Rahm Emanuel’s lawyers have asked for a stay of the appellate court’s order to keep Emanuel’s name off the ballot for mayor pending the outcome of their appeal:
Emanuel’s lawyers filed an emergency motion with the high court to stop the appellate court ruling and asked the court to tell Chicago election officials to keep his name on ballots. They also asked the Supreme Court justices to expedite an appeal, which they said would be filed no later than Tuesday.
“So the court may hear and decide this case as soon as possible,” Emanuel’s filing states.
The primary is a month away and early voting starts in six days time.
Like John Kass I am certain that the Illinois Supreme Court will decide the case on its merits.
It also looks to me as though Miguel del Valle has found precisely the right line of attack:
Another major candidate, City Clerk Miguel del Valle, told me that Monday’s Appellate Court ruling sends a message long overdue.
“It sends a message to the neighborhoods of the city that Hollywood and Wall Street big shots, and the millionaires of Chicago, won’t decide this mayoral election. Instead, the people of the neighborhoods will decide it,” del Valle said.
I doubt that he’ll be able to profit by it.
The most likely beneficiary will be Gery Chico. With Emanuel no longer sucking all the air out of the room, Chico will doubtless find it easier to raise funds for his campaign.
I git home early yesterday evening and only then and this AM got a chance to read what the punditry was saying. The concensus seems to be that on the law the Supremes will side with the appellate court. In additon, precedent seems to indicate same. As one wag put it: “think of this like a pro football game where we have the ruling on the field. The standard for overturning it will be very high.”
I also note that a couple others smell the whiff of Ed Burke, and a classic Aldermanic-Mayoral fight. Although it seems unanimous that no one (except maybe the editorial boards, who are pouting) believes that Burke’s wife needs to recude herself.
Oh, and for those who appreciate irony, can anyone name another candidate who used the courts to throw opponents off the ballot to gain IL state office? That’s right, it would be a certain B. Obama.
I sincerely hope that analysis is right.
All along I have believed that Emanuel had no real interest in being mayor of Chicago, that it was just another item for his resume, and that what he really wanted to do was run for president after Obama’s second term. I’m happy to get him off the ballot and don’t much care about the means.
As a Naperville resident I have no direct dog in the fight, although Chicago is vital to IL’s general interests and the city needs to get its act together as best it can. As such I’d be a Chico supporter I guess, but please, please, please let’s not have Chicago voters suffer the brain cramp IL voters had a few years ago and elect Carol Mosley Brauschwieger Brains.
Ooops. I wonder how long it will take Reynolds to acuse me of profound racism for that point of view……….
The first question is going to simply be “Will the Illinois Supreme Court Decide the Emanuel Case”? Probably, but I’m not sure it’s a given.
One thing that I’m sure they will consider is what harm they will do to the election if they stop it now. By my calculation it took the Appellate Court twenty days to make a decision if you start counting from the trial court’s decision. Assuming a comparable time frame for the S. Ct. to decide the case, the decision would be made on February 13th, nine days before the election. I don’t know if that’s a reasonable estimate; it could take more or less time. Does producing that much uncertainty before the election hurt more than it helps?
PD:
There are things that the Illinois Supreme Court could do in considerably less time, however. For example, they could refuse to hear the case tomorrow. Today, even.
Yes, by my count there are three ways for Emanual to lose and one way to win. He could lose if the courts don’t give him the time needed to make his case, if the S. Ct. deadlocks, or if a majority affirs the App. Ct.
I mention the deadlock issue because I think the decision not to seek recusal of Burke avoids increasing the risk of deadlock on 3-3 grounds.
Four ways to lose: they could also refuse to hear his appeal.
PD –
I’ve now had a chance to look at the dissent. Do you think the notion of “residency” has previously been determined, and the appellate court “made new law?”
You are correct, sir.
Though I believe the grounds for granting an emergency stary are probably pretty coterminous with the grounds for granting an appeal. If they don’t grant him the emergency stay, I think it’s 99% likely that they don’t let him appeal. I guess the 1% chance would be if the Court thinks postponing the election is the best alternative. (?!?)
Drew, I have no idea. I think both opinions probably have some holes in them because of speed, but since the issue is now going to the Illinois Supreme Court, close adherence to Appellate Court decisions isn’t particularly relevant.
If I were to handicap it, I would want to know what kind of law each of the justices practiced. I think the majority decision has an architecture that will appeal to lawyers that do a lot of interpreting of language (contracts, insurance policies, regulations, statutes). The dissent is going to appeal to lawyers that are used to broad, imprecise language being primarily resolved by the fact-finder (prosecutors, human rights).
At least two of the sitting Supreme Court justices have solid backgrounds in contract law, a couple are labor lawyers (which can mean a lot of different things), Theis was a public defender, and Burke has never practiced law (she’s only been a judge).
Drew, I somehow think this quote from Justice Posner of the federal court seated in Chicago, seems to shed light on current events:
“The essence of “profession†as a type of service provider is that it employs esoteric methods that its customers must take on faith; it is on that basis that a profession can claim such privileges as licensure requirements that restrict entry and thus competition. But unlike the genuinely professional methods used by the modern medical profession to diagnose and treat disease, the core method of the lawyer and the judge is “legal reasoning,†and it lacks scientific rigor; indeed, at its best, it is uncomfortably close to careful reading, to rhetoric, and to common sense. An unconscious awareness of the limitations of legal “science†drives the search for rigor into unlikely places . . .”
It does not appear likely that the Appellate Court will shape the law in this area, but those on the high court disposed to their view will be liberated to make it so and declare it scientific.
The result of the Supreme’s decision isn’t necessarily wrong; it, too, seems rational and fair. It’s reasoning, however, crafts certainty out of thin air. It belittles the problem, seemingly out of pique. The problems with the underlying law in Chicago and the court’s own precedent it simply pixie dusted away, a means to an end that the concurring justices gently chided them about.