Rahm Emmanuel Back On Chicago Ballot

Filed in National by on January 27, 2011

The Illinois Supreme Court overturned the inexplicable ruling by the Appeals Court that Rahm Emmanuel was ineligible to run for mayor of Chicago. They also gave a little spanking to the Appeals Court.

Rahm Emanuel can run for mayor of Chicago. The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that Emanuel is eligible, overturning an appellate court decision, and ending months of legal back-and-forth.

In the decision, the higher court offered this criticism: “the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law.”

I know there are a lot of people who don’t like Rahm Emmanuel but that ruling was ridiculous.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cassandra_m says:

    That ruling was weird. That somehow you can retain enough residency to vote, but lose enough to not be eligible to run for office.

    In the Chicago airport this week, there were lots of Rahm for Mayor commercials. Nicely done and promising changes to the insider way business and hiring gets done in the city. No sign of any of his legendary misbehavior in sight….

  2. jason330 says:

    Fuck Rahm Emanuel. He squandered a mandate because he thought it would be more fun to punch hippies.

  3. Newshound says:

    This is Chicago for Christ sake! Did anyone really think the epicenter of Democratic machine politics was not gonna let our dear Rahm run? Supreme court, who cares? 150 years of Chicago state statute law? Whatever.

    It’s nice to have connections in town (Obama, Bill Clinton, Richard Daley, Axelrod, Jarrett, even Blago ;)) Hell, the Bush/Gore U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2000 took longer than Rahmbo’s legal stay.

    I wonder what kinda dead fish Rahm is preparing for the two appellate court judges who ruled against him? Snakehead fish?

  4. Jason330 says:

    What a dumbass. The Illinois SC is now part of the vast left wing conspiracy.

  5. The Illinois SC affirmed that you could serve in the federal government and still be a resident of the city. That seems like a no-brainer.

  6. Joe American says:

    There was really no question on this one, as I know from my many years living in Illinois. If the interpretation made by the appellate court had been correct, his vote cast last November would have been illegal, too — as would have been Barack Obama’s.

    Heck, down here in Texas, George and Barbara Bush claimed a hotel suite as their legal residence for voting purposes during his years as VP and President — and in 1992, the county Democrats rented the suite for a special Clinton victory party for high dollar donors.

  7. The fact is that Rahm rented the house out. That is why the appeals court was right and the Supreme Court was playing politics. Otherwise, he would be a resident, but he gave it up for greed.

  8. Joe American says:

    No, David — he qualified as a resident because he never intended to give up the residence permanently and always intended to return. That was the basis upon which my Dad voted in Illinois for two decades after getting his commission in the US Navy.

  9. Then why hasn’t he moved back into his house? Isn’t another guy running for mayor from that address? He had no issue until he gave up the house without a reclaim clause in the lease.

  10. socialistic ben says:

    Tell us RD, how do you feel about Tom Delay? Is being convicted “punishment enough” for that felon?

  11. Another Mike says:

    Good for him. Chicago can have him. He sure didn’t distinguish himself in the White House.

  12. Obama2008 says:

    Rahm is an effing retread.

  13. Joe H. says:

    “Then why hasn’t he moved back into his house? Isn’t another guy running for mayor from that address?”

    AS MOST OF US KNOW—he DID ask his tenant to leave, and his tenant responded by filing to run for mayor!

    “He had no issue until he gave up the house without a reclaim clause in the lease.”

    Interesting–I am wondering if there is anyone else out there who has ever heard of a “reclaim clause?”

    Meanwhile, back in the real world–what is the difference between denying Emmanuel the right to run for mayor, and denying that right to someone who has spent 3 or 4 years in the Marines but just returned to Chicago? Though you may not believe in his politics, weren’t both serving their country?

    Joe H.
    Stevensville, MD