Rahm back on...

So sorry to interfere with your perpetual somnambulant state, jilly. Perhaps another dose of Oprah will restore it.

you know, i've never watched oprah.

but i do get bored by self-important pseudo-intellectual trolls like you, boebitcha. *shrug*


I doubt that very much. But if it makes your life endurable, knock yourself out.

you can 'doubt' whatever you want while you stuff bon bons into your face.

but don't attribute your foibles to me.
 
So sorry to interfere with your perpetual somnambulant state, jilly. Perhaps another dose of Oprah will restore it.

you know, i've never watched oprah.

but i do get bored by self-important pseudo-intellectual trolls like you, boebitcha. *shrug*


I doubt that very much. But if it makes your life endurable, knock yourself out.

Are you really a troll that somehow slipped through our very own Kristallnacht ? :eek:

If so I'm really supposed to report you :eusa_whistle:

Laws, lawyers and judges. Through them all out when big boys and girls play.
 
Rahmbo should have registered his car in D.C. within 30 days of moving there....per Washington D.C. DMV requirements....was he breaking D.C. law....?
And if so was he illegally using his IL driver's license to vote in Illinois as he claims he did....?

Washington DC Car Registration Guide - Renewals, Changing States, New Vehicle Purchases, Non Operational - DMV Guide

His argument is that he never moved there. He only worked there. He says he never moved out of Illinois.
 
rahm is as much a resident of illinois as any congressman who is in DC.

i'm not quite sure why anyone would prefer mosely braun... or is it that it's rahm, so it doesn't matter who gets the mayoralty as long as it isn't him?

Rahm was not elected and go to DC to serve the people of Illinois. He went to serve at the request of Obama. Big difference in my opinion. But if the statute reads as it has been explained in this thread he will win the decision.

The statute reads literally in a way that compels that Rahm get removed from the ballot.

But he won't.

It's as good as a done deal. Rahm will prevail NOT because the statute authorizes that result. It plainly does not. Rahmbo will win because the Illinois Supreme Court will CHOOSE to "interpret" the words of the statute -- that requires no interpretation -- in a way that determines that outcome.

I am very pleased that I am not a Chicagoan on this fine day. My sympathies go out to Chicagoans (even if they happen to like THIS outcome). For they live in a fantasy world where legislation doesn't mean what it says. And there is damn little security in the rule of law when it can be so cavalierly ignored by the very bodies which are supposed to give the law proper effect.

Umm.... Judges are allowed to interpret the law as they see fit. And they usually use evidence from whichever side they agree with or had the most compelling argument. That is what law is. Their are no activist judges, only judges you don't agree with.
 
The Illinois Supreme Court has just issued a stay of the appeals court's order knocking Rahm Emanuel off the ballot and directing the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners to restore his name to the ballot.

First Read - Ill. court issues stay; Rahm back on the ballot

To hell with the rules!

Rules don't seem to count during the reign of Obama.I was shocked when they first made the correct decision to drop him from the ballot and was wondering how they could find a way to get him back on.You just had to know since he's the President's butt buddy they would take care of him.:doubt:
 
rahm is as much a resident of illinois as any congressman who is in DC.

i'm not quite sure why anyone would prefer mosely braun... or is it that it's rahm, so it doesn't matter who gets the mayoralty as long as it isn't him?

Not quite a solid analogy. For -- very often -- when a Congressperson moves to D.C., he (or she) leaves his spouse and children behind to "live" at "home."

Rahmbo?

No.

Not so much.


* * * *

So while plenty of political people go to work in Washington, D.C., or business people go spend weeks in New York or other places, they have to come home pretty regularly to qualify under that standard, the experts say.

"When he was a congressman, his wife and family lived here, and he would fly home on the weekends," Nally said. "He had a place to sit on the sofa, to keep a toothbrush."

But when Emanuel agreed to become chief of staff, the family moved out to D.C. and the home was rented out to another family that now refuses to break the lease and clear the way for Emanuel to move back in. Emanuel could come back to Chicago to vote, but he could not stop at the house he owns on his way to the polling place, and that does not meet the residency test to run for mayor, Nally said.

* * * *
-- Rahm Emanuel: Experts say not a legal resident of Chicago, cannot run for mayor - Lynn Sweet

Not to worry. This is Chicago we're talkin' about. Words have no fixed meaning.

rahm didn't have to. his constituent was in D.C.

did he keep paying taxes to chicago? kept a residence?

i find that b/c all i've heard is a lot of rightwingnut noise for the past two years, i don't really pay attention to much that's said by them about anyone on the other side of the aisle. *shrug*

why did his original 2009 tax return state he was only a resident of illinoise until june 30, 2009?
 
Rahm was not elected and go to DC to serve the people of Illinois. He went to serve at the request of Obama. Big difference in my opinion. But if the statute reads as it has been explained in this thread he will win the decision.

The statute reads literally in a way that compels that Rahm get removed from the ballot.

But he won't.

It's as good as a done deal. Rahm will prevail NOT because the statute authorizes that result. It plainly does not. Rahmbo will win because the Illinois Supreme Court will CHOOSE to "interpret" the words of the statute -- that requires no interpretation -- in a way that determines that outcome.

I am very pleased that I am not a Chicagoan on this fine day. My sympathies go out to Chicagoans (even if they happen to like THIS outcome). For they live in a fantasy world where legislation doesn't mean what it says. And there is damn little security in the rule of law when it can be so cavalierly ignored by the very bodies which are supposed to give the law proper effect.

Umm.... Judges are allowed to interpret the law as they see fit. And they usually use evidence from whichever side they agree with or had the most compelling argument. That is what law is. Their are no activist judges, only judges you don't agree with.

Uhm. No. That kind of abject ignorance is the kind of pure unadulterated bullshit expected from liberals.

But you are entirely and flatly wrong.

Judges are NOT, in fact, "allowed" to interpret jack shit unless there is a valid basis to invoke a need to "interpret."

Where, as here, the law itself is not in the slightest tiniest littlest way unclear or ambiguous, there is no room for "interpretation." That's just liberal horseshit.

There are indeed activist judges. And they are most recognizable when they falsely claim a need to interpret something that requires no interpretation. There is, in this case, not the slightest thing ambiguous about the law. The Rahmbo supporters are just not fond of the FACT that the law stands in his way.

Too fucking bad. If the people don't like the fact that the law is written (with great precision in fact) in a way that prevents Rahmbo from LEGITIMATELY being a mayoral candidate this election cycle, they may (when the time comes) seek to have that law re-written.

But here's another hint that you are full of shit: the ones who write and re-write such legislation LEGITIMATELY are not called "judges." They are called "legislators." You could look it up! When judges claim the powers properly granted to the LEGISLATIVE Branch, those judges are transgressing their bounds and violating our laws.
 
Last edited:
The big mystery is what do subsection (c) of Section 3.1-20-25, subsection (b) of Section 3.1-25-75, Section 5-2-2, or Section 5-2-11 say?

A good question.

Not sure it matters, I see the words active duty military. That is a very specific qualification. "A person", which is what Emanuel is, MUST reside in the city. Unless the sections you mention shed some light.

Nope...I just looked up those sections and they discuss what happens when a new ward or district is created from scratch (thus the residency requirement is difficult to determine)

Looks like this is a win for Conservative America.

American Conservatives - 1
American Liberals - 0

Then Rahm fails, because he clearly fits the definition of a person versus an active duty military. Granting government appointees special status in political campaigns is dangerous territory. You have to wonder why Daily didn't consult with the White House in advance of his announcement, if he was going to support Emanuel.
 

Forum List

Back
Top