Breaking: Court boots Rahm off ballot

posted at 1:32 pm on January 24, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

With just four weeks to go and a commanding lead over his rivals on the ballot, Rahm Emanuel appeared to be coasting to a victory in Chicago’s mayoral race.  Today, though, an appellate court threw a monkey wrench into the works, overturning both the Chicago Board of Elections and a Cook County judge to order Emanuel off of the ballot:

Rahm Emanuel was thrown off the ballot for mayor of Chicago today by an appellate court panel, a stunning blow to the fund-raising leader in the race.

An appellate panel ruled 2-1 that Emanuel did not meet the residency standard to run for mayor.

Appellate judges Thomas Hoffman and Shelvin Louise Marie Hall ruled against Emanuel. Justice Bertina Lampkin voted in favor of keeping President Obama’s former chief of staff on the Feb. 22 ballot.

Initial word was that the vote on the three-judge panel in Illinois was 237 to 126.  I kid, I kid …

This puts the Emanuel campaign in serious danger of disqualification.  They can appeal to the Supreme Court, but the election takes place four weeks from tomorrow.  Presumably the Supreme Court would expedite its review, and the success of that will hinge on the appellate court’s reasoning for overturning the ruling of Lampkin, the fact-finder at the district court level.  Emanuel’s team says it will use the dissenting opinion on this decision to craft its appeal.

Emanuel’s not the only one in limbo.  With just four weeks to go, the ballots are almost certainly printed and ready[see update II below], and one assumes that absentee voters already have theirs in hand.  Will Chicago voters, both above and below ground, press forward with the poll leader Emanuel and hope that the court won’t throw out an election result?  Or will they decide that they’d better start looking at their second choice candidates now?

Update: Decision and dissent can be found here.  The decision is fairly straightforward: moving out of the city to take a job elsewhere means your physical residence has changed, whether or not one rents out one’s house to someone else.  The dissenting jurist says physical presence isn’t the issue, but the intent to return at some point in time is what matters:

The Board’s ruling–that the candidate in 2009 and 2010 did not abandon his status as a resident of Chicago and, thus, remained a resident of Chicago even though he was largely absent from this city from January 2009 until October 1, 2010–was not clearly erroneous.  Intent is an issue of fact (Delk, 112 Ill. App. 3d at 738), and the majority acknowledges that the Board’s fact findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.  This acknowledgment should have ended this case, and resulted in this court affirming the circuit court’s judgment, which confirmed the Board’s ruling that the preponderance of the evidence established that the candidate never formed an intent to either change or terminate his residence in Chicago, or establish his residence in Washington, D.C., or any place other than Chicago.

Because the candidate had established his Chicago residency, it is presumed to continue until the contrary is shown, and the burden of proof is on the person who claims that there has been a change.

Er, okay, but the change was patently obvious.  Emanuel moved to Washington DC and stayed there for 21 months, only returning when Richard Daley announced he wouldn’t seek another term.  Under that definition, the statute becomes essentially meaningless; anyone who lived in Chicago for any period of time could return and run for office on the shortest of notice and dare anyone to prove that returning wasn’t the intent all along.  The majority ruled that the legislature intended this requirement to apply to physical residence — which makes sense, because one wants a mayor who’s actually familiar with the city’s issues.

Update II: The Sun-Times reports that the ballots have not yet been printed:

The Board of Elections has not yet printed up the ballot.

Odelson said Board of Elections attorney Jim Scanlon told him that as of this moment, Emanuel’s name would stay off the ballot.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This will be Franken/Murkowski all over again. You don’t think a little thing like rules is gonna stop them from getting on the ballot, do you?

Limerick on January 24, 2011 at 4:26 PM

And income tax/voting/property/papers/belongings have no relevance here. Read the opinion — the law becomes quite clear.

Not a question of fairness — a question of clearly stated law. If it needs to change, let it change — but it will have to be from here on out.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Is there an exception in the law specifically for people serving in an elected capacity outside the state? If not, then something else is at work, probably his maintenance of a living quarters. But if that is not written into the law either, then how is a person expected to obey laws that are not written down?

