Chicago Mayoral Race thread

[Jenksismyhero]

So, in other words, anyone who lives anywhere else for even a day or a week within the year before the election is ineligible?

 

I don't think you can "permanently" live somewhere for a week. I think that's an easy call for the election board and no one would fight it.

[Soxbadger]

I don't think you can "permanently" live somewhere for a week. I think that's an easy call for the election board and no one would fight it.

 

But the election board already determined factually Rahm resided in Illinois.

 

And what is "permanent", no one is arguing Rahm was going to permanently live in DC. He owned property in IL, he clearly had an intention to go back, his move to DC was temporary.

 

The question is was a temporary relocation considered an abandonment of his residence, which is a question of fact and was decided by the Circuit Court.

[Y2HH]

I don't think you can "permanently" live somewhere for a week. I think that's an easy call for the election board and no one would fight it.

 

I agree with this, and think that this is the problem.

 

I know by twisted definitions and lawyer speak (half truths depending on how you interpret them), you can make this sound good or bad depending on your opinion of it.

 

And yes, I think most lawyers are a waste of space...because they are. My evidence of this showing how much bulls*** lawyers are and how useless they are: Patent Law. MPAA. RIAA. Period. I win.

[Y2HH]

He owned property in IL, he clearly had an intention to go back, his move to DC was temporary.

 

Sorry, but you can't determine this. It's very possible he never planned to return and was waiting for the real estate market to rebound before taking a massive loss on a devalued property. There is no way to know if he ever "truly" planned to return, and saying so is merely conjecture.

 

I object your honor.

[Soxbadger]

Yes you can determine it, by affidavit.

 

You have Rahm and his wife swear under oath that they were going to return to Chicago. Barring the trier of fact finding that there was a reason to find that untrue or there being facts to suggest that it be untrue, it would be evidence which the trier of fact can consider.

 

The trier of fact considered all evidence and determined that Rahm resided in Chicago.

 

You cant determine anything, that is why we have a trier of fact, to take all of the facts and make a determination. The trier of fact has made a determination, at this point the upper level court is unlikely to disturb the trier of facts opinion, and instead is only going to look at the law.

 

So I dont need to prove it, as its already fact.

[Y2HH]

Yes you can determine it, by affidavit.

 

You have Rahm and his wife swear under oath that they were going to return to Chicago. Barring the trier of fact finding that there was a reason to find that untrue or there being facts to suggest that it be untrue, it would be evidence which the trier of fact can consider.

 

The trier of fact considered all evidence and determined that Rahm resided in Chicago.

 

You cant determine anything, that is why we have a trier of fact, to take all of the facts and make a determination. The trier of fact has made a determination, at this point the upper level court is unlikely to disturb the trier of facts opinion, and instead is only going to look at the law.

 

So I dont need to prove it, as its already fact.

 

They can and will lie, under affidavit, too.

 

Again, anyone with a brain knows this is f***ing bulls***...so stop. Rahm only came back BECAUSE Daley quit...you know it, I know it...so stop playing coy and stop feigning ignorance because you like him.

 

You CANNOT determine if he EVER intended to come back here other than asking him...and that's not proof at all, it's him covering his own ass in something he cannot possible get caught doing.

 

Insulting.

 

[Soxbadger]

And a judge can say that they think they are lying.

 

So if a judge has evidence to suggest that the person is lying, they will call them out on it. But there is no evidence Rahm is lying, in fact you wont even see that argument raised at all because its a terrible argument. Rahm owned a house in Chicago, Rahm left personal possessions in Chicago, Rahm testified that they would be returning to Chicago. The judge looked at the evidence and found their testimony CREDIBLE.

 

Thats it, its over, the standard to overturn fact is "manifest weight of the evidence" no way will the Supreme Court overturn the trier of fact on this issue.

 

So it does not matter what I can or can not prove, all that matters is what the trial court found with regard to the evidence.

 

I dont have the transcripts, I dont have the documents, Im not the one putting on the case. But objectively there is no argument in the appeal about whether he factually intended to return. The question is whether or not his absence made him no longer a resident.

 

Which has nothing to do with his future intent.

 

(Edit)

 

And your entire argument about him only returning because of Daley is also speculative and lacks any evidence. The judge clearly weighed both positions and found that it either did not matter, or that he intended to return.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Y2HH]

And a judge can say that they think they are lying.

 

So if a judge has evidence to suggest that the person is lying, they will call them out on it. But there is no evidence Rahm is lying, in fact you wont even see that argument raised at all because its a terrible argument. Rahm owned a house in Chicago, Rahm left personal possessions in Chicago, Rahm testified that they would be returning to Chicago. The judge looked at the evidence and found their testimony CREDIBLE.

