Rahm Emanuel’s campaign for mayor of the city of Chicago has been brought back from the brink of destruction by seven old people in Springfield, IL. This trumps the decision made by three other old people, who had ruled that the Chicago politician was ineligible to run due to Chicago residency requirements.
The unanimous 7-0 vote surprises exactly no one. The more interesting aspect of this story is the judicial bitch-fight which played out in the Supreme Court’s opinion write-up.
Thus, our review of the appellate court’s decision in this case begins not where it should, with an assessment of whether the court accurately applied established Illinois law to the particular facts, but with an assessment of whether the appellate court was justified in tossing out 150 years of settled residency law in favor of its own preferred standard. We emphatically hold that it was not.
Damn. The analysis goes on to state the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision and takes a few subtle and not-so-subtle shots at the original appellate court.
Of course, the appellate court did not see the statutory question this way. But its reasons for departing from over 100 years of settled residency law are hardly compelling and deserve only brief attention.
The Illinois Supreme Court found the appellate court’s decision to be a flippant and vague application of imaginary statutes. Let’s recap:
Appellate Court: We can’t let you do that Rahm!
Rahm: LOL. What say you, Supreme Court?
Supreme Court: Bitch please. What are they smoking? LOL.