Illinois Supreme Court Puts Rahm Emanuel Back on the Ballot

When I am wrong, I am really wrong. The Illinois Supreme Court literally scolded the Court of Appeals for getting their decision wrong:

"So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear," the Supreme Court wrote in its ruling today. "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."

Upper courts are reluctant to overturn lower court decisions. The judges and justices used to serve on theose lower courts and are empathetic to the professional embarrassment of having a decision overturned. So when a decision has to be done, it happens with finesse. I only only assume the Court of Appeals committed near professional negligence in coming to its decision in order to merit the Supreme Court's aggressive tone.

UPDATE: This was a 7-0 decision, meaning no room for debate whether the Supreme Court might be wrong. It is not. Then again, it has ruled that one is the resident by owning property someone else lives in entirely. Does that really sound logical? If the decision is a correct interpretation of statutory law, the responsible legislative body needs to clean that up.

UPDATE II: Here is the opinion. Yes, it is brutal:

Thus, from April 1867 through January 24 of this year, the principles governing the question before us were settled. Things changed, however, when the appellate court below issued its decision and announced that it was no longer bound by any of the law cited above, including this court’s decision in Smith, but was instead free to craft its own original standard for determining a candidate’s residency. See No. 1–11–0033, slip op. at 6-8 (dismissing the foregoing authority in its entirety). 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…

(Emphasis added.)

D'oh! Ripped like an arrogant first year law student.