Well I am certainly no Rahm Emmanuel fan, but last night, I read the opinion, for and against, of the appeals court and, while I am no attorney or particularly skilled in legal language, I could not see how he was ineligible.
If he had been sent by an Illinois firm overseas on government business on a 2-year project or if he had been in the military, it would not have affected his eligibility. He maintained an Illinois drivers license with his chicago address for the entire two years, he went back to Chicago to vote, and he owned and maintained a permanent residence in Chicago even though, on advice of his insurance company, he did lease it out for awhile on a temporary lease contract. He even bought additional property adjacent to his residence in Chicago during the time he was in Washington. He was on record as agreeing to an 18 month or so tour of duty in the Obama administration and then he intended to return home. He rented his Washington resident on a short term lease.
I know its splitting hairs and all that, but it just feels unreasonable that a person would lose residency status in this situation.
And apparently the Illinois Supreme Court is reading it the same way I did.
Or they are all leftist puppets willing to overlook fine points of the law in favor of a favorite son.
Could go either way.
Well I am certainly no Rahm Emmanuel fan, but last night, I read the opinion, for and against, of the appeals court and, while I am no attorney or particularly skilled in legal language, I could not see how he was ineligible.
If he had been sent by an Illinois firm overseas on government business on a 2-year project or if he had been in the military, it would not have affected his eligibility. He maintained an Illinois drivers license with his chicago address for the entire two years, he went back to Chicago to vote, and he owned and maintained a permanent residence in Chicago even though, on advice of his insurance company, he did lease it out for awhile on a temporary lease contract. He even bought additional property adjacent to his residence in Chicago during the time he was in Washington. He was on record as agreeing to an 18 month or so tour of duty in the Obama administration and then he intended to return home. He rented his Washington resident on a short term lease.
I know its splitting hairs and all that, but it just feels unreasonable that a person would lose residency status in this situation.
And apparently the Illinois Supreme Court is reading it the same way I did.
Or they are all leftist puppets willing to overlook fine points of the law in favor of a favorite son.
Could go either way.
The thing is.... Rahm has pulled the same shinanigans on his oponents in the past.
Hell... look up his "dead fish" incident.
He's no angel.
Well I am certainly no Rahm Emmanuel fan, but last night, I read the opinion, for and against, of the appeals court and, while I am no attorney or particularly skilled in legal language, I could not see how he was ineligible.
If he had been sent by an Illinois firm overseas on government business on a 2-year project or if he had been in the military, it would not have affected his eligibility. He maintained an Illinois drivers license with his chicago address for the entire two years, he went back to Chicago to vote, and he owned and maintained a permanent residence in Chicago even though, on advice of his insurance company, he did lease it out for awhile on a temporary lease contract. He even bought additional property adjacent to his residence in Chicago during the time he was in Washington. He was on record as agreeing to an 18 month or so tour of duty in the Obama administration and then he intended to return home. He rented his Washington resident on a short term lease.
I know its splitting hairs and all that, but it just feels unreasonable that a person would lose residency status in this situation.
And apparently the Illinois Supreme Court is reading it the same way I did.
Or they are all leftist puppets willing to overlook fine points of the law in favor of a favorite son.
Could go either way.
The thing is.... Rahm has pulled the same shinanigans on his oponents in the past.
Hell... look up his "dead fish" incident.
He's no angel.
Well I am certainly no Rahm Emmanuel fan, but last night, I read the opinion, for and against, of the appeals court and, while I am no attorney or particularly skilled in legal language, I could not see how he was ineligible.
If he had been sent by an Illinois firm overseas on government business on a 2-year project or if he had been in the military, it would not have affected his eligibility. He maintained an Illinois drivers license with his chicago address for the entire two years, he went back to Chicago to vote, and he owned and maintained a permanent residence in Chicago even though, on advice of his insurance company, he did lease it out for awhile on a temporary lease contract. He even bought additional property adjacent to his residence in Chicago during the time he was in Washington. He was on record as agreeing to an 18 month or so tour of duty in the Obama administration and then he intended to return home. He rented his Washington resident on a short term lease.
I know its splitting hairs and all that, but it just feels unreasonable that a person would lose residency status in this situation.
And apparently the Illinois Supreme Court is reading it the same way I did.