 

Thats it, its over, the standard to overturn fact is "manifest weight of the evidence" no way will the Supreme Court overturn the trier of fact on this issue.

 

So it does not matter what I can or can not prove, all that matters is what the trial court found with regard to the evidence.

 

I dont have the transcripts, I dont have the documents, Im not the one putting on the case. But objectively there is no argument in the appeal about whether he factually intended to return. The question is whether or not his absence made him no longer a resident.

 

Which has nothing to do with his future intent.

 

(Edit)

 

And your entire argument about him only returning because of Daley is also speculative and lacks any evidence. The judge clearly weighed both positions and found that it either did not matter, or that he intended to return.

 

I guess it helps a bit if you're politically connected to the level Rahm is that a judge wouldn't be so quick to call you a lair, no? So in the case the judge thinks some poor shlub is a liar, he may be quicker to call him out on that than say...someone like Rahm who's bestest friends with the most powerful man in the free world. Though this is just me being paranoid, I assume.

[Soxbadger]

I guess it helps a bit if you're politically connected to the level Rahm is that a judge wouldn't be so quick to call you a lair, no? So in the case the judge thinks some poor shlub is a liar, he may be quicker to call him out on that than say...someone like Rahm who's bestest friends with the most powerful man in the free world. Though this is just me being paranoid, I assume.

 

Or you mean that Rahm is a respected member of society and therefore a judge is less likely to think that he is perjuring.

 

And who cares if Rahm is besties with Obama, it didnt get him s*** in the Appellate Court. Arguably the Appellate Court had more ties to Burke, the West Side, etc than Rahm. If you are going to attack the political motivations of judges, at least be consistent in saying that while the lower level Court may have been pro-Rahm, clearly the Appellate Court was not.

 

There is no way to prove Rahm was not going to return to Chicago, there are a few ways to prove that he was going to return. The evidence being what it is, I would say its more likely that he would return than not. Being as this is not a criminal proceeding and the evidence standard is preponderance of the evidence, the trier of fact most likely concluded that the evidence suggested that Rahm was more likely to return than not.

 

At the end of the day, some people will think Rahm being linked to Obama means he is a liar, some people will think that it means he is a saint. You hope that a Judge will look at the evidence objectively and make a ruling based on that. In my opinion the lower level court did not make a ruling that was so unbelievable that it must have been tainted by political affiliation.

 

In reality Alderman Burke has the more connection to most judges than Rahm. Burke is the chairman of the judicial slating committee. Burke is considered the "Rahmstopper", so at least we should be fair in our discussion, and consider that there may be some political influence on judges against Rahm.

 

At least be fair.

[Y2HH]

Or you mean that Rahm is a respected member of society and therefore a judge is less likely to think that he is perjuring.

 

And who cares if Rahm is besties with Obama, it didnt get him s*** in the Appellate Court. Arguably the Appellate Court had more ties to Burke, the West Side, etc than Rahm. If you are going to attack the political motivations of judges, at least be consistent in saying that while the lower level Court may have been pro-Rahm, clearly the Appellate Court was not.

 

There is no way to prove Rahm was not going to return to Chicago, there are a few ways to prove that he was going to return. The evidence being what it is, I would say its more likely that he would return than not. Being as this is not a criminal proceeding and the evidence standard is preponderance of the evidence, the trier of fact most likely concluded that the evidence suggested that Rahm was more likely to return than not.

 

At the end of the day, some people will think Rahm being linked to Obama means he is a liar, some people will think that it means he is a saint. You hope that a Judge will look at the evidence objectively and make a ruling based on that. In my opinion the lower level court did not make a ruling that was so unbelievable that it must have been tainted by political affiliation.

 

In reality Alderman Burke has the more connection to most judges than Rahm. Burke is the chairman of the judicial slating committee. Burke is considered the "Rahmstopper", so at least we should be fair in our discussion, and consider that there may be some political influence on judges against Rahm.

 

At least be fair.

 

Respected?

 

No.

 

Connected?

 

Yes.

 

Don't confuse the two.

 

When someone like Rahm falls from grace, he would be dismembered publicly and violently by the media which no longer sees need to kiss his politically connected ass in fear of what may or may not ever happen to them. This kind of thing happens often.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

Respected?

 

No.

 

Connected?

 

Yes.

 

Don't confuse the two.

 

When someone like Rahm falls from grace, he would be dismembered publicly and violently by the media which no longer sees need to kiss his politically connected ass in fear of what may or may not ever happen to them. This kind of thing happens often.

