Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Afternoon Must-Watch Videos: Quinn fires back at Chris Christie, Rutherford stands up for Illinois and Jaconetty tells it like it is
Posted in:
* 1:21 pm - From a summation of the latest Supreme Court order that has just been filed on the Rahm Emanuel residency case…
The petition to leave for appeal is allowed. The Court will review it on an expedited basis. The court will be using the briefs filed by the parties in the appellate court. No additional briefs will be filed in the Supreme Court and there will be no oral argument.
They’re obviously moving as fast as they can.
* You can read the order for yourself by clicking here.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:22 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 *** Afternoon Must-Watch Videos: Quinn fires back at Chris Christie, Rutherford stands up for Illinois and Jaconetty tells it like it is
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is interesting. No further briefs and no further oral arguments. The Court will rely upon what happened in the Appellate Court.
Having Kevin Forde argue the case rather than Michael Kasper before the Appellate panel may loom large, but who knows?
Comment by Honest Abe Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:30 pm
Let’s hope that common sense prevails and Eddie Burke can’t fix this one.Thank God for jurist like Justice Lampkin. Then we should change the law and write it as clear as possible.
Comment by mokenavince Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:33 pm
Frankly, I’m most interested in hearing from those who claimed yesterday that the Supremes would never hear this case.
For instance…
- John Ryskamp - Monday, Jan 24, 11 @ 6:28 pm:
They’re quite wrong if they grant this. The appeals court is correct: this is a physical presence test, not an intent test. Any other conclusion makes redundancies in the law.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:33 pm
Are you taking predictions on when they rule and what they say? I predict that by midnight Thursday he’s back on the ballot for good.
Comment by A.J. Feeley's Clipboard Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:35 pm
I gotta believe that if Supremes were going to keep him off the ballot they would have passed on this matter. (But it sure wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong about this fiasco…)
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:42 pm
MrJM, I think they realized that this is an important case which contradicts other appellate decisions to one degree or another, and introduces a new standard for the phrase “reside in.” I wouldn’t make bold predictions based on this move quite yet.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:45 pm
I’m a bit surprised at no oral argument. Shouldn’t the petitioner be allowed to argue why he believes the Appellate Court was wrong in its decision? And, shouldn’t the Respondent be allowed to argue why the Supremes should concur? Just askin’
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:46 pm
Well, although my reasoning yesterday was incorrect, I really didn’t believe the Supreme Court could decide NOT to hear this case. Now that the Tribune and S-T ed boards have weighed in, the Supremes found themselves on the hot seat. No judge wants to be on the hot seat.
And I thought most of those saying the Court wouldn’t (or worse, shouldn’t) take the case yesterday were channelling thier inner Burt Odelsons.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:48 pm
So everyone is going to start learning about who our SC justices are!
Let’s hope they see fit to save us from the Caleb Hanie and Todd Collins of Mayoral candidates.
Comment by R.P. McMurphy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:48 pm
Judges do not like to overrule other judges. However, they are political animals, especially here in Illinois. They had to take the case because of its importance, politically, but they will revert to type and not overrule the lower court. (Don’t forget the appellate court was not overruling judges, but board of election people).
I am glad to see them handle this on an expedited basis. I would like to see them hand down a ruling by lunch tomorrow, especially in light of the fact there will be no additional evidence and arguments.
Git ‘er done!
Comment by Cincinnatus Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:49 pm
===Don’t forget the appellate court was not overruling judges, but board of election people===
Actually, both.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:50 pm
Rich is right, this is one of those times if someone tells you they know what is going to happen, then they are crazy … This thing is wide open, with only one more inning to play…
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:54 pm
is it unfair not to have oral arguments?
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:56 pm
Rich - I have to say, the briefs filed on behalf of Rahm are quite convincing and a good synthesis of the law. I especially enjoyed the reading post page 14. Under the new standard our President would not be able to serve as mayor of Chicago because he did not “actually reside in” his Hyde Park home for a year prior the election.
Whatever the result, the Appellate Court acted in a manner synonymous with…silly.
