Rahm Emanuel knocked off ballot by Appellate Court

WLS Radio | 1/24/2011 | self

[Piranha]

I just heard on WLS radio in Chicago that the Illinois Court of Appeals (the second-highest court in the state) overturned the recommendation of the electoral panel and ruled that Rahm Emanuel may NOT be on the ballot for Mayor. They ruled that he did not meet the statutory residence requirement nor did he meet any of the statutory exceptions.

Wow.

[Vendome]

Oh darn.

Too bad, so sad.

[Kaslin]

Rulings here (PDF file)

[secret garden]

Bwa-ha-ha!

[Kenny Bunk]

Translation: George Soros had better get out there with some cash.

[The Comedian]

Has the judge received a Dead Fish(tm) from Rahm yet?

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[dfwgator]

“Well we’re movin’ on up....”

[blondee123]

Rahm gets thrown under the Zero's bus & now Illinois courts throw him under too!

Sucks to be Rahm!

[Abathar]

Sing it!! lol

[BradyLS]

Uh oh. A bigger fish is musclin’ in!

[Stosh]

Wonderful news - I just hope it sticks: that smug pr*ck has already been filling Chicagoland airways with his insipid commercials, and if I had to watch and listen to that crap for another couple of months, I’d probably kick off from terminal indigestion.

[jilliane]

ROFLMAO

[rockrr]

Drudge bannered the headline with a link to the sun times website. Brought it to its knees.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

I had to check three other news sources before I would believe this. How could this have possibly happened????

What scares me is there must be someone nastier, more corrupt and vile who the people of Chicago like better. Someone obviously exists who is even better at stealing elections, voting dead people, Alzheimer's patients and dogs than Rahm. That's really hard to believe.

[mancini]

Yeehaw!

[henkster]

“To me the killer was when he stopped paying Illinois income taxes.”

Agreed; that fact is what lawyer-types call “dispositive.”

[dead]

[Piranha]

The opinion is linked at comment 52 (I belive); possibly 62. My short-term memory isn’t what it used to be.

The first 25 pages are the opinion, and the dissent follows. The basis of the opinion is that the court distinguishes for residence for purposes of being an elector (i.e., a voter) and residence for purposes of being a candidate.

The state law was changed just a few years ago to provide that a candidate does not lose his residence if he served in the military, and the court held that by putting this into the law it creates an implication that people who leave for other purposes lose their residence.

The court noted that people have an exemption from residence if they are out of the county or the state on business of the state or the federal government, but the court added that this government-service exemption applies to voter residence but not to candidate residence.

The opinion is interesting in the way that the court parsed the statute from a legal-method point of view.

[ladyvet]

Yep, this is Chicago, there's something up that will probably be worse. But until Then...HA!HA! Rahm you stinking piece of feces!

[Cheerio]

The Kenyan to the rescue!!!

[Cheerio]

"Never let a good crisis go to waste!!"