That judge should have recused him/herself. Expect an appeal.
Except for retirees living with "winter homes" in warm states. Those states often find a way to charge tax.
It becomes a whole different ball game when taxes are involved.
And, IIRC, Rahm paid taxes in Illinois.
| 137 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:19:28am |
re: #133 gehazi
I'm pretty sure that the only people arguing for an "obvious" opinion are people defending the majority opinion.
Woo! "Charles believed what he believed because he believed it for reasons obvious to him; Chuck believed something different because he believed it for different reasons that were obvious to him." Meaningless tautologies.
Meaningless, until it comes down to a 2-1 (or 5-4) Court decision where the judges made their opinions based on what they thought was (Oh God , don't make me say it)
OBVIOUS!
| 138 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:19:38am |
re: #134 albusteve
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Heh.
| 139 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:20:32am |
re: #135 Obdicut
Because that's not true. 'You' may write a ruling one way because, even though it's not obvious, it's a close call, you find it falls more on that side. I may see it a different way, even though it's not obvious, because I feel it falls more on that side.
I have no fucking clue why you think everyone's decisions are so black and white.
heheh
Even when it's a "close call",, (50.0001% to 49.9999%) it becomes obvious that you have to tilt one way!
| 140 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:20:42am |
| 142 |
sattv4u2 Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:21:51am |
A well ,,,, gonna go feed the deer and walk the mutts
| 143 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:21:55am |
re: #131 sagehen
Your permanent residence could be any of those addresses, but it isn't always the case. If you don't update your information with the DMV or State Department, you could have outdated information.
Here, Emanuel continued to maintain an IL driver's license, and paid IL taxes, which are indicative that he never intended to give up IL domicile (residency).
| 144 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:21:58am |
re: #140 ggt
Why not get started on posting perfectly grammatically correct nonsense, then expressing a mild sense of humor at my own wit?
| 145 |
Obdicut Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:22:14am |
re: #139 sattv4u2
You are just completely destroying the meaning of the word obvious. It's really weird.
| 146 |
Fozzie Bear Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:23:49am |
Very few things in the law are as "obvious" as they would appear in a cursory reading of laws and statutes, because words that have one meaning in common parlance often have quite another (far more specific) definition in a court of law.
Furthermore, in cases like this, it is rarely as simple as "the law says yes", it's usually more a matter of sorting out conflicting precedents. Sound arguments can be made for either side, the question is which argument is more consistent with statute and precedent. This is rarely "obvious", especially to a layperson.
| 147 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:24:46am |
re: #144 gehazi
Why not get started on posting perfectly grammatically correct nonsense, then expressing a mild sense of humor at my own wit?
A while back, Haiku was a popular pass-time here. . .
| 148 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:25:48am |
re: #146 Fozzie Bear
Very few things in the law are as "obvious" as they would appear in a cursory reading of laws and statutes, because words that have one meaning in common parlance often have quite another (far more specific) definition in a court of law.
Furthermore, in cases like this, it is rarely as simple as "the law says yes", it's usually more a matter of sorting out conflicting precedents. Sound arguments can be made for either side, the question is which argument is more consistent with statute and precedent. This is rarely "obvious", especially to a layperson.
"lawyers" and "obvious" really don't go together.
:)
| 150 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:26:55am |
| 151 |
sagehen Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:28:05am |
re: #143 lawhawk
Your permanent residence could be any of those addresses, but it isn't always the case. If you don't update your information with the DMV or State Department, you could have outdated information.
Here, Emanuel continued to maintain an IL driver's license, and paid IL taxes, which are indicative that he never intended to give up IL domicile (residency).
I seem to recall that Santorum got in some trouble when he took a Pennsylvania state tax credit (state residents only) for homeschooling his kids... while at the same time taking a Virginia tax credit for something to do with his house there (also for state residents only)...
| 152 |
lawhawk Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:29:59am |
re: #151 sagehen
So did Rangel and others - claiming homestead deductions for real property claimed as a primary residence, when they were living in other states. It's a pretty common problem actually - taxpayers are trying to max out their deductions, credits, exemptions, etc., and ignore that they can't own (and claim) more than one primary residence.
| 153 |
gehazi Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:31:16am |
re: #152 lawhawk
So did Rangel and others - claiming homestead deductions for real property claimed as a primary residence, when they were living in other states. It's a pretty common problem actually - taxpayers are trying to max out their deductions, credits, exemptions, etc., and ignore that they can't own (and claim) more than one primary residence.
Right, and if Rahm had done stuff like this, it would be a serious problem, but I'm not seeing any allegation that he tried to play the tax system in this manner.
| 154 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:37:16am |
re: #153 gehazi
Right, and if Rahm had done stuff like this, it would be a serious problem, but I'm not seeing any allegation that he tried to play the tax system in this manner.
