Rahm Emanuel Case

[charlestudor2005]

I'm really no fan of Rahm Emanuel. I think he's far too Machiavellian and cares not for people. Piss poor human being IMHO.

Just got done reading the Illinois Appellate Court opinion. This is Illinois and Chicago we are talking about, so I'm pretty sure there's a lot of back room dirty politics involved. But the opinion throwing out Emanuel's candidacy is shit. It's so convoluted you can hardly follow it. It is even more convoluted when you compare it to the clarity of the dissent. Bottom line: his name should be on the ballot. If Chicago elects him, they deserve what they get.

[Bebe Le Strange]

Politics in my opinion are pretty much dirty and corrupt on any level and in any state. This is just a prime example of it, and I agree with you. I am not at all surprised by the opinion of the Appellate Court.

[I B Hankering]

Is it right? Probably not. Could it have happened to a “nicer guy?” Probably not. Karma is a bitch. - LOL

[discreetgent]

Wonder if Illinois supreme court will take the appeal

[coast_encounter]

IMHO "Rules are Rules". If he does not qualify for residence because he rented his house out while serving as President Obama's Chief of Staff then he should live with the consequences. If they don't like the rules/requirement then change them for next election. My understanding is that if he did not rent out his house and came back and stayed in it from time to time then he would have met the residence requirement and this whole situation could have been avoided. I don't blame him for trying to double dip and rent his house while he was serving. I probably would do the same thing myself. But is he had planned to run for Mayor the whole time then he was not very smart for not knowing the repercussions of those actions.

[macksback]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Is it right? Probably not. Could it have happened to a “nicer guy?” Probably not. Karma is a bitch. - LOL

Well said.

[I B Hankering]

I just read this:


Rahm Emanuel Back On Chicago Mayoral Ballot for Now as Court Issues Stay

The Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily put Chicago mayoral hopeful Rahm Emanuel back on the ballot, issuing a stay of Monday's ruling that the former White House chief of staff gave up his local residency when he moved to Washington to work for President Obama.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01...-as-court-iss/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Wonder if Illinois supreme court will take the appeal

I heard they took it....my guess is he will be the next mayor of Chi-town.

[discreetgent]

Best argument I heard in favor of letting him run: he paid Illinois and Chicago taxes both years.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Best argument I heard in favor of letting him run: he paid Illinois and Chicago taxes both years.

Hard to argue he ain't one of you when they have taken his money!

[discreetgent]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us...26rahm.html?hp

[WTF]

“In a circumstance where there is uncertainty” about the interpretation of an election statute, Mark D. Rosen, a professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law said, “basic democratic principles would suggest you would construe the uncertain statute to expand voter choices rather than contract them.”

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I just read this:


Rahm Emanuel Back On Chicago Mayoral Ballot for Now as Court Issues Stay

The Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily put Chicago mayoral hopeful Rahm Emanuel back on the ballot, issuing a stay of Monday's ruling that the former White House chief of staff gave up his local residency when he moved to Washington to work for President Obama.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01...-as-court-iss/

Originally Posted by WTF

I heard they took it....my guess is he will be the next mayor of Chi-town.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

Best argument I heard in favor of letting him run: he paid Illinois and Chicago taxes both years.

Originally Posted by WTF

Hard to argue he ain't one of you when they have taken his money!

Hard to find fault in any of that. Chicago is a town with a history of electing polarizing mayors. What's one more?

[TexTushHog]

Interesting that the statute uses residence instead of the broader legal term domicile. I haven't read the opinion, nor have I done any research on the statute. Clearly domicile doesn't require actual residence. However, under most State's laws, you can be a resident even if you rent your home or, as the first President Bush did, list a hotel as your residence. Residence, albeit to a lesser degree than domicile, is usually a matter of intention, not physical presence.

And as was pointed out, ambiguous statutes are usually interpreted to maximize voter choice in election law cases. Emanuel it seems to me could hardly be construed as a resident of any other State (or even the District of Columbia). His presence there seemed to clearly be temporary, as evidenced by his keeping ties to Chicago including his home.

[Mazomaniac]

As Tush noted, the vaporous concepts of residence and domicile basically leave it up to the whim of the court to decide these issues on a case-by-case basis. You just go in and tell it to the judge and see what kind of mood he's in that day. There are few hard and fast rules on this issue.

The most inglorious example of this was the fight over the estate of John Dorrance, the founder of Campbell's Soup.

When Dorrance died in 1930 he had two homes - one in Pennsylvania and one in New Jersey. He had lived most of his life in New Jersey but had recently purchased and started spending most of his time at the new place in Pennsylvania. He publicly claimed to be a New Jersey resident, but moved his household servants to Pennsylvania. He registered to vote in one state, but registered his cars in the other, etc.

As a result, when it came time to collect taxes on the estate both New Jersey and Pennsylvania ruled that Dorrance was domiciled in their own state. The estate was billed for estate taxes in both places.

They fought it all the way up to the Supreme Court which ultimately ruled that it was impossible to settle the dispute because the rules of domicile and residence were so vague that they could reasonably be interpreted differently by the two different states. In the end the estate paid twice.

Anything can happen in this Emanuel thing. It all depends on how the court's feelin' that day.

Cheers,
Mazo.