Rahm Emuanel gets taken out by courts

United States
January 24, 2011 1:26pm CST
The courts just kicked Rahm Emanuel off the Chicago mayoral ballot. Why? Because accoriding to their laws you have to actually LIVE in the city for a year to qualify to run. Well Rahm was not living in Chicago for the past year....he has been in Washington DC. Of course Rahm is going to appeal. But the election is coming up real fast (Feb 22)...so he may not be able to get back on the ballot in time. So who thinks Rahm is going to take this lying down? WHo thinks he is going to pull out some good old fashion "chicago" style politics to get himself back on the ballot? Not to judges.....if there is a shower at the courthouse...don't use it....Rahm has a habit of assaulting people in showers. Also...don't be surprised if you get a dead fish mailed to you. Tell me how you think this is going end.
3 people like this
7 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
25 Jan 11
Lol! Sounds like he got "Chicagoed" right off the ballot. I can't help, but laugh since this is Chicago politics as usual. For those unaware, Obama used far more shady tactics to get his own opponents off the ballot when he ran for senator including challenging one candidate's eligibility (and succeeding)because some of the required signatures on his forms were printed rather than in cursive.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
25 Jan 11
Yup, and she was the incumbent I think. In total if memory serves he "Chicagoed" four people off the ballot to run unopposed for the nomination and had his goons dig up a scandal on his republican opponent so he didn't have any serious republican opposition (Alan Keyes joined at the last minute).
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Jan 11
Yep..and if memory serves me right...the incumbent was wayyyy ahead in the polls when he "chicagoed" her. By hook or by crook....as I have said many times. Sure am glad I don't live in Chicago.
• United States
25 Jan 11
Yep...your right. He got one candidate kicked off the ballot because she filed a day or two late didn't he?
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
24 Jan 11
Yupps!! He states he'll appeal to the Sup.Ct. of IL! Let's see how his rights to a day in court(s) is as supported as "all" those republicans who availed themselves of court pleadings re: political matters were! Who knows how it may end ... I do think he'll be successful though.
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Jan 11
I think he will successed too...by hook or by crook. That is how is rolls.
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Jan 11
sorry...it should be that is how he rolls. I am laughing too hard at the irony of the situation to type right.
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
24 Jan 11
I'm not completely sure about how this lower court ruled as it did, or that IL residency law states that one must "live" there for 1 yr prior to being placed on the ballots or maintain residency for 1 yr. Rahm's defense is that he has maintained residency and has paid IL taxes at his residence in Chicago. We'll wait to see as this materializes. Again, I just hope that people will be as supportive to his right to fight in court as they were to others who also availed themselves.
1 person likes this
@laglen (19759)
• United States
25 Jan 11
I agree he will not take this lying down. It will be interesting to see how "chicago" handles a situation like this. Never a dull moment with Rahm.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
25 Jan 11
no kidding, he has proved that time and again. He just may want to hang up his campaign shoes for a term.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
25 Jan 11
oy! I just read this Illinois Supreme Court Stops Printing of Chicago Mayoral Ballot The Illinois Supreme Court has halted the Chicago Board of Elections from printing any mayoral ballots without Rahm Emanuel's name on them. here Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/25/emanuel-files-appeal-qualify-chicago-mayoral-ballot/#ixzz1C5AK3vm5
• United States
25 Jan 11
Oh never a dull moment is an understatement...but honestly..I would not want to deal with him. He is too much of a loose cannon.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
24 Jan 11
I realize that Rahm isn't the most popular guy in the country - what an understatement...lol! - but I'm going to try to keep my personal feelings out of this response. I can't resist saying the "shower assault" was only ALLEGED by one not-so-credible former Congressman. In other words, I don't put too much stock on either of their words! Anyway, regarding the issue at hand and today's ruling, I've always had a hard time understanding these so-called residency requirements in general. In Emanuel's case from the time he announced there have been those who have said he couldn't be eligible because he hasn't lived in Chicago for the past couple years while others have said he'd maintained his "residency" there (even if he didn't actually RESIDE there!) since he's registered to and has voted there. I know through the years they've always shown various public officials casting their votes on election day in their "home" district, although we know their address has been elsewhere. Former President Bush was shown voting in Texas, President Obama in Chicago, V.P. Biden in Delaware, etc. Is there some kind of clause that allows certain government officials to retain their residency while they're serving in Washington and does it apply to everyone and every state or town or only to certain positions and/or does it depend on the individual state or city? This couldn't be totally clear-cut or we wouldn't have had one court ruling he's eligible and another one overturning it. Obviously, he'll take it to the Illinois Supreme Court but I guess the question now is one of time. Annie