Of all the allegations about Rahm Emmanuel, stupidity is not one of them.
| 155 |
Buck Mon, Jan 24, 2011 11:43:54am |
re: #79 albusteve
he's required to live there...he hasn't and that is absolutely clear
There is a part of the rule that makes an exception if the "not living there" is due to "Service to the United States".
The question is, when he worked for the President of the United States, was that in "Service to the United States"?
| 156 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Mon, Jan 24, 2011 12:15:28pm |
re: #103 lawhawkby reason of his or her absence on
business of the United States" (10 ILCS 5/3-2 (West 2008)).
It's "business" of the United States, not "service".
I don't understand where the word "service" got inserted in the case unless it was Rahm's attorney's.
He was most definitely involved in "business" of the United States.
I'm off,
Have a great day all!
| 157 |
elizajane Mon, Jan 24, 2011 12:47:09pm |
How long did Cheney reside in, where was it, Arizona, to make him eligible as Bush's running-mate so they wouldn't both be from Texas? Just asking.
| 158 |
Sol Berdinowitz Mon, Jan 24, 2011 1:01:39pm |
Wyoming it was: he owned a home there and was a registered voter, but he lived in Texas and had a Texas driver's license.
I seem to recall Hillary Clinton pulling a similar stunt so she could run for the Senate in New York State.
| 159 |
lostlakehiker Mon, Jan 24, 2011 3:36:38pm |
re: #19 Dark_Falcon
This is bad news. Rahm Emanuel is a partisan Democrat, but he is competent and sane. Carol Mosley Braun, the next biggest contender, is a fool who would be disaster as mayor.
The question is what does the law say? It's just a technical question.
This is the trouble with laws that say: must have a deep Rolodex. Or laws that say, must not be a prospective opponent of Carol Mosely Braun. When the law means whatever the most powerful dog in the fight says it means, we don't have a nation of laws.
| 160 |
lostlakehiker Mon, Jan 24, 2011 3:47:32pm |
re: #111 Obdicut
Because Steve, unlike myself, is saying that the rule is obvious, when it is clearly not, because there is a well-thought-out dissenting opinion.
Do you understand?
It is logically impossible that both opinions are correctly reasoned. At least one of the two opinions must contain some mistake in legal reasoning. Neither side, after all, held that the law itself was a contradictory mishmash from which any opinion could be as well argued as any other.
Apart from highly respected scholars versed in Illinois law, the rest of us aren't in a very good position to hold forth on who is "obviously" right in this case.
| 161 |
TheAntichrist Mon, Jan 24, 2011 7:00:33pm |
re: #69 ggt
Ah, I re-read. He voted in Chicago.
Being allowed to vote is a rather decisive way of recognizing residency, IMHO.
The court distinguished between residency establishing the right to vote and residency to be eligible for office. Basically, they said Rahm can vote in this election, but he cannot run in it. The law everyone cites is for the right to be an elector (voter), not a candidate for office, according to the appellate court.
| 162 |
TheAntichrist Mon, Jan 24, 2011 7:16:05pm |
Here's my take on this as a lifelong Chicago resident, for anyone interested in the political conspiracy angle, and I'm not saying it was a political decision. The 2 justices in the majority were elected (judges are elected in Illinois, even at the Supreme Court) via powerful Chicago Dem Ed Burke. Ed Burke has butted heads with Emanuel before, and no doubt he would much rather his political organization fill the Daley vacuum than Emanuel's. By the time next election rolls around, it's doubtful Emanuel will have the cakewalk he would have by running now.
The Illinois Supreme Court has 8 justices - 5 Dems and 3 GOP. A tie vote means the appellate decision stands.
And as it happens, Ed Burke's wife Anne sits on the Illinois Supreme Court.
In Illinois, you never know what will happen when elected judges have to decide political issues.
| 163 |
areopagitica Mon, Jan 24, 2011 8:57:26pm |
re: #154 EmmmieG
Actually, the Chicago Tribune reported during the election comission hearings that Rahm had gone back and filed a certificate of error with the Cook County Assessor in order to claim a homestead exemption for the Hermitage property which is something that, in my understanding, you can't claim on investment property, the property must be your primary place of evidence. He also quickly amended his tax returns to indicate residency in Chicago on a part time basis, his earlier return indicated DC as his residence. He claimed that it was a simple oversight.
One of the first lessons I learned in law school was that words are easily manipulated and that law is not the search for truth, the law is whoever tells the better story. There are facts in Rahm's case that can go either way and the convoluted appellate opinion and dissent indiccate that the appellate panel was really challenged on this one. The majority is trying to take a statutory construction approach, Parsing the ordinance's language as to plain meaning and legislative intent. The dissent is saying that the analysis is flawed although it seems to take a policy shift toward the end in dicta.
Basically the law on residency is now mucked up and as it should be, the Illinous Supreme Court will have to make the final decision. The question for us Illinois Lawyers is whether they will issue a good opinion that provides better guidelines for future cases on this issue or will they craft some opaque decision that will be devoid of legal rationality.