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 4:26 PM

alwyr on January 24, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Still waiting for the esteemed HA Law Firm of Proud Rino, Jimbo3 and crr6 to check in on this case. They must be out “practicing” somewhere.

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM

I guess that means Chicago voters now have no choice but Lautenberg though Gregoire may be gaining as a write-in as long as voters are careful to misspell her name as “Moocowski.”

viking01 on January 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM

We need to pray for those judges safety in the coming years.

tomas on January 24, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Last comment for now – I truly don’t want to hijack or spam. I posted this just now at the bottom of the HI governor birth certificate thread, but it’s pretty dead:
—————

American people are basically fair-minded- at least they’d like to think so.

In my opinion, for your scenario to work, the American people would have to observe Obama refusing to be on the ballot in states, because he values keeping his birth certificate hidden, and then not penalize him.

Don’t you think that once it was announced that he would not compete in – say – Texas, and the reason would immediately come out on the news was that it was over his birth certificate – that a rapidly building media snowball that he is a cheater wouldn’t bury him?

Yes, the MSM are corrupt and in the tank. But, as yet, the American people are not.

I think if Obama tried to play chicken like this with the 2012 election, it actually would devolve into an ugly, but unstoppable, impeachment AND conviction.

And – it wouldn’t be over the actual birth certificate – it would be over the cover-up.

Mark my words – this pot is beginning to boil.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Or is it to prevent people who were born there, lived there their entire lives, owned a house there, and left to serve in the White House for 2 years?

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Neither, it is to prevent people to take advantage of the system.
Where they can move and reside, vote in one place, pay the lowest taxes between the two, take advantage of the two areas.
When you take a job, whether to help the president or to be a baker, if you move your family, put down roots, then that is your residence for that period of time. D.C. should nail him for not paying taxes, after all he was using their services.
Taking a government job is not “national service”, it’s taking a job, just like thousands of others who have a job because of the administration.
He tried to con the system, and it didn’t work…

right2bright on January 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I agree. Some years ago on a talk show, the host asked another Chicagoan, Michael Jordan, what he thought of Charles Barkley’s latest scandal. Jordan’s reply: “Charles needs to stay his butt home.” Seems to me the IL court was satisfied that for purposes of the candidacy residence requirement, Emanuel had stayed his butt in D.C.

Barnestormer on January 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Clarification:
The preceding comment was meant for a poster who says that Obama could just write off the states that passed a law forcing him to show a birth certificate, as they would be Republican and he would lose them anyway

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:34 PM

He tried to con the system, and it didn’t work…

right2bright on January 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Yet.

Limerick on January 24, 2011 at 4:35 PM

On Emanuel,

This is one I’d like to study more.

I can see Emanuel’s argument that he was away from Chicago on national service.

But it seems to me that it is in Chicago’s interest to elect a mayor who is daily – through living there- involved with Chicago’s problems.

I’ve been busy and haven’t read all of the arguments – But my instinct is that – unless the city plans to survive on federal handouts (??? hmmm), why have a mayor who’s attuned to Washington instead of Chicago?

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:37 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Jimbo was given his walking papers a couple of weeks ago.

kingsjester on January 24, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Chicago will elect another slimy snake whether it’s Emanuel or not….. How do you spell corruption? C-h-i-c-a-g-o

ultracon on January 24, 2011 at 4:40 PM

This will be Franken/Murkowski all over again. You don’t think a little thing like rules is gonna stop them from getting on the ballot, do you?

Limerick on January 24, 2011 at 4:26 PM

No. On the other hand, this makes no sense. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know the spirit or letter of this law, and Rahm is a First Rate Scumbag, but come on, the guy has lived in Chicago his entire life, except when he worked for either of two administrations in D.C. He owns a home in Chicago. He held a congressional seat in Chicago.

This is the same bullshit that put Our AssHole President in the Illinois general assembly in the first place. It’s crap.

Jaibones on January 24, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Jimbo was given his walking papers a couple of weeks ago.

kingsjester on January 24, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Really? And I missed it? Rats.

