I’ve had my problems with Reid over the years, but he’s not in the wrong on Blagojevich and Burris. This is not a racial issue. Long before Burris, a black man, was appointed by a corrupt governor, Reid said he wouldn’t allow anyone, anyone, appointed by Blagojevich, to be seated. There is no reason to believe Reid and the Democratic caucus are opposing Burris for racial reasons: all of them signed a letter saying they wouldn’t seat anyone. Do you know