Larry Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Why would you assume that? Supreme Court justices are usually nominated by the Governor, and the governors of Illinois from 1977 all the way though 2003 were all Republicans. (the state is pretty evenly split. Chicago is Democratic, but the suburbs and downstate are GOP.) I thought Illinois was the Bastion of Blueness. Thought they'd been Dem ever since Lincoln got shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 You sure about that? Or did you just hear about the temporary stay they issued? http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2011/01/supreme-court-decision-in-emanuel-mayor-case-coming-today.html The Illinois Supreme Court ruled today that Rahm Emanuel can stay on the ballot for mayor of Chicago. The decision comes without a moment to spare; early voting for the Feb. 22 city election begins Monday, Jan. 31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Wow. Unanimous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I thought Illinois was the Bastion of Blueness. Thought they'd been Dem ever since Lincoln got shot. Nope. It's very evenly split, and has been for over half a century (heck, legend has it that Old Mayor Daley had to find a couple thousand corpse votes to push Illinois into the Kennedy column in the 1960 election. He wouldn't have had to bother if it was a reliably blue state.. ) Like I said, from 1977 to 2003 - a quarter century - the GOP controlled the Govornorship. I suspect that the court is majority Republican (But I don't know for sure). Heck, here in blue blue blue California, our 7 person Supreme Court is 6 Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee (and he's retiring). . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Opinion here. A lot of inferences, conjectures and interpretations in this one. Wow http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Wow. Unanimous. That is very interesting. In before people start claiming that they were paid off or had their families threatened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Opinion here. A lot of inferences, conjectures and interpretations in this one. Wowhttp://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/111773.pdf The court said: Before proceeding to the merits, we wish to emphasize that, until just a few days ago, the governing law on this question had been settled in this State for going on 150 years.. So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear. This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Appellate court judgment reversed. That's pretty definitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 The court said:That's pretty definitive. That maybe true but reading the rationale for that "settled" law is just mind numbing inference after inference after inference. It's all about intent and not what actually is. Incredible IMO but that's just me I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_Edwards_Fan Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I was wildly entertained by the process...and the opinion of the court really stated what most of chicago though, like or hate the rule, it has been decided a number of timesusing the same logic for over 100 years. My favorite poll during the mess was one that stated that 80% of those responding thought he should be on the ballot, of those 48% said they were likely to vote for him. Mot everyone in the city felt pretty strongly about him being on the ballot-- even those likely to support other candidates. And this is Brad_Edwards, your Chicago reporter signing off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 That maybe true but reading the rationale for that "settled" law is just mind numbing inference after inference after inference. It's all about intent and not what actually is. Incredible IMO but that's just me I guess. It is just you. There is a reason that the decision was unanimous. 4 Democrats and 3 Republicans. The decision was not at all mindnumbing if you know how to read legal opinions and understand the legal principles being discussed. It was consistent with 150 years of cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 4-3 dem on the Ill supreme court and they just overturned the appellate court decision and will allow his name on the ballot I heard it was 7 votes to 0 in favor of Emmanuel. Five justices wrote one opinion calling the appellete courts decision "mysterious and poorly reasoned, overturning 150 years of settled law and precident". Two other justices who also sided with Emanuel wrote a differerent opinion which was less condemning of the appellat court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucaro Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I heard it was 7 votes to 0 in favor of Emmanuel. Five justices wrote one opinion calling the appellete courts decision "mysterious and poorly reasoned, overturning 150 years of settled law and precident". Two other justices who also sided with Emanuel wrote a differerent opinion which was less condemning of the appellat court. 4-3 was the D vs. R appointees, I was responding to a prior question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.