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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah ok, thanks. I was posting from my phone earlier and hadn’t been able to look at the decision myself. Appreciate the clarification.
Well, they are using a stupid excuse to knock the front-runner out of the race. I’d be insulting them, too.
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:
flickster is right. And for whatever it’s worth, both judges who ruled against Rahm are Democrats.
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?
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.
Well, it just means Ed Burke holds more clout than Obama in local politics. 
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
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?
Does this make Obama ineligible to run for local office after his term is up?
They ignored half of the statute completely.
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.
Woo. That didn’t take long.
Can a state supreme court actually overrule a lower court by saying ‘Fuck you’?
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.
Moved to Elections from Great Debates.
When running for Mayor of Chicago birthplace isn’t important, but a minimum level of corruption is.