Court: Emanuel cannot run for mayor

B'bye Rahm. Take heart... I'm sure you'll land softly somewhere that will pay you more than the meagre 6 figure salary you got at the WH..
 
I guess I'll be the first to call the Illinois Supreme Court overturning this decision.

I'd agree,....if the Ill. Surpreme Court is even only 5% as corrupt as the rest of Ill. politics and politicans, he'll probably get appointed Mayor for life, with the ability to proclaim new law into existence.
 
Court: Emanuel cannot run for mayor

An Illinois Appeals Court has ruled that former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's name can't appear on the ballot for Chicago mayor because he didn't live in the city in the year before the election

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41235763/ns/politics-more_politics/

LOL...i called this one

If Obama doesn't have to be a US citizen, why should Emanuel have to be a resident of a city?

Isn't this a double standard?:confused:
 
on what basis do you predict this, the fact they are a liberal court? the majority opinion is dead on accurate....he didn't live there, period.

The Illinois supreme court doesn't give a damn about laws, rules, or their own constitution. This is the court that said 'subject to the police power' in the right to bear arms amendment could mean that the state could prohibit handgun ownership.
 
on what basis do you predict this, the fact they are a liberal court? the majority opinion is dead on accurate....he didn't live there, period.



If the statute said that he had to "live" there you'd have a point, but that's not what the statute says.
 
If the statute said that he had to "live" there you'd have a point, but that's not what the statute says.

"A person is not eligible for an elective municipal
office unless that person is a qualified elector of the
municipality and has resided in the municipality at least one
year next preceding the election or appointment ***." 65 ILCS
5/3.1-10-5(a) (West 2008).

...

Since Smith was decided, however, our supreme
No. 1-11-0033 8 court has explained unequivocally that "it is elemental that
domicile and residence are not synonymous." Pope v. Board of
Election Commissioners, 370 Ill. 196, 202, 18 N.E.2d 214 (1938). As the supreme court further explained in Pope, the legal concept
of "residence" requires a permanent abode.

...

As noted, the operative language at issue requires that a
potential candidate have "resided in
" the municipality for one year
next preceding the election. In its verb form, "reside" generally
means, among other things, "to dwell permanently or continuously
,"
or to "have a settled abode for a time." Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary 1931 (1993). The word is considered to be
synonymous with "live, dwell, sojourn, lodge, stay, put (up), [and]
stop," but it "may be the preferred term for expressing the idea
that a person keeps or returns to a particular dwelling place as
his fixed, settled, or legal abode." Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary 1931 (1993).

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/1stDistrict/January/1110033.pdf

care to try again?
 
Why would I care to try again? I'm right, you're wrong.

If the statute said that a candidate must live in (as oppose to reside in) Chicago for the year prior to the election it wouldn't have taken the court twenty fucking pages to determine Rahm was ineligible. Jackass.

you're such a pissy whiner when you're proven wrong....the court gave a long decision so that there would be NO question for idiots like you that he is not eligible....you claim reside is not the same as live...o'rly?

The word is considered to be
synonymous with "live,

let's see what a common dictionary has to say:

Related to RESIDE
Synonyms: abide, dwell, liveRelated Words: lodge, settle, stay; frequent, hang (at), haunt, visit; cohabit, inhabit, occupy; people, populate; lease, rent, sublet, tenant

-MW

the reason the majority opinion is verbose is because there appears to be some concern about domicile and reside. the majority opinion destroyed the argument and correctly held that under ILL law, they are not the same. so far you haven't given one little iota as WHY you are correct, all you have are ad homs and pissy little retorts....

good job nigel!
 
you're such a pissy whiner when you're proven wrong....the court gave a long decision so that there would be NO question for idiots like you that he is not eligible....you claim reside is not the same as live...o'rly?



let's see what a common dictionary has to say:



-MW

the reason the majority opinion is verbose is because there appears to be some concern about domicile and reside. the majority opinion destroyed the argument and correctly held that under ILL law, they are not the same. so far you haven't given one little iota as WHY you are correct, all you have are ad homs and pissy little retorts....

good job nigel!


Jesus. You really are an ankle-biting halfwit. How about we wager on this one? If the Illinois Supreme Court reverses this decision you are banished from this board for a period of three months and three days. If the Illinois Supreme Court affirms this decision in its entirety I am banished from this board for a period of six months and six days.

Deal?
 
Jesus. You really are an ankle-biting halfwit. How about we wager on this one? If the Illinois Supreme Court reverses this decision you are banished from this board for a period of three months and three days. If the Illinois Supreme Court affirms this decision in its entirety I am banished from this board for a period of six months and six days.

Deal?

that is some serious projection. you're acting entirely like an ankle biting yapper....you're doing nothing but yapping insults and so forth and now a dumbass challenge based on someone else's opinion

you can't defend your opinion, you have shit, so all you do is yap your little whiny bark and give absolutely zero debate

fuck off little toe biter, either man up and debate your opinion or stfu
 
that is some serious projection. you're acting entirely like an ankle biting yapper....you're doing nothing but yapping insults and so forth and now a dumbass challenge based on someone else's opinion

you can't defend your opinion, you have shit, so all you do is yap your little whiny bark and give absolutely zero debate

fuck off little toe biter, either man up and debate your opinion or stfu


Alright, make it a one month ban for you if it is reversed and a one year ban for me if it is affirmed in its entirety. Deal?

That's how confident I am that the court got it wrong. Rather than "debate" you on this point and responding to your circular reasoning, let's cut to chase. If you're unwilling to stand by your position, just say so.
 
Alright, make it a one month ban for you if it is reversed and a one year ban for me if it is affirmed in its entirety. Deal?

That's how confident I am that the court got it wrong. Rather than "debate" you on this point and responding to your circular reasoning, let's cut to chase. If you're unwilling to stand by your position, just say so.

so instead of actually defending your position with logic, you will throw out some childish challenge and hang your position on what a court MIGHT hold

yeah...all you've done is toe bite and yap, you haven't given anything of substance and there is no way i'm going to hang my hat on what the supreme court will do, i've seen too many cases decided wrongly to believe justice is perfect. but go ahead and yap you little annoying shit....
 
so instead of actually defending your position with logic, you will throw out some childish challenge and hang your position on what a court MIGHT hold

yeah...all you've done is toe bite and yap, you haven't given anything of substance and there is no way i'm going to hang my hat on what the supreme court will do, i've seen too many cases decided wrongly to believe justice is perfect. but go ahead and yap you little annoying shit....


Fuck it. If the Illinois Supreme Court affirms this decision in full I will never post on this forum ever again, a lifetime ban. If the Illinois Supreme Court does not affirm the decision you are banned for one week.

Deal?
 
Fuck it. If the Illinois Supreme Court affirms this decision in full I will never post on this forum ever again, a lifetime ban. If the Illinois Supreme Court does not affirm the decision you are banned for one week.

Deal?

LOL...still can't muster the courage to defend your weak ass position

reside does not mean live...lmao

you could have at least used the dissent to bolster your argument, but no, you'd rather yap like an annoying little dog than actually defend your position...why....because you know your position is flawed

i'll say it again, i will not make some bet or challenge over what some court MAY decide...you think citizens was wrongly decided, it happens and to make a yappy challenge instead of debating your position shows you're an intellectual coward and weakling

carry on yapper
 
Back
Top