Lily on January 24, 2011 at 4:43 PM

But it seems to me that it is in Chicago’s interest to elect a mayor who is daily – through living there- involved with Chicago’s problems.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:37 PM

That’s up to the voters. It’s not up to judges to decide.

The decision dwells in the idea of residing, and goes through various arguments to decide what is required to reside. But since there is no legal definition of reside, then why can’t Emanuel provide the reasonable argument that simply owning is enough, considering it does say that he paid DC tax as well? If he needs a place to stay for his returns there are plenty of alternatives.

The judges can claim that some other definition of reside is better, but if it that other definition is not actually in the law, then it is judicial activism.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 4:45 PM

We need to pray for those judges safety in the coming years.

tomas on January 24, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Agreed. There are few Chicagoans in greater danger than judges and politicians that dare to follow the law.

viking01 on January 24, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Neither, it is to prevent people to take advantage of the system. Where they can move and reside, vote in one place, pay the lowest taxes between the two, take advantage of the two areas…
He tried to con the system, and it didn’t work…
right2bright on January 24, 2011 at 4:33 PM

What’s your evidence? He voted in Chicago. He paid Chicago property taxes. Kept his Chicago driver’s license. Obviously intended to return to his home there and his stint in D.C. was temporary. Don’t know any other specifics about his taxes (like income taxes) – do you?

Look, I don’t like being in a position of having to defend Deadfish, but facts matter. A con requires premeditated thought. What was the point of this con you allege? The Chicago Board of Elections and the original judge didn’t think it was a “con”.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Don’t know any other specifics about his taxes (like income taxes) – do you?

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM

The decision said that he paid both Illinois and DC income taxes.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 4:51 PM

D’oh!

mizflame98 on January 24, 2011 at 4:52 PM

And income tax/voting/property/papers/belongings have no relevance here. Read the opinion — the law becomes quite clear.

Not a question of fairness — a question of clearly stated law. If it needs to change, let it change — but it will have to be from here on out.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Is there an exception in the law specifically for people serving in an elected capacity outside the state? If not, then something else is at work, probably his maintenance of a living quarters. But if that is not written into the law either, then how is a person expected to obey laws that are not written down?

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 4:26 PM

There is no such exception written into law. The only exception to that particular statute was adopted in 2007 regarding military service.

Read the opinion — you’ll realize how ironclad it is.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Poor thing, maybe he can become head of the local AFL-CIO and have way more power than the mayor.

Bishop on January 24, 2011 at 4:56 PM

What’s your evidence? He voted in Chicago. He paid Chicago property taxes. Kept his Chicago driver’s license. Obviously intended to return to his home there and his stint in D.C. was temporary. Don’t know any other specifics about his taxes (like income taxes) – do you?

Look, I don’t like being in a position of having to defend Deadfish, but facts matter. A con requires premeditated thought. What was the point of this con you allege? The Chicago Board of Elections and the original judge didn’t think it was a “con”.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 4:47 PM

The most striking part of the opinion was that it did not, in any way contest the facts of the case. Emanuel did correctly present the facts in evidence. The ruling did not overturn any of the facts — but ruled that the Election Board’s reading of the law was not consistent with the law as written. That’s really all that matters.

This is not unfair — the law was clearly written, was available for anyone to read (including Rahm), and has been in effect for some time. I imagine there will be changes regarding “the Business of the United States”, and I welcome them…

But the rules, as presently constituted, are clear and unambiguous. Taxes, property and etc are irrelevant to the point. As is the notion that an exception should be made because he’s put in so much work.

If there’s a change of statute, he can run. If not, he can’t unless a judge decides to be activist. The US Supreme court will most likely agree with this appelate court.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM

There is no such exception written into law. The only exception to that particular statute was adopted in 2007 regarding military service.

Read the opinion — you’ll realize how ironclad it is.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 4:54 PM

I did finally read it, but I disagree that it is ironclad. They jump through a lot of hoops to show that their interpretation of reside is not precluded by any law, but they don’t show that Emanual’s interpretation is precluded.