Many are saying that it's not fair that the court is depriving the people of Chicago the chance to vote for Rahm, such statements show an utter lack of understanding of what a court is supposed to do. It's not supposed to be concerned with whether it's making the sheeple upset. Just my 2 cents.
| 164 |
areopagitica Mon, Jan 24, 2011 8:59:07pm |
Please excuse my spelling errors, I hate typing on my crappy iPhone
| 165 |
Obdicut Tue, Jan 25, 2011 4:32:54am |
re: #163 areopagitica
Do you have a link to the tribune article?
| 166 |
areopagitica Tue, Jan 25, 2011 7:38:11am |
re: #165 Obdicut
Hopefully this loads. Scroll down to the third update (12pm update, 2nd and 3rd paragraph)
a colleague of mine just told me that the appellate justice who authored the opinion was/is a democrat and that prior to his ascention to the appellate court was a well respected, extremely through trial judge in the Cook County Circuit Court. My friend had a couple cases in front of him and was highly impresssed with the level of attention and preparedness of the judge.
| 167 |
areopagitica Tue, Jan 25, 2011 7:40:27am |
| 168 |
Decatur Deb Tue, Jan 25, 2011 7:41:41am |
re: #166 areopagitica
Useful comment, but move it up to a more active thread. (I read the thread title as "Rahm Emanuel Thrown Off Chicago Mayoral Ballet". It's way too early.)
| 169 |
Obdicut Tue, Jan 25, 2011 8:32:34am |
re: #167 areopagitica
I don't actually see that that states he originally filed as DC.
It only says:
Rahm Emanuel testified at an election board hearing today that it was a mistake when he and his wife filed their 2009 income taxes listing the couple as part-time residents in Illinois.
Emanuel's tax forms are at issue in the hearing into whether he qualifies to run for Chicago mayor under residency rules, and attorney Burt Odelson pressed him on the question as he neared the end of 90-minutes of questioning this morning. The former White House chief of staff filed a correction with Cook County in November to get a homeowners exemption on property taxes at his house.
"It was prepared by my accountant. I signed it and gave it a cursory review," Emanuel said of the tax return. "We made a correction, having found a mistake."
| 170 |
areopagitica Tue, Jan 25, 2011 9:59:02am |
re: #169 Obdicut
Ran a search on the Tribune website, to correct my earlier contention drawn on my recollection, it appears that he originally indicated he had been a part time IL resident as he lived in Chicago prior to going to DC. After the challenge was filed with the city election board, he amended it to full time IL resident.
[Link: newsblogs.chicagotribune.com...]
more articles can be found on the Tribune's clout newsblog. My earlier link was for the homeowners exemption issue.
| 171 |
Obdicut Tue, Jan 25, 2011 10:19:20am |
re: #170 areopagitica
But he paid taxes like a full-time resident:
"The original return's statements regarding part-year residency were not accurate and were inconsistent with our continued payments of Illinois estimated tax, both in the original 2009 return and subsequently," the form reads. "The amended return makes clear that we were full year residents of Illinois in 2009 and it reports all of our income."
| 172 |
areopagitica Tue, Jan 25, 2011 1:32:04pm |
re: #171 Obdicut
the opposing side is/was trying to say the fact that the part time box was checked isn't meaningless and the inference is that if he wasn't running no change would have been made. From the appellate courts opinion, the payment of income tax doesn't seem to be an important factor. The argument isn't or shouldn't be whether he surrendered his status of an Illinois citizen (for voting). I think that question is making the story more nuts than it actually is.
I'm just more curious how he got a homeowners tax exemption on something that wasn't his primary place of residence that he was renting out while habitating a residence full time in DC. Those petitions come with an affidavit that must be filed with the assessors office. Maybe there is more to it that the Trib didn't report, I don't know. I moved out of Chicago a couple years ago to one of the suburbs but it's sad to see the city be in such a financial crises and the folks running for mayor seem to be a bunch of jokesters.
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ...
Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
March FavoritesYou've seen these all already but looking back, just because. These are my favorite shots of this last month. That 1937 Zeiss Sonnar is such a gloriously wonderful bit of glass. Thanks for looking.
William Lewis
Russia’s New Combat Robots Blown Up by Drones Near Avdiivka When we landed on the moon, I thought about how science fiction had become real. Now, the robot wars have begun. It's more poignant somehow on the ground than in the missile wars we have in the air as ...
Rightwingconspirator
Why Did More Than 1,000 People Die After Police Subdued Them With Force That Isn’t Meant to Kill? An investigation led by The Associated Press has found that, over a decade, more than 1,000 people died after police subdued them through physical holds, stun guns, body blows and other force not intended to be lethal. More: Why ... CheechakoKGxvi
Abortions Outside Medical System Increased Sharply After Roe Fell, Study Finds The number of women using abortion pills to end their pregnancies on their own without the direct involvement of a U.S.-based medical provider rose sharply in the months after the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right to abortion, according ... Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