Comment by GetOverIt Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:56 pm
I think it was Board of Elections (republican hearing officer)= ON the ballot
Circuit Court Judge= ON the ballot
Appellate Court= OFF the ballot
Supreme’s=ON (for now) the ballot.
My money says; 6 to 1 decision=ON the ballot
Bonus guess; we’ll know by 4pm today! Just in time for the 5 o’clock news.
Comment by northernwatersports Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 1:58 pm
===My money says; 6 to 1 decision=ON the ballot
Bonus guess; we’ll know by 4pm today! Just in time for the 5 o’clock news.===
Good luck with that …. I predict the winning Powerball numbers will be:
6, 10. 11, 25, 39 and the Powerball 22
As of right now, we both know exactly the same on our subjects …
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:01 pm
Agreed!
Hey! I play some of those same Powerball numbers.
That’s why its just plain ol’ fun guessing at any of the possibilities.
Comment by northernwatersports Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:06 pm
===Under the new standard our President would not be able to serve as mayor of Chicago because he did not “actually reside in” his Hyde Park home for a year prior the election.===
I don’t understand why the Rahm boosters keep trotting this one out as though it were a trump card. Even leaving aside the difference between maintaining a home in which you regularly sleep as Obama has done and leasing your home out as Emanuel has done, if that’s what the law says, that’s what it says. Where is it written that Obama has a sacred right to run for mayor and any reading of the law that says otherwise must be in error?
Comment by enn Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:06 pm
That was not intended as a prediction but an awkward acknowledgment of the inevitable political blow-back that will result from any Supreme Court decision on this hyper-political matter. In other words, if I was them, I’d try to duck this.
(And may I suggest, regardless of whether or not we agree with the ultimate outcome of this case, that we commentors agree to a gentleman’s moratorium on the phrase, “The fix was in!” I’ve been guilty of using it myself, but it is intellectually lazy and demeans the process. Of course if real evidence surfaces of an actual fix…)
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:09 pm
So how would they do this one. Do they go down to Springfield, get some Thai takeout and hug it out?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:10 pm
I feel pain for Justice Burke. From everything I hear, she’s an exemplary individual, but she’s in a no win position right now.
Comment by ChicagoR Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:15 pm
enn makes a decent point, but I think a better example of how twisted the ruling is would be a 21 year old kid who has spent every second of their life in Chicago (say goes to DePaul), rents an apartment, then leaves to be an intern for a Chicago Congressman in D.C. never stepping foot in Chicago for a year, then returns to be told he doesn’t fall in the service exemption and can’t run for office. We’re supposed to believe the city council meant to exclude pretty much everything but military service in the exemption? Plesae.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:15 pm
i like the hug it out idea in springfield.
Only it will be saputo’s takeout, not thai, compliments of a secret admirer from the 13th ward. gotta love chicago politics - never boring.
Comment by seriously? Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:17 pm
So since both Burkes are now deeply involved in this does this who thing cause the Sneed Singularity that begins the end times?
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:19 pm
Please stop assuming Justice Burke is automatically biased. Justice Burke is an intelligent jurist. And an exemplary individual. She also does not share a brain with her husband. She can think on her own and be neutral in rendering her opinions.
Comment by Justanordinarylawyer Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:21 pm
== Where is it written that Obama has a sacred right to run for mayor and any reading of the law that says otherwise must be in error? ==
Exactly. Even further, I think — as a matter of logic — that it actually hurts their argument. Why would we want someone who’s been in D.C. for 8 years to be able to parachute into Illinois and run? That example actually makes the legislature’s action — requiring more of a presence for a person running than just voting — appear to be one of reflection, not omission.
Seems like a classic example of “in Illinois, they’ll never side with a position that sounds vaguely anti-Barack.”
But I don’t think it helps, and that’s not even considering, as you noted, the difference that Obama didn’t rent out his house.
Comment by Corduroy Bob Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:23 pm
#
IF the Supremes go for this intention residency test how will the decision be applied to aldermanic elections in the future?
