Harry Chappas Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 01:14 PM) Explain that please! Rainbow Coalition is pushing Braun and I think Watkins is a better candidate for them to be pushing as I pointed out earlier in this thread and Mary Mitchell seems to agree. The "black candidate" as the Rainbow deems her should be Watkins because in comparision she is a much stronger choice. Carol Mosely Braun has no business in the race, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 If there's one thing that everyone in this forum can agree on, it's that Braun would not be an acceptable candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Shocked by this ruling. I'd be more shocked if the SC upholds it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Going to be odd when the Illinois Supreme Court has to get involved. Alderman Burke's wife is an Illinois Supreme Court Justice. Burke has been one of the few Alderman against Rahm. Unfortunately the voters are going to be the ones who lose in all of this, because Rahm isnt a carpetbagger, hes just a guy who f***ed up on a technicality. The ruling is right, just in this incident the ruling is actually going against the spirit of the law. The law wasnt intended to prevent long time residents from running if they moved temporarily, it was to prevent people who were not from this area from entering a race at the last minute and trying to win. No one denies Rahm is from the area, its just whether or not he me the technical requirements. Worst case scenario for getting Chicago back on track is having second tier candidates as the only options for Mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The laws, the law, but common sense tells me that if you are requested to serve by the President of the United States, you shouldn't lose your "residency". Frankly this would prohibit any US Military Service personnel, from coming back from Iraq/Afghanistan and running for US Congress. What about someone who, like a Gabby Giffords, is being moved to Texas for medical reasons and may be there for 1-2 years. If she lived in Chicago, under the current law, could she not run for office again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 02:01 PM) The laws, the law, but common sense tells me that if you are requested to serve by the President of the United States, you shouldn't lose your "residency". Frankly this would prohibit any US Military Service personnel, from coming back from Iraq/Afghanistan and running for US Congress. What about someone who, like a Gabby Giffords, is being moved to Texas for medical reasons and may be there for 1-2 years. If she lived in Chicago, under the current law, could she not run for office again? Sure you should. Losing citizenship and losing local residency isn't NEARLY the same thing and shouldn't be compared. He didn't HAVE to accept the position with the President knowing it would take him out of the City, and when he accepted it he had to know it would remove his Chicago resident status. He accepting it knowing that and understanding that, considering hes a politician and they know these things. He took it because he didn't know Daley was going to leave, and when Daley announced it suddenly he wanted to come back. The sacrifice of staying is part of the entire risk/reward of the process. That said, I think he'll find a way to become eligible. Edited January 24, 2011 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 03:01 PM) The laws, the law, but common sense tells me that if you are requested to serve by the President of the United States, you shouldn't lose your "residency". Frankly this would prohibit any US Military Service personnel, from coming back from Iraq/Afghanistan and running for US Congress. What about someone who, like a Gabby Giffords, is being moved to Texas for medical reasons and may be there for 1-2 years. If she lived in Chicago, under the current law, could she not run for office again? There is an explicit allowance in most of those laws for military service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 This is Illinois, and a Chicago related political situation. If Emanuel doesn't end up on the ballot, it's because people in certain places don't want him to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 08:17 PM) This is Illinois, and a Chicago related political situation. If Emanuel doesn't end up on the ballot, it's because people in certain places don't want him to. This crap is so overblown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 09:04 PM) Sure you should. Losing citizenship and losing local residency isn't NEARLY the same thing and shouldn't be compared. He didn't HAVE to accept the position with the President knowing it would take him out of the City, and when he accepted it he had to know it would remove his Chicago resident status. He accepting it knowing that and understanding that, considering hes a politician and they know these things. He took it because he didn't know Daley was going to leave, and when Daley announced it suddenly he wanted to come back. The sacrifice of staying is part of the entire risk/reward of the process. That said, I think he'll find a way to become eligible. So what about becoming US Ambassador to China? What about an IT person, taking a "contract job" for 12 months in Dallas? Does a College Student lose their residency at home? Edited January 24, 2011 by jasonxctf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Residency laws seem a little outdated since I can be halfway around the world in about half a day without much effort and communicate instantly with just about anyone, anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) The intent of the residency law remains clear, its just whether or not the law is properly written to serve that purpose. You could easily have a law written: In order to be a resident a candidate must: A) Reside in the state/city for the previous year, B ) Have resided in the state/city at least 5 of the previous 10 years, or whatever you want it to be. That way some one who is not from around here, who just wants to enter the race at the last second would not be able to run. Conversely if I had lived in Chicago for the previous 9 years, but only left for 1 week, Id be okay because I fall in part B. No excuse for how badly laws are written in the US. Edited January 24, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 04:41 PM) No excuse for how badly laws are written in the US. Actually, one can probably give a very good excuse...the definition of residency has changed over the past few decades due to changes in travel patterns, to the