9 Responses to “Rahm…”

1. expat Says:
   January 24th, 2011 at 2:41 pm

   If he lands in a ditch, I hope he doesn’t expect us to pull him out. It’s Slurpee time.

2. LAG Says:
   January 24th, 2011 at 3:03 pm

   This literally caused me to LOL.

3. Gringo Says:
   January 24th, 2011 at 3:45 pm

   One irony of the situation is that Rahm may well be the best qualified candidate for mayor. I know that doesn’t say much. After all, we are talking about Chicago politicians. [I inherited my dislike of Chicago politicians from my downstate Illinois grandfather. Per usual, Grandpa was on the money.]

   Given how ∅bama used the courts to get Alice Palmer off the ballot in his first campaign for the state legislature, I find this rather amusing.

   An ∅bama minion screwed the same way ∅bama screwed someone. Poetic justice of sorts. I’m loving it- an ad jingle from McDonalds, a Chicago area-based corporation.

4. Tom Says:
   January 24th, 2011 at 5:06 pm

   I’m enjoying it too. The law itself seems eminently clear: one must reside in the city for the one year prior to filing.
   I also enjoyed his remarks today about how CHI is a city in crisis, the schools are in a crisis, everything’s a crisis. The Bears lost, too; OhmyGod. That would seem to denigrate (love that word; is it still good to use?) the Daleys. Crisis is the Daley legacy?
   Rahmbo sure is tanned, but no one is snarking about that a la Boehner.
   It would almost (I said almost) be worth it to see Carol Mosley Braun in the office.
   The people of Chicago want a Dem and I hope they get one, good and hard.

5. Curtis Says:
   January 24th, 2011 at 7:01 pm

   From the case:

   “In interpreting a statute, a court should consider, in addition to the statutory language, the reason for the law, the problems to be remedied, and the objects and purposes sought by the law.” People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159, 171-72, 788 N.E.2d 707 (2003).

6. Tom Says:
   January 24th, 2011 at 7:46 pm

   My bad: prior to the election, not the filing as a candidate.

   I have speed-read the 42 pages of the appellate decision, which is linked in the ChiTrib article linked by Neo. It appears to hinge on whether “residing” in a district is the same as having a “residence” in said district, and on whether or not one has an intent to return when one leaves one’s residence and resides elsewhere, even for a long time.
   Webster is turned to as a legal resource.
   The pro-Rahm minority does use use some mildly pejorative words about the majority and its decision. I wonder if that is a Leftist tell.

   As an aside:
   Are “reasoners” reasonable? Does a “reasoned” discussion ipso facto yield a “reasonable” result?
   Clearly we need more lawyers.

7. BDH Says:
   January 25th, 2011 at 1:13 am

   Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy… What goes around, comes around, Karma’s a bitch and all that Rahm ‘Bout time to sent them a dead fish.

8. IgotBupkis Says:
   January 25th, 2011 at 1:45 am

   > Rahm… …hits a speed bump.

   Maybe it was one of those bodies Obama’s been throwing off the bus for the last two years…

9. texexec Says:
   January 25th, 2011 at 10:01 am

   Rahm can’t f*%$@3 believe those f$#!)*&%$ judges came to this ^%#!*#*$ decision!

Leave a Reply