Comment by chimack Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:23 pm
=Even leaving aside the difference between maintaining a home in which you regularly sleep as Obama has done=
Last I heard the President regularly sleeps in the White House.
Comment by GetOverIt Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:24 pm
Snark
to wit: Rahm wants to be Mayor.
The Backshot - Ald. Burks would not like to see that happen.
The Upshot - Rahm is off the ballot
The Buckshot - Rahm got a Stay and is on the ballot.
The big question - How will this play out?
The flip side - Who will win this battle?
Stay tuned ….
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:24 pm
“Shouldn’t the petitioner be allowed to argue why he believes the Appellate Court was wrong in its decision? And, shouldn’t the Respondent be allowed to argue why the Supremes should concur? Just askin’” No. The Supreme Court will actually be reviewing the decision of the Board of Elections, not the decision of the Appellate Court.
Comment by Muskrat Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:24 pm
Oswego Willy, that was pure Sneedian gold.
Comment by Corduroy Bob Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:25 pm
Based on the idiotic arguments made at the Board of Election hearings and the Appellate Court the State Supreme’s made a good decision not to hear anymore lunacy. There is plenty already.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:26 pm
A literal reading of the Appellate court’s ruling would mean that a person can not go even go on vacation for at least one year prior to an election for mayor, because that individual would have not “resided in” the house during that time. Okay…admittingly off the deep end…I digress.
Comment by GetOverIt Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:26 pm
Corduroy Boy - Ageless and Pricess ….
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:27 pm
Does anyone know if the Illinois Supreme Court tends to be more of a strict constructionist court or does it tend toward more leaway from the letter of the law? If so, does it tend to run along party lines (i.e. Republicans strict constructionists and Democrats more leaway)?
Comment by centrist Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:27 pm
Ordinary lawyer: People darn well have the right to assume that Justice Burke is biased. No lawyer in recent memory has ever risen to our highest court with so thin a legal (and especially judicial) background. Quite a nice little late-in-life career she had her husband make for her.
She is in the best position here. She votes no, Rahm loses. She abstains, Rahm loses.
Comment by R.P. McMurphy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:29 pm
Oswego Willy, natch.
Comment by Corduroy Bob Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:30 pm
Well played …
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:31 pm
Appeal fails, 4-3 down party lines with Burke siding with the Republicans. Said it since Day one.
Comment by West Side Johnny Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:33 pm
If Ald. Burke can tell his wife how to decide the case, he has more influence in his house than I have in mine.
Comment by Anon for now Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:34 pm
An election lawyer told me yesterday that the Supreme Court could consider the case with or without issuing a stay of the appellate decision; and that a stay would suggest that the Court felt it was more likely they’d overturn the decision.
They could do anything, but this is evidence that for the moment, they’re favorably disposed towards Rahm’s argument.
Comment by irv & ashland Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:34 pm
I’m with R.P. McMurphy on the question of Justice Burke’s (potential) bias. That’s an issue that is fair game.
Here’s where I’ll differ - If it becomes apparent to her that at least 4 will vote for Rahm to stay on the ballot, so will she. It will put on grand display her extreme independence from her husband, proving once and for all that they do not share the same brain. And no, I’m not cynical.
Comment by Thoughts... Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:35 pm
===They could do anything, but this is evidence that for the moment, they’re favorably disposed towards Rahm’s argument.===
Evidence?
A lawyer you know might not want you to use the word “evidence” when that lawyer gave “opinion” …but good luck with that “evidence”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:36 pm
I’m not making any predictions, but it’s funny that so many are certain it will be a party line vote, save for Justice Burke. Even if Rahm is off the ballot, a Democrat will become mayor. Further, many view Rahm as the most conservative choice. So I don’t know what political benefit it would give Republicans to keep Rahm off the ballot.
Comment by chi Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:36 pm
I’ve met Justice Burke and discussed law with her. Exemplary individual and a very nice person: yes. Intelligent jurist? Not in my opinion. Exceptionally thin legal record before going on the bench? Yup.