 

This is unfair to me to say with absolute certainty...as there is a degree in which everyone is respected, and a degree in which they are respected out of fear and their standing connections.

 

Obviously the man was respected enough to get to a point in his life leading to where he is, after which he gained the right connections and made the right moves, however, who knows if it's still out of respect or out of fear...but my bet is it's a huge combination of the two.

 

I do know, that like the Joker says in The Dark Knight is that people are animals, and when the chips are down...they'll eat each other. And in the political arena, this is even more true.

[southsider2k5]

So did the IL supreme court rule today?

[Soxbadger]

No they are waiting to hear what type of federal appointments they are going to get from Obama for letting Rahm on the ballot.

 

And by respected I mean that he has a former President and current President supporting him. Regardless of whether you agree with his politics, that is respected. I may not agree with an opinion of Scalia, but I could never say that he isnt respected. At the end of the day, most people in politics got there by being ruthless and using every advantage they could.

[NorthSideSox72]

That line "resides" wherever *I* say it resides.

 

You are now under my dictatorship. So whatever I say, everyone here agrees.

 

The answer is: 42

...and thanks for all the fish.

 

[Harry Chappas]

Chico is talking about lifting the Chicago residency requirement. This could impact the city very negatively.

[Y2HH]

Chico is talking about lifting the Chicago residency requirement. This could impact the city very negatively.

 

This needs to happen, though. My brother is a police officer in Chicago, and the areas in which he'd "want" to raise a family are very expensive for what a rank and file officer makes, same can be said for Firemen who don't work extra side jobs. The City requirement puts them in a position where they can forfeit living in a better neighborhood for savings, or the opposite, with very little inbetween left. For the older City workers that already own property it's a different story, but for new ones starting out on their 42,000$ a year, it's not so easy anymore.

 

Just outside of the City, however, he could afford a very nice home in a nicer neighborhoods.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

...and thanks for all the fish.

 

At least someone gets it.

[BigSqwert]

WGN hosting Chicago Mayoral Debate tonight

[Soxbadger]

Ruling was to be out at 4:45, so it should be in the news any minute now.

[Soxbadger]

Twitter feeds saying he is on the ballot.

 

Opinion is here:

 

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/Supr...uary/111773.pdf

[mr_genius]

Ruling was to be out at 4:45, so it should be in the news any minute now.

 

Emanuel won the appeal

 

http://www.suntimes.com/3521480-417/court-...n-election.html

[Soxbadger]

Supreme Court curb stomped the appellate court.

 

Did I write this opinion? Strikingly close to my argument about why the appellate court ruling would end in absurd results.

 

The difficulty of applying such a standard is immediately apparent.

For instance, consider a Chicago resident who owns a second home

in Florida and typically spends a month there every winter. Where is

that person “actually living” or “actually residing” during the month

when he or she is at the second home? Is such a person ineligible for

municipal office unless he or she sleeps at the Chicago house every

night for the year preceding the election? Is there a time limit with this

test? Would a week at the second home be short enough but two

months be too long? What about a Chicago resident whose job

requires him to spend extended periods of time out of the country

every year? Where is such a person “actually living” or “actually

residing” when out of the country? Assuming without deciding that

the appellate court was correct that the government service exceptiondoes not apply to candidates, consider the example of Representatives

in Congress who often spend 4-5 days a week in Washington. If a

Representative from a Chicago congressional district owns a

condominium in Washington, where is that representative “actually

living” or “actually residing” when Congress is in session? Under the

majority’s test, would the candidate have been ineligible to run for

mayor even during the time he was serving in Congress? The same

confusion would arise with respect to State Representatives or State

Senators who must spend considerable amounts of time in Springfield.

Applying the traditional test of residency to all of the above examples

leads to the commonsense conclusion that all would remain Chicago

residents even when away. Under the appellate court’s test,

considerable doubt would arise as to whether any of these people

could meet a residency test that requires one year of “actually living”

or “actually residing” in the municipality. Once the practical

implications of adopting a standard for residence that means “actually

lives” or “actually resides” are considered, one can readily appreciate

why such a standard has never been adopted and why the standard

used in Illinois has endured for well over a century.

 

 

[mr_genius]

Supreme Court curb stomped the appellate court.

 

Did I write this opinion? Strikingly close to my argument about why the appellate court ruling would end in absurd results.

 

yea and those are all good points.

[lostfan]

Well damn, the Supreme Court ruled 7-0. Not even close.

[BigSqwert]

Really enjoyed what I heard from Del Valle tonight.

Edited January 28, 2011 by BigSqwert