Or they are all leftist puppets willing to overlook fine points of the law in favor of a favorite son.
Could go either way.
The thing is.... Rahm has pulled the same shinanigans on his oponents in the past.
Hell... look up his "dead fish" incident.
He's no angel.
Well I am certainly no Rahm Emmanuel fan, but last night, I read the opinion, for and against, of the appeals court and, while I am no attorney or particularly skilled in legal language, I could not see how he was ineligible.
If he had been sent by an Illinois firm overseas on government business on a 2-year project or if he had been in the military, it would not have affected his eligibility. He maintained an Illinois drivers license with his chicago address for the entire two years, he went back to Chicago to vote, and he owned and maintained a permanent residence in Chicago even though, on advice of his insurance company, he did lease it out for awhile on a temporary lease contract. He even bought additional property adjacent to his residence in Chicago during the time he was in Washington. He was on record as agreeing to an 18 month or so tour of duty in the Obama administration and then he intended to return home. He rented his Washington resident on a short term lease.
I know its splitting hairs and all that, but it just feels unreasonable that a person would lose residency status in this situation.
And apparently the Illinois Supreme Court is reading it the same way I did.
Or they are all leftist puppets willing to overlook fine points of the law in favor of a favorite son.
Could go either way.
The thing is.... Rahm has pulled the same shinanigans on his oponents in the past.
Hell... look up his "dead fish" incident.
He's no angel.
No he isn't and as I said, I am not a fan. But face it, we all are subject to a basic human condition to enjoy it when somebody we hold in contempt 'gets his comeuppance' or some such as that whether we admit it or not.
I'll admit I smiled when I first heard Rahm got booted off the ballot.
But there is the practical side too that objects to application of law one way to those you dislike and a different way to those you like. And I think the appeals court probably did get it wrong this time and the initial ruling and the Supremes' stay is correct.
A pity.
Well I am certainly no Rahm Emmanuel fan, but last night, I read the opinion, for and against, of the appeals court and, while I am no attorney or particularly skilled in legal language, I could not see how he was ineligible.
If he had been sent by an Illinois firm overseas on government business on a 2-year project or if he had been in the military, it would not have affected his eligibility. He maintained an Illinois drivers license with his chicago address for the entire two years, he went back to Chicago to vote, and he owned and maintained a permanent residence in Chicago even though, on advice of his insurance company, he did lease it out for awhile on a temporary lease contract. He even bought additional property adjacent to his residence in Chicago during the time he was in Washington. He was on record as agreeing to an 18 month or so tour of duty in the Obama administration and then he intended to return home. He rented his Washington resident on a short term lease.
I know its splitting hairs and all that, but it just feels unreasonable that a person would lose residency status in this situation.
And apparently the Illinois Supreme Court is reading it the same way I did.
Or they are all leftist puppets willing to overlook fine points of the law in favor of a favorite son.
Could go either way.
The thing is.... Rahm has pulled the same shinanigans on his oponents in the past.
Hell... look up his "dead fish" incident.
He's no angel.
No he isn't and as I said, I am not a fan. But face it, we all are subject to a basic human condition to enjoy it when somebody we hold in contempt 'gets his comeuppance' or some such as that whether we admit it or not.
I'll admit I smiled when I first heard Rahm got booted off the ballot.
But there is the practical side too that objects to application of law one way to those you dislike and a different way to those you like. And I think the appeals court probably did get it wrong this time and the initial ruling and the Supremes' stay is correct.
A pity.
The thing is.... Rahm has pulled the same shinanigans on his oponents in the past.
Hell... look up his "dead fish" incident.
He's no angel.
No he isn't and as I said, I am not a fan. But face it, we all are subject to a basic human condition to enjoy it when somebody we hold in contempt 'gets his comeuppance' or some such as that whether we admit it or not.
I'll admit I smiled when I first heard Rahm got booted off the ballot.
But there is the practical side too that objects to application of law one way to those you dislike and a different way to those you like. And I think the appeals court probably did get it wrong this time and the initial ruling and the Supremes' stay is correct.
A pity.
Residency is not the equivalent of owning property. It's very clear that Rahm moved out of his house, rented it out, and lived in the DC area.
But then, we know that Rahm is of the mind that definitions are malleable based on the expediency of the moment.