With respect to bias, look at Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63, which requires recusal if a judge’s spouse has a more than de minimis interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:38 pm
Whether you argue in favor of ballot access or think politics will come into play, neither is relevant.
The Supreme Court will either interpret the Municipal Code the same as the Appellate Court or not.
Kaspar has argued the law is to be taken literally and intent is irrelevant for years. These actions have denied citizens hundreds of candidates for years. It would be good for these destructive actions to bite a big dog for once and finally fixed.
Chicago is a political joke. The voters need to decide, not appointed officials.
Comment by Barton Miller Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:40 pm
Power couple Ed and Anne Burke were seen eating some Yum-Yum soup at Gibsons last night after the Rahm ruling.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:42 pm
Snark
“Anonymous, I met with Anne Burke, I know Anne Burke, Anne Burke is a friend of mine. Anonymous, you are no Anne Burke.”
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:42 pm
Again, what’s the argument that the Republicans on the Court - especially if they are partisans - are all gonna side against Rahm?
Are they all secretly GOP fans of Carol Moseley-Braun? Or Gery Chico?
Comment by ZC Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:47 pm
Why, when I read “they’re moving as fast as they can” in relation to the IL Supreme Court, do I for some reason keep seeing Brian Urlacher being tackled by Aaron Rogers?
Comment by piling on Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:51 pm
While I hope Rahm ends up on the ballot, with no oral arguments, it seems as though Rahm’s side gets the last argument (their appeal to the supreme court) and the next to last argument (the dissenting opinion), which hardly seems fair to the other side.
Comment by Robert Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:52 pm
Today’s order not to print ballots without Emanuel’s name surprised me, but then yesterday’s decision overturning the election board’s ruling also surprised me.
If Bob Thomas & co. kick Rahm back on the ballot, this will end the most interesting week of the campaign. If they let the current ruling stand, this kicks off the wildest season since millions of Chicagoans learned Eugene Sawyer’s name.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:53 pm
Make the general assembly straighten it out. Rahm can run the next time, he’s young enough.
Comment by taxpayers Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:54 pm
ZC - mind you, I don’t necessarily believe these arguments, but here are a couple I’ve heard.
1) They may see it as a way to stick it to Obama
2) They may have retention races coming up and if so, perhaps a ruling in favor of Obama’s COS isn’t helpful in that effort.
Personally, I’m not sure any of that will play. Besides the fact that they may just rule on the law, there is the little fact that whatever the court decides will be precedent and lots of these cases come up every couple of years.
Comment by Thoughts... Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:54 pm
The argument that Republicans might rule against Rahm is a legal one not a political one. The key point of the majority opinion is based on legislative intent, and Republican jurist, on average, tend to defer more to it than Democratic jurists do. However, that’s just an average. I have no idea what these Republican and Democratic justices will do.
Comment by centrist Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:55 pm
OW — Agreed, I’m no Anne Burke.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:57 pm
I would argue if the GOP Judges want to ’stick it’ to someone, I think Ed Burke and his role in slating Cook County judges would be a better target than the President.
Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:57 pm
If Rahm is knocked off the ballot it would set a bad precedent, and we may never get another chance to elect Alan Keyes Senator from Illinois.
Comment by downstate hack Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 2:59 pm
Are Corduroy Bob and Oswego Willy “an item”
Comment by Juli Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:01 pm
It is highly unusual for the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on the briefs filed in the appellate court. I wonder if Burton O. will get a chance to rebut the legal arguments in the PLA. Probably would not have too much to add beyond what was in his appellate brief.
Look people, it is my belief that these seven justices rarely ever vote along strict political party lines. Someone smarter than me (and with extra free time) can easily analyze the splits in this panel’s opinions and crunch the data. I googled it to no avail.
Comment by Jake From Elwood Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:02 pm
===Are Corduroy Bob and Oswego Willy “an item”===
Natch.
To wit: There are rumors swirling that CB and OW are an item, but I am told this is not true.
“They are good friends, and enjoy each other’s company”
Stay tuned ….