• United States
24 Jan 11
The rules on voting are different for elected officials and political appointees. But voting and running for office are different. With two different sets of rules. I remember when he announced that he was leaving the white house to go back to Chicago that CNN was talking about that this might be an issue and questioning why he did not move sooner. I forgot about it til this court case was brought up. I am glad to hear the Supreme court is going to fast track it so it can be over with one way or the other. gladys...It does not matter if all of chicago wants him...if he is not qualified to run according to the laws of the state. He should have moved back sooner. He knew he was going to run. He has wanted this job for a long time.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
25 Jan 11
I hear ya lilwonders ... today, just announced, the IL Sup.Ct. stayed the lower court's decision. I'm not sure whether or not that means that Rahm's name will be printed on the ballot or not ... but reporters are saying that this is good news for him.
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
24 Jan 11
All good points Annie! I saw a poll taken that showed Rahm far, far ahead of other candidates running. Based upon that polling, it may be quite clear who Chicagoians want as their next mayor. Reports are that it's expected that the IL Sup.Ct. will expedite their ruling in the interest of fast approaching elections.
1 person likes this
• United States
24 Jan 11
The next stop woud be the Illinois Supreme Court. While I am no means a fan of Judge Posner, he has been in Chicago Politics longer than Emmanuel has. I don't think he will be impressed by shenanigans.
• United States
24 Jan 11
What I don't understand is how Rahm got himself in this situation in the first place. He has been in politics a long time. He knows the rules. He espeically knows the rules for this race. This has been his dream job for a long time. He should have moved back sooner. That way he would have had a whole year of actually living in chicago and none of this would have been an issue. He dropped the ball and it might cost him. I think we are about to see just how much pull he does have. This is something he has wanted for a long time. He is not known for playing nice. So I think he will go after this with everything he's got.
1 person likes this
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
24 Jan 11
I hate Chicago politics...to me, it's even worse than what goes on in D.C. I'd love to see Chicagoans kick the whole da*n bunch out... BUT, I think Rahm will buy off whoever he has to buy off and will be back on the ballot. And I hope he gets defeated! How sweet would that be?
• United States
24 Jan 11
I would settle for him not being on the ballot at all. But you are right. He will find a way to win. He has enough money and political pull to make it happen.
@hofferp (4734)
• United States
24 Jan 11
If he didn't get on the ballot, I'd be very surprised and I'd hold out hope for a new era in Chicago politics. But, then it would be kind of cool for him to spend a bunch of money buying his way onto the ballot only to have the folks of Chicago not vote for him. Now that would be "refreshing".
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
24 Jan 11
hofferp you said ... "BUT, I think Rahm will buy off whoever he has to buy off and will be back on the ballot." Wow, wow hofferp ... to suggest that Rahm will commit such a criminal act makes one wonder why he didn't buy off these 3-paneled judges and avoid the whole boot off in the first place!!
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
24 Jan 11
When do you suppose Eric Holder and the DOJ will file suit against the City of Chicago? Rahm knew he didn't meet the requirements but he figured his connections put him above the law. This is Chicago politics, who can blame him for thinking that the law was not very important? I don't think he's going to win this one, but I expect he'll come out swinging anyway. If you ask me, he looks a right fool for having departed the White House to run for mayor and then not even be able to get on the ballot. It's very amusing.
• United States
24 Jan 11
I am not going to under estimate the pull he has. I think he might actually end up on the ballot...and win. He is not exactly known for playing by the rules. But he is known for getting what he wants.