Chicago Tribune: How Dare Judges Ignore Precedent And Use The Actual Law!

The Chicago Tribune editorial board is in high dudgeon over “Judicial Arrogance”

With startlingly arrogance and audaciously twisted reasoning, two appellate judges ignored more than 100 years of legal precedent, invented a new definition of “residency” and ordered Rahm Emanuel.

Yeah, how dare they ignore what the actual City of Chicago law actually says, as I mentioned back in October. You’d think they had invented a constitutional right to abortion on demand out of thin air or something…….oh.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Chicago Tribune: How Dare Judges Ignore Precedent And Use The Actual Law!”

  1. gitarcarver says:

    And Rahm Emanuel’s appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court has been granted on an expedited basis.

    The Court won’t hear any arguments, or accept any new briefs, but rely on the transcript and the briefs that have already been filed in the case.

  2. captainfish says:

    When you create stupid people in the public school system, you get stupid people in the law schools. If your selection base if full of stupid people who went to dumbed down law school, you get stupid judges with a bias towards a certain anti-constitution\anti-established law belief system.

    I was amazed from the git-go that he was even allowed to register to vote and get on the ballot in the first place. Once that happened, all this other stuff is just noise to gain him public relations.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    ……anti-constitution\anti-established law belief system.

    Can you explain this a little bit? The US Constitution does not have anything to do with an election of a mayor of a city other than age and US residency / citizen issues. The US Constitution has nothing to do with the eligibility of determining a residence of a state or municipality.

    Are you therefore talking about the Constitution of Illinois? If that is the case, the Illinois Constitution clearly allows Emmanual to vote in the election. There is no doubt about that at all. Even the decision of the Court says that Emmanual is eligible to vote under the residency exception.

    The issue is whether he may be a candidate in the election.

    I would have thought that the ability to vote and the ability to be a candidate are the same. In other words, if one is eligible to vote, absent of any qualifications (such as the age requirement for being the President) a person that can vote can run for office.

    Despite what the opinion piece has said, the decision rendered by the court makes a compelling argument that for the purposes of residency, the statutes define residency differently for voting and for being a candidate.

    The dissenting judge is the one that goes off the deep end a little bit. They argue that the residency issue is the same without any precedent or citation of law other than citing voting residency cases.

    The decision is a fascinating read and involves a lot of splitting of legal hairs. The decision can be found here in case anyone wants to read it:

  4. captainfish says:

    Hey GC,
    My comment was based on the liberals in general hating the US constitution, and it would appear many judges as well, which is the basis for many of our laws.

    I don’t understand how he could be eligible to vote first and then be allowed to register as a candidate second.

    I understand you can do absentee ballot voting, but that means one still has to have a residence. As I understand it, he did not. Didn’t he rent out his house? That means, he left town. And, if he didn’t live there, he can’t vote there. And, if he hasn’t lived there, then he can’t be a candidate.

    No, sorry, I didn’t read your link so i may be blowing in the wind with regard to Chicago law. Granted though, Chicago, as many primarily LIB\DEM-run cities, rarely follow any form of established law, especially with regards to voting laws\rules\regulations.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    Howdy Cap’n,

    I am not defending Emanuel. I want to make that clear. I am going to defend the ruling by this appeals court. Although I think I will likely be overturned in the Illinois Supreme Court on a political basis, rather than the law.

    First, Emanuel had been a resident of Chicago since 1998.

    You are correct about the house. The house was rented when Emanuel left to be the Chief of Staff at the White House. At the time he left, there is no doubt that he was 1) eligible to vote and 2) eligible to run for office in the city of Chicago.

    You would normally be right about him not living at the house or maintaining a residence in Chicago. However, the Illinois Constitution makes the same exceptions to residency when it comes to VOTING. (Please remember that for the purpose of the opinion, these judges make a distinction between voting eligibility and candidacy eligibility. It is a distinction within the law.)

    For VOTING eligibility, a person can maintain the right to vote based on two exceptions. The first is “intent to return.” This would be for a lot of people that still maintain houses but travel south for the winter, or serve in the military. If they show an “intent to return” to the voting area, they remain eligible to vote. Emanuel did this. He left the area to work in Washington, renting a house there, not selling his house in Chicago and returning to Chicago after 9 months.

    The other exception is the “service to the state or United States.” This means that if someone has to go out of the area because of government or military service, they may still vote in the area. Emanuel met that criteria as serving as the President’s Chief of Staff is considered service to the country.

    There is no doubt that Emanual was and is eligible to vote. He meets both exceptions for voting eligibility.

    The difficulty comes in candidacy eligibility. The Illinois Constitution says to be a candidate, he must LIVE within the area for 1 year prior to the election.

    The Board of Elections and a lower court ruled that voter eligibility and candidacy eligibility should be the same thing. This is the same thing the dissenting judge on the appeals court says.

    However, in the opinion, which is really a good read, the the majority judges look at the intent of the law, the language of the law and the practical impact of the law.

    In doing, they come to the conclusion that the legislature meant for voter eligibility and candidate eligibility are two separate things as designated by the legislature.

    The basis of the exceptions are those who serve in the military. We (as a nation) send them out to protect the country and away from their homes. In some cases, they have no other “home” but base housing so when they are deployed, they have no residence. So the exception was carved into the law. It allow people serving the country to continue to vote in the place of their last residence as long as they are either serving the country OR show an “intent to return” to the area.

    The candidacy eligibility is a little different in that it it requires the person – even if they show an intent to return or were away due to service of the country – to meet the eligibility requirement of one year of being in the area physically.

    The logic behind this is plain, good ol’ fashioned, smart thinking. A person may vote because they may be familiar with the person and the issues upon which they are voting. But to be a candidate, the law reasons you must know the PEOPLE your are going to represent. Thus, the requirement that you live in the area for one year.

    The left is hitting the fact that the majority say that there is no precedence for their ruling. They are correct. There isn’t any. That is because the issue never came up before. What had come up before were two cases that looked at “intent to return” and “service to country” as separate issues. No one ever combined the two before this.

    In the separate cases, the court in the first case held that “intent to return” was not sufficient. In regards to “service to the country,” they held that it too was not sufficient to overturn the 12 month residency requirement. There was no singular precedent, so the court combined two precedents into one.

    As I said, I have a feeling that this will get overturned in the Illinois Supreme Court simply on the basis of politics. It is a shame too. This is one of those issues where the intent as well as the letter of the law is known and the Court may overrule the legislature in a case of judicial advocacy of the worst kind.

  6. captainfish says:

    Yeah, based on that he is eligible to vote. Though, I would consider military service completely different than WORKING for the whitehouse. But, that’s me.

    And I fear that as well GC. That politics will make law. Just like what happened… was it in Minnesota years ago where a candidate was allowed to get on the ballot LONG AFTER the deadline. The judge ruled that since there was no D candidate otherwise, that would destroy the two-party voting system. This of course, ignored the fact that there were 2-3 other parties on the ticket as well.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Though, I would consider military service completely different than WORKING for the whitehouse. But, that’s me.

    Yeah, initially I felt the same way. I think my feeling was based more on my opinion of Obama and Emanual than fairness.”

    “Service” may not qualify for the exemption, but certainly the included “business of the state or United States” qualifies for the exemption.

    If a person gets sent overseas as an ambassador, or foreign service why shouldn’t they vote in the election of the area they come from?

    I can see the point that serving in the White House satisfies service and the business of the United States.

  8. captainfish says:

    Ok. I see your point. Hadn’t considered the role of Ambassadors. And as such, must also consider the service of Whitehouse civilians as well.


Pirate's Cove