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:03 pm
OW,
I don’t think you get it. Issuing a stay IS evidence that they’re disposed to overturn an order. They don’t have to issue a stay to take the case. The fact that a lawyer told me this just helps others understand it’s true. This is a commonplace of the law.
They can change their minds. But if they don’t think there is much chance they’ll overturn, they wouldn’t bother with a stay, even if they accepted the case.
Here’s a quote from an article on a recent same-sex marriage decision, explaining how it works:
“But he rejected their arguments that they were likely to succeed on appeal — which is a factor in deciding whether to grant a stay pending a later judgment.”
Comment by irv & ashland Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:05 pm
The Sneedification of this comment thread is priceless. Does anyone know Chris Kennedy’s reaction to this week’s events?
Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:07 pm
Jake — It’s impossible to run a statistical analysis on how Illinois Supreme Court justices vote, because they often do not record their dissents. In the past, justices often would not bother with the effort of writing dissenting opinions, either because of (in my view misplaced) concerns that it was better that the court appear unanimous in many cases, or because it would just be too much work.
Unless this practice has changed, it’s just another example of why Illinois courts don’t measure up to courts in other states.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:10 pm
Why do West Side Johnny and others think the s ct will rule along party lines? So far, every judge hearing this case has been democrat, and it’s 2-2. Also, I believe every mayoral candidate is democrat. It’s a leap to believe these judges will rule on political lines, and a bigger leap to conclude that all the dem will support Rham (perhaps with the exception of Burke).
Comment by The Dark Horse Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:10 pm
Seems like some here haven’t bothered to read the Appellate Court’s decision.
The military exemption applies to voting status and is not challenged by the Appellate court. The second clause has no exemptions.
There is a cite to a situation in 2007 where an Iraq war vet returned and was knocked off the ballot for the same reason. His legislator tried to enact a fix.
Should Rahm get an exemption that someone who is not a famous politician did not get?
As a matter of record, I think it is RIGHT that Rahm be on the ballot but it is not LEGAL.
As bad as IL is considered these days, it would not surprise me that we are not governed by the rule of law here.
Comment by Federal Farmer Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:11 pm
===I don’t think you get it. Issuing a stay IS evidence that they’re disposed to overturn an order.===
Sooooooo … if you issue a Stay, every single time you are going to rule on that Stay it will be permanent????
Again, good luck with that “Evidence” …
BLS -
Kennedy a “Rahm Guy”
Chris Kennedy was seen in the general 2 square miles of Rahm during some event that I got a press release about. Are they this/close to beeing seen at the same event?
Sneedless to say, I would not hold my breath….
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:12 pm
I agree with the logic that the stay signals there is at lease some support for overturning the lower court.
If Rahm is knocked off but his name remains there will be widespread confusion on election day. I suppose they could reprint if the ruling doesn’t take too long.
Comment by Federal Farmer Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:14 pm
===Are Corduroy Bob and Oswego Willy “an item”===
Methinks someone is smoking posies.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:14 pm
No sign of Chris Kennedy yet but Jay Doherty who is thisclose to the Kennedy clan has invited Rahm to speak at the City Club.
Comment by Juli Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:18 pm
One of the many factors the court considers in determining whether a stay is proper is whether there is a likelihood of success on the merits. So, does this signal is lean t
Comment by The Dark Horse Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:22 pm
Sorry- I got cut off. Does this signal a lean toward reversal? Maybe, maybe not. Likelihood of succes is just or of many factors.
Comment by The Dark Horse Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:23 pm
Don’t envite ‘em
Rahm is schduled to speak at the City Club. We hear that Ald. Burke will not be able to attend do to city business. Methinks this is not a coincidence.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:24 pm
The lyrics to Lady GaGa’s song “Bad Romance” could be modified to describe the Rahm saga.
Comment by Lady GaGa Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:28 pm
“The majority imagines that the Supreme Court did not know the difference between residence and domicile until it issued Pope … This is a flight of pure fancy.” B. Lampkin, Dissenting Justice, 1st Dist. Appellate Court.