point where laws written 10-20 years ago would no longer be as applicable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Horrible excuse. Residency should be defined in the statute. No excuse for having the most important word not defined and therefore relying on case law to try and interpret a word that clearly had a specific meaning to the drafters. Youll notice section 65 ILCS 5/1‑1‑2) (from Ch. 24, par. 1‑1‑2) Sec. 1‑1‑2. Definitions., defines 10 terms, yet does not define residence, residency, etc which should have been defined. You are leaving a term "residency" undefined, which can have different meanings depending on the law or interpretation. That is lazy. Had the word been defined in the statute, we dont have this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Chicago ballots ordered printed with no Emanuel The Chicago Elections Board on Monday placed an order for the printing of two million ballots for next month's mayoral election without the name of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel after an Illinois appeals court ruled his name could not be included because he failed to meet the residency requirement. Emanuel's team filed papers Monday night with the Illinois Supreme court to request a stay that would allow the ballots to be printed with Emanuel's name on them, according to the court. This is going to get even messier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Supreme Court Justices are in a dicey situation. These are elected positions and if you go the wrong way you could end up not being reelected. No matter what, the spirit of the law is being corrupted here. I dont think anyone can honestly say that this situation is the type that the law was created to prevent, unfortunately it was poorly worded and you get bad results. If Rahm isnt able to run, get ready for some bad times in Chicago because Im not sure that any of the other candidates are qualified, except for the fact they lived in Chicago for the past year. And is that really all that matters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 24, 2011 -> 07:28 PM) Supreme Court Justices are in a dicey situation. These are elected positions and if you go the wrong way you could end up not being reelected. No matter what, the spirit of the law is being corrupted here. I dont think anyone can honestly say that this situation is the type that the law was created to prevent, unfortunately it was poorly worded and you get bad results. If Rahm isnt able to run, get ready for some bad times in Chicago because Im not sure that any of the other candidates are qualified, except for the fact they lived in Chicago for the past year. And is that really all that matters? There ARE other qualified people running for Mayor, not just Rahm, sorry to break it to you. Before Obama, odds are you never even heard the name Rahm, and suddenly he's the only qualified mayoral candidate in Chicago because you say so? I think not. Rham sucks, and I hope he can't run so he can't win what would have been handed to him on a silver platter by retarded Chicago voters. This guy is a slimeball and as corrupt as they come. Edited January 25, 2011 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 01:33 PM) Before Obama, odds are you never even heard the name Rahm, and suddenly he's the only qualified mayoral candidate in Chicago because you say so? I think not. Y2HH, I know you can't help but be condescending, but everyone in the filibuster beside perhaps yourself, as this was probably just you projecting, had heard of Rahm Emanuel long before Obama. When he was congressman for the 5th he was routinely on meet the press and was a lot like Anthony Weiners position now, in addition to that he chaired the DCCC during the 2006 dem wave in the house. After that he became the 4th ranking Dem in the house. And this is if you hadn't seen him during the time he was an advisor to the clinton white house. He was one of the most visible dem politicians of the last 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 08:13 AM) Y2HH, I know you can't help but be condescending, but everyone in the filibuster beside perhaps yourself, as this was probably just you projecting, had heard of Rahm Emanuel long before Obama. When he was congressman for the 5th he was routinely on meet the press and was a lot like Anthony Weiners position now, in addition to that he chaired the DCCC during the 2006 dem wave in the house. After that he became the 4th ranking Dem in the house. And this is if you hadn't seen him during the time he was an advisor to the clinton white house. He was one of the most visible dem politicians of the last 15 years. Speaking of condescending...I too, know who he is, without needing you to post his resume. I'm sure he thanks you for that, however. He still sucks, he's still corrupt, he's still dripping with slime and I hope he can't run. None of this changes the fact that he's not the only qualified candidate. Edited January 25, 2011 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 09:23 AM) None of this changes the fact that he's not the only qualified candidate. Just out of curiosity...who out there are you thinking of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 08:27 AM) Just out of curiosity...who out there are you thinking of? That's an opinion I do not wish to share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 09:32 AM) That's an opinion I do not wish to share. You understand then that no one should give any credence to your belief that Rahm is not the most qualified candidate, since you're unwilling to make that case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 08:35 AM) You understand then that no one should give any credence to your belief that Rahm is not the most qualified candidate, since you're unwilling to make that case? You misrepresent what I said. I said nothing of most or least qualified as this is merely a degree of opinion, I said he wasn't the ONLY qualified candidate, and he's not. Edited January 25, 2011 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think Chico is your only other alternative. If Braun wins (and she's currently polling second behind Rahm)....ugh, God help us all. Every time that woman talks I feel dumber. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 25, 2011 -> 09:06 AM) I think Chico is your only other alternative. If Braun wins (and she's currently polling second behind Rahm)....ugh, God help us all. Every time that woman talks I feel dumber. The polls will drastically change if Rahm is out. I think a lot of his votes would go to Chico. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts