# Illinois Appeals Court Says Rahm Emanuel Not Eligble for Mayor **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 24, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817 "2011-01-24T18:30:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/21 "2011-01-24T22:12:47Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > If this is a victory, or defeat, for anyone (instead of a strict interpretation of the law), doesn’t that mean the judges are being activist? How individuals may interpret a ruling does not mean the judges are being activists. Theoretically, the judges are basing their decision based on the law. How others interpret that shouldn’t be any of their concern. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/22 "2011-01-24T22:14:52Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > I’ve seen this trumpeted by republicans (and some democrats) as a “major (or minor) defeat for the Obama administration,” my question is… Isn’t the court supposed to be entirely impartial? > > If this is a victory, or defeat, for anyone (instead of a strict interpretation of the law), doesn’t that mean the judges are being activist? I doubt that it is the judiciary themselves that are trumpeting their verdict as any type of defeat, but rather pundits, the media and SDMB posters. That in and of itself doesn’t neccesarily qualify their verdict as political activism. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/23 "2011-01-24T22:15:37Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > If this is a victory, or defeat, for anyone (instead of a strict interpretation of the law), doesn’t that mean the judges are being activist? Given that activist means nothing other than “came out with a decision I don’t like,” in any case where there are political overtones, judges will be being activist in some people’s eyes. ---
**Author:** ![Rusalka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecd19e/32.png) [@Rusalka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rusalka)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/24 "2011-01-25T03:06:03Z")
I have read and understood the opinions of the judges. If anyone is an “activist” judge, I would think it is the dissenter. She writes in very emotional and almost insulting language. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/25 "2011-01-25T03:10:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No. The ruling is limited to residence for the purposes of running for office under Illinois law. It specifically distinguishes residence for the purpose of running for office from residence for the purpose of voting. If it didn’t, they would have upheld the earlier ruling. Ah ok, thanks. I was posting from my phone earlier and hadn’t been able to look at the decision myself. Appreciate the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/26 "2011-01-25T03:20:30Z")
> [@Rusalka](#): > > I have read and understood the opinions of the judges. If anyone is an “activist” judge, I would think it is the dissenter. She writes in very emotional and almost insulting language. Well, they _are_ using a stupid excuse to knock the front-runner out of the race. I’d be insulting them, too. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/27 "2011-01-25T03:20:39Z")
> [@](#): > > I have read and understood the opinions of the judges. If anyone is an “activist” judge, I would think it is the dissenter. She writes in very emotional and almost insulting language. Er… what? I didn’t see anything more insulting than “flight of fancy”. Even if the dissenter was insulting, well, the majority opinion doesn’t make sense. I should note that Hoffman, who wrote the majority opinion, last ran for election as a Democrat. Anyway, dissenting judges often write like that. Witness Scalia’s dissents in… well, actually, just about any of them. Lawrence v. Texas is a good example: > [@](#): > > ``` > Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/28 "2011-01-25T13:30:00Z")
> [@Todderbob](#): > > I’ve seen this trumpeted by republicans (and some democrats) as a “major (or minor) defeat for the Obama administration,” my question is… Isn’t the court supposed to be entirely impartial? > > If this is a victory, or defeat, for anyone (instead of a strict interpretation of the law), doesn’t that mean the judges are being activist? > [@flickster](#): > > How individuals may interpret a ruling does not mean the judges are being activists. Theoretically, the judges are basing their decision based on the law. How others interpret that shouldn’t be any of their concern. **flickster** is right. And for whatever it’s worth, both judges who ruled against Rahm are Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/29 "2011-01-25T13:42:19Z")
Whatever happened to doing things “the Chicago way”? I thought Obama had all those shady contacts in Illinois politics which would allow him to fix anything? Or have the media and the internet been lying to me again? ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/30 "2011-01-25T15:06:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **flickster** is right. And for whatever it’s worth, both judges who ruled against Rahm are Democrats. And, for what it’s worth, three of the candidates still running in the election --who presumably want Rahm off the ballot – are Democrats. The chances of a GOP candidate winning in an election for Mayor of Chicago are about as good as my chances of being elected as President of the US. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/31 "2011-01-25T15:27:44Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Whatever happened to doing things “the Chicago way”? I thought Obama had all those shady contacts in Illinois politics which would allow him to fix anything? Or have the media and the internet been lying to me again? Well, it just means Ed Burke holds more clout than Obama in local politics. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/32 "2011-01-25T15:56:57Z")
This thing was headed to the Illinois Supreme Court in any case. There’s no way Rahm would walk away from a strong lead and no way the other side(possibly including Ed Burke) was going to let it stand if the appeals court upheld the county and election court decisions. If the judges on the court of appeals are elected I’d almost believe they did it to get their names in the paper. There just doesn’t seem to be much sense in it and they’re almost certain to be overturned, but it gets their names and faces into the news cycle. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Rusalka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecd19e/32.png) [@Rusalka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rusalka)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/33 "2011-01-25T17:01:51Z")
Why doesn’t the majority opinion make sense? They stuck with a strict interpretation of what was in the statute, confining most of their logic to what was within the statute. Can someone please explain this to me? ---
**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/34 "2011-01-25T17:06:58Z")
Does this make Obama ineligible to run for local office after his term is up? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/35 "2011-01-25T17:24:14Z")
They ignored half of the statute completely. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/36 "2011-01-25T18:11:24Z")
The State Supreme Court just issued a stay of the Appeals Court’s order according to WGN. They also are saying any ballots printed have to include his name. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/37 "2011-01-25T18:23:16Z")
Woo. That didn’t take long. Can a state supreme court actually overrule a lower court by saying ‘Fuck you’? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/38 "2011-01-25T18:29:19Z")
Sure, as long as they “reversed” too. A stay doesn’t mean they’re going to rule in Emanuel’s favor, though. It mostly just means the harm of leaving him off the ballot outweighs the potential harm of leaving him on it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/39 "2011-01-25T18:56:09Z")
Moved to Elections from Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817/40 "2011-01-25T19:04:10Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > It’s a moot point anyway, because Rahm Emanuel was born in Kenya. When running for Mayor of Chicago birthplace isn’t important, but a minimum level of corruption is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/illinois-appeals-court-says-rahm-emanuel-not-eligble-for-mayor/568817.md?page=3)