A first year law student can tell you that a person resides where his actions signal his intent to remain with some degree of permanency. A person may reside in only one place, but may have multiple domiciles. The Appellate Court’s decision to ignore Emmanuel’s intent, in favor of a strict reading of the Municipal and Election Codes, challenges the fundamental principles of residency and domicile.
Ultimately, this is about the rule of law, not politics. Suggestions that some political calculus will prevail impugn the character of the Court and have no basis in fact.
Comment by Easily Entertained Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:30 pm
The Rahm Bin
Was that former U.S. Senate candidate David Hoffman huddled with the Rahmster at Gene and Georgetti’s over the weekend? Munching Sneedlings want to know.
Comment by Corduroy Bob Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:31 pm
Rahm-O-Rama
Is there a problem with Rahm’s residency and a possible run for mayor? Is there a movement afoot to knock Rahm off the ballot?
Stay tuned…
Dateline - January 25, 2011
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:39 pm
I just thumbed through recent Illinois court rulings. Dissents are rare and opinions are short, so I would not be surprised if they rule tomorrow. Also, at least recently, the balance between affirming the appellate court and overturning it has been pretty close to 50-50–so that doesn’t offer a clue.
Comment by centrist Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:40 pm
was the City of Chicago born under a bad sign? On Sunday we get Bearmageddon with a blue Monday. On tuesday we get non stop Rahm fest. It’s head spinning, although Rahm fest did take the Bears blues away. kind of like hair of the dog for a hangover.
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:49 pm
In response to anon above, the practice changed several years ago in regard to opinions issued by the Court. How each justice voted, whether or not they have written, is noted on each opinion filed. Also included is if they chose not to participate in case. It’s a pretty open book now.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:50 pm
Yup, “dissents are rare and opinions are short.” No heavy lifting required. When opinions are assigned at random in advance, only one Justice has to really grapple with a case.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:50 pm
Thanks, anon
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 3:51 pm
“A first year law student can tell you…”
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, “Now, go and find me a first year law student! I cannot make heads or tails out of this residency flap.”
Comment by Honest Abe Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 4:17 pm
so the Wall Street Journal has a piece supporting Rahm? did not know the combine would reach that far for him.
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 4:33 pm
Oswego Willie and Corduroy Bob, thank you for the Sneed fix. The Sun Times should not allow her this much time off. How else am I supposed to find out what Drew Peterson has been up to?
Comment by SR Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 4:41 pm
As one of the people who said I didn’t think the Court would take this, I stand corrected. (I also said I had predicted a Bears win). It’s only because of the high profile this has and the fact that they will have to stand for retention and the voters will remember if they ducked the case. If we were talking about a candidate for the mayor of Lemont, there would be no way. (No offense to the fine people of Lemont).
Having said that, I think the crux of the issue is if the phrase “HAS resided in” (emphasis added)in the Municipal Code has a different meaning than “resides” under the Election Code. The use of the former connotes to me at least, an actual activity, ie. living on a daily basis or at least having the ability to do so by having a habitable address, versus a mere legal status (”resident”).
I believe the purpose of the distinction (which may be giving the General Assembly too much credit I realize) is to prevent “carpet bagging” in terms of people who want to represent the citizens of a town, and to create a bright line rule rather than having it come down to debates about “intent.”
For the record, I don’t have a dog in this hunt. I don’t think Chico would be any better or worse than Rahm in terms of introducing some reform into Chicago and Del Valle has no chance either way. CMB, of course, would be a disaster.
Comment by McHenry Mike Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 4:44 pm
OW,
You also confuse the difference between evidence and proof. Sigh. As I said, it is evidence they’re favorably disposed. Just as a fingerprint at a crime scene is evidence that, in a vaccuum, tends to make you believe that someone was involved in the crime, even though there could also be other reasons that person were at that site.
There may be another reason the court issued a stay. They could also change their minds after considering more deeply. But at this point, in the absence of other signs, there is some evidence pointing towards reversal. You can say you think the evidence is insufficient, but you’re silly to say you don’t think it’s evidence.
Comment by irv & ashland Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 4:57 pm
Not guessing which way she’ll bounce, but I suspect Anne Burke has a life and career-sense outside her husband’s rather gritty political intrigues.
Get it? Forget it?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 4:59 pm
Good for the Supreme Court. No more briefs, no oral argument. What is there to say on the legal issue that wasn’t set out in the briefs submitted to the First District or brought out in the oral argument? Nuttin’, honey.
Comment by Kyle Orton's Neck Beard Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 5:05 pm
Keep in mind, Supreme Court Justices stand for retention once a decade. I do not think that an Illinois Justice has been made to step down since the late 60’s. Heiple probably would have been taken out by the voters, but he did not file for retention. I think most of the justices are fairly secure in their positions.
Comment by Abandon Ship Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 5:35 pm
Actually, Kilbride just survived a nasty retention battle and the terms of the rest are staggered. It would be interesting to see which justices have to stand for retention in the next election cycle.
Comment by McHenry Mike Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 5:50 pm
Goodness! Am I getting a lesson in the “law” @ Capitol Fax???
YOU are silly if you have any clue what they are thinking.
AGAIN, Good luck with your evidence, next thing you know, you are going to tell me Black Smoke at the Vatican means “there is evidence we may have a new Pope, so its not proof, but the smoke points to white smoke coming EVERY time!!!”
If they knock him off, was your evidence flawed???
Geez, when is your next “law” class. As Tom Cruise said in In A Few Good Men “you were absent the day they taught Law in law school”
Every Stay … EVERY Stay points to reversal…Doubt that!
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 6:08 pm
was the tenant on the stand? he was just on with Mary Ann Ahern talking about how Rahm wanted a cot in his basement. have we heard this before? how soon can this be over, whatever the outcome!!!
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 6:21 pm
Sneed had a blurb that claimed Rahm asked to live in the basement. Now we know who her likely source was for all those “Rahm’s tenant” stories. I tend to doubt their veracity given mr. tenant’s desire for attention. Even Burton Odelson seemed embarrassed by his client and that is probably pretty hard to do. Once questions arose about the fraudulent notary stamp and signatures submitted in his short-lived is bid for mayor, mr. tenant seemed to fade away. Is he back for another 15 minutes?
Now we’re off in the weeds… apologies to anyone I’ve bored.
Comment by SR Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 6:47 pm
@McHenry Mike,
Name me the last Supreme Court Justice who was recalled by the voters and provide me the year.
I cannot think of any in my lifetime. Two resigned in the scandal that related to horse racing track stock, but I cannot recall anyone voted out of office since the Constitution of 1970 was ratified.
Kilbride had to spend some money on his retention, but he won. He was targeted because he held what was formerly a Republican seat.
Comment by Abandon Ship Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 9:05 pm
Abandon: Heiple resigned rather than face retention. There were two Chief Judges of the Circuit Court of Cook County who failed to win retention in a row . I know, they both interviewed me for a job with the public defender the year the first one was booted. Chicago voters who back Rahm might be able to remember for one year if he is knocked off the ballot and one of the First District Supremes is up.
Comment by McHenry Mike Tuesday, Jan 25, 11 @ 10:29 pm
Easily Entertained - you got it backwards. You can have many residences but only one domicile.
Courts have pretty much always tested “residence” in the voting context using domicile standards
Comment by titan Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 8:06 am
How do the committee chairmanships work? Does the mayor decide those, or is it just a straight vote of the city council? Just wondering how Burke will deal with it if Rahm wins…
Comment by Jeff Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 9:52 am
Jeff, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, Chicago is a weak mayor/strong council form of government. The City Council organizes itself.
Daley made the council his lapdog over the years through a combination of methods. I doubt very much the next mayor will have that kind of power right out of the box.
Remember Council Wars, the Vrdolyak 29 and the Washington 21.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 10:01 am
Thanks — I did know that it’s “weak mayor”, but I also have heard rumblings about Burke being ousted as Finance chair. So I guess it depends how much turnover there is on the Council…
Comment by Jeff Wednesday, Jan 26, 11 @ 10:11 am