The law requires him to reside there for one year. Residing and having a residence are two different things. In literal terms, he resided in DC because that is where he slept every night. But that applies to the time he and every other elected official lived in DC. What are the laws for where they reside, and do those laws apply to someone in the executive branch as well?

It seems to me it could go either way, and the law should be very clear on what is not allowed otherwise it should favor someone who is clearly trying to obey by owning a home (albiet rented out) and paying income tax they would not otherwise have to pay. To me what is important is not the intent to return, but the intent to comply with a vague law.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Alternate headline: Chicago thug tripped up by Chicago thug politics.

slickwillie2001 on January 24, 2011 at 5:13 PM

The decision said that he paid both Illinois and DC income taxes.
pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Ah, I smell a con./

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM

We’ll see what happens. I’d love it if he lost the election, I don’t think this ruling is reasonable, and I certainly don’t see a “con” on his part. Someone could come to town 1 year and 1 day before the election, rent a house, have no roots at all there, and be considered eligible. Then again, the old saying about the law being an ass may apply.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 5:13 PM

“I left all the ^%*%@ graft, chicanery and corruption of the White House for THIS?????!!!!!”

MaiDee on January 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM

We disagree. I flatter myself that I am extremely well trained in logic and language, and I find their argument complete and persuasive.

Cheers.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Jimbo was given his walking papers a couple of weeks ago.

kingsjester on January 24, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Wow, what sent him over the edge?

Del Dolemonte on January 24, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Guys — there is no con. All I can say is that Rahm got some poor legal advice. Some lawyer told him that this sort of thing can skate through, that it’s close enough. Now that lawyer’s legal theory is being hammered. I think he wanted to argue that elector requirements are the same as candidate requirements. The majority opinion clearly demonstrated that the law as written, and as intended, does not make that connection — that in fact the law makes a clear distinction, and builds upon that distinction.

If this logic is unclear to you, perhaps your path in life should not include the legal profession. :)

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

They can appeal to the Supreme Court, but the election takes place four weeks from tomorrow.

I thought it was illegal for courts to select the winners of elections. Or something like that.

Can we spend the next ____ years saying Rahm was selected, not elected?

ramrants on January 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

The decision reads to me like a railroading against Emanuel.

In its decision, to determine whether the candidate met the
Municipal Code’s requirement that he have “resided in” the
municipality for one year, the Board applied the test for residency that has been used for voter qualification under the Election Code. This approach is supported by several appellate court decisions that, without discussion, equate residency requirements imposed on voters with requirements that a candidate “resided in” his or her political unit.

In other words, the majority agrees that Emanuels’s interpetation has been accepted without comment over many cases. But then they dismiss that with a wave of the hand:

Neither the Board nor the parties have, however, referred us to any supreme court opinion ratifying, adopting, or directly addressing this approach.

And from there they proceed to legislate from the bench.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Can we spend the next ____ years saying Rahm was selected, not elected?

ramrants on January 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM

+1

cmsinaz on January 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM

If this logic is unclear to you, perhaps your path in life should not include the legal profession. :)
Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

The dissenting judge’s opinion is also logical.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM

But the rules, as presently constituted, are clear and unambiguous. Taxes, property and etc are irrelevant to the point.

If there’s a change of statute, he can run. If not, he can’t unless a judge decides to be activist. The US Supreme court will most likely agree with this appelate court.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Thanks for clarifying some of the murky issues.

Looks like he attempted to fulfill some of the requirements but not the crucial one on which the case hinges.

Yes. The confusion comes from conflating ownership of a residence with ACTUALLY residing at that residence.

Wow this could go all the way to the Top. That could take some time.

Geochelone on January 24, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Honestly, compared to the other big time candidates, Rahm actually sounds the most sensible of them. The rest sound like loons

ConservativePartyNow on January 24, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Jimbo was given his walking papers a couple of weeks ago.

kingsjester on January 24, 2011 at 4:39 PM

Really…..So we’re down to 2 Hot Air wanna be Law Consultants now?

huskerdiva on January 24, 2011 at 5:48 PM

This actually restores my faith in “the system” I just assume the fix was in for Rahm in keeping with “the Chicago way”.

Hera on January 24, 2011 at 5:50 PM

In other words, the majority agrees that Emanuels’s interpetation has been accepted without comment over many cases. But then they dismiss that with a wave of the hand:

Neither the Board nor the parties have, however, referred us to any supreme court opinion ratifying, adopting, or directly addressing this approach.

And from there they proceed to legislate from the bench.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Incorrect. The view has not, indeed, been accepted in any case except Smith v. People, which was superseded, as noted in the text, by future rulings of the supreme court.

If there are instances of people having disobeyed the law not mentioned in this opinion, their actions do not establish law.

This is not a playground, and “fair” means “as established by statute”. No matter how much whining goes on.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:51 PM

If this logic is unclear to you, perhaps your path in life should not include the legal profession. :)
Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

The dissenting judge’s opinion is also logical.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 5:35 PM

But not complete. The dissent discards the arguments the majority made in statute, and instead seeks to use precedent (even suspect precedent, such as Smith) to overturn what is really very simple and clear statutory language.

The dissent’s attempt to expand the definition of residency is, to me, muddying the waters. It brings back in the undisputed facts of the case unnecessarily, and imputes motive to the majority in a very unprofessional way. Have a look at page 30 for relevant examples.

I am unimpressed with the dissent for these and other reasons. I think it would be better to have Emanuel as mayor than Mosely-Braun and others — but the rules are very clear.

I don’t have a dog in this race, except that I resent violations of rule of law, especially when things are as clear as the present question.

Again — the argument is that the rules for candidacy are not the same as for participation in an election. Pretty simple, despite the efforts of the dissent.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:04 PM

It seems to me it could go either way, and the law should be very clear on what is not allowed otherwise it should favor someone who is clearly trying to obey by owning a home (albiet rented out) and paying income tax they would not otherwise have to pay. To me what is important is not the intent to return, but the intent to comply with a vague law.

pedestrian on January 24, 2011 at 5:08 PM

It is the job of judges to say what the law is, not the petitioners. The judges did not weight constitutional considerations because that is not their job in this case. Their job first and foremost is to interpret an existing statute. If the statute can be clearly and consistently interpreted, as in “words mean precisely what they say”, then they are supposed to stop.

In this case, contra your assumption, the rules are not vague. The residency exception clause modifies “electors” (voters) and not candidates. That’s just grammar and logic, not “judicial activism”.

alwaysfiredup on January 24, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Stunning is right. Apparently, the state was ready to go to press.

AnninCA on January 24, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Breaking: Court boots Rahm off ballot

Was it because he was not natural born or did he refuse to post his long form birth certificate on the intertubes?

An appellate panel ruled 2-1 that Emanuel did not meet the residency standard to run for mayor.

Nevermind. He was deemed not a resident of the State.

He still needs to post his birth certificate on the intertubes and prove he is natural born.

rukiddingme on January 24, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Guys — there is no con. All I can say is that Rahm got some poor legal advice.

Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 5:22 PM

LegalZoom is as tricky as TurboTax, evidentally.

Lily on January 24, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Lemee see, doesn’t a Congressional or Senate candidate have to maintain a legal residence both pre and post election?

Rahmmie is right, the voters deserve the chance to vote for who they want, but they have to vote for someone on a list of ELIGIBLE candidates.

Mr. Grump on January 24, 2011 at 6:43 PM

I changed planes once at O’Hare, so I’d like to officially throw my hat into the ring.

Red State State of Mind on January 24, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Just ironic that Obama’s right-hand man is having trouble proving he is eligible for the office he seeks.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Just wait until the first illegal alien candidate runs for president.

Oy

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 6:59 PM

The dissent discards the arguments the majority made in statute, and instead seeks to use precedent (even suspect precedent, such as Smith) to overturn what is really very simple and clear statutory language.
Prufrock on January 24, 2011 at 6:04 PM

I’m not a lawyer and don’t even play one on t.v., but – isn’t it common to use precedent? Anyhoo, if the state supreme’s hear this pronto, I betcha they overturn the appellate court’s 2-1 ruling. I’ll eat virtual crow if I’m wrong.

Buy Danish on January 24, 2011 at 7:19 PM

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Ditto!!

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Talon on January 24, 2011 at 7:32 PM

The Chicago Way will have its way, Capone notwithstanding.

hillbillyjim on January 24, 2011 at 8:00 PM

A serial killer murders thousands of babies in Philadelphia and we see next to nothing of it in the MSM. But some pretentious jerk gets thrown off the Chicago mayoral ballot and it’s all over the headlines. WTF!

galvestonian on January 24, 2011 at 8:14 PM

galvestonian on January 24, 2011 at 8:14 PM

The msm is heavily invested in maintaining the power block that is the abortion industry. They (and those who support them) fit the template of acceptability that the msm puts forth. So, nothing to see here – move along!

massrighty on January 24, 2011 at 9:16 PM

CMB is now the front runner? Will the last one left in Chicago please turn off the light?

kingsjester on January 24, 2011 at 1:48 PM

Her initials are actually CMF-Carol Mostly Fraud.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 24, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Hey, knocking your apponent off the ballot is the Chicago Way. Didn’t President Obama do that several times in his career?

If Rahm wants to win, he needs to have a group of people standing outside the court shouting “Mayor Carol Moseley Braun”. Scarrrry!!!!

patch on January 24, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Has this court ever considered takin a look at Rahmbos’ former boss’ qualification to be Precedent?
Maybe they should supena a birth Certificate from Hawaii!

dhunter on January 24, 2011 at 10:42 PM

If you are close to The power and want The Power and powerful people want you to have The Power, to rule – municipal, state, federal OR CONSTITUTIONAL will be allowed to stand between the chosen Power-mongers and the POWER.

What is the difference between the Founders wanting a president to have true-blue citizen parents – so as to ensure a republic-preserving inculcation of values, and the Chicago Mafia wanting one of their own residents to be Mayor…

Oh wait – that didn’t quite work, did it?

or maybe it will

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 10:47 PM

correction;

in the first paragraph, :

**NO** rule -municipal, state, federal OR CONSTITUTIONAL will be allowed to stand between the chosen Power-mongers and the POWER.

PIMF!

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM

After what we’ve witnessed over the last 2 years of the Obama administration and his cronies getting away with every dirty deal they’ve been involved in, I will be genuinely shocked to see this ruling stand.

galvestonian on January 24, 2011 at 11:32 PM

To be selfish here:

The personal sense of vindication in having been aware of the facts for 2 years that are going to totally paralyze America in the run-up to 2012 when they finally break loose of their own dead weight, is going to be very comforting repayment for the abuse I have taken for simply following the facts rationally and realizing that Obama has never been shown eligible for his office, and has taken drastic legal measures to hide his information, and has been aided and abetted by “anti-’birthers’” who have refused to honestly address Obama’s deception, will be undercut by the heartsick dread of the utter chaos that is going to erupt when it becomes evident that Obama is an illegal president and everything he signed is legally invalid.

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 3:56 PM

I feel the same way, and have been (blog-wise) beat up for following obvious logic? Why spend millions to hide (nothing to hide)? It fails the basic test of Occam’s Razor, and it offends my basic of values of sensibility and propriety.

There is smoke, ergo Fire.

Who is John Galt on January 25, 2011 at 1:08 AM

There is smoke, ergo Fire.

Who is John Galt on January 25, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Prove me wrong, anyone, someone, or we’ve passed the tipping point and are already a Banana Republic.

Who is John Galt on January 25, 2011 at 1:11 AM

I’ve been busy and haven’t read all of the arguments – But my instinct is that – unless the city plans to survive on federal handouts (??? hmmm), why have a mayor who’s attuned to Washington instead of Chicago?

cane_loader on January 24, 2011 at 4:37 PM

That’s what I think, here comes a Chicago bailout.

wi farmgirl on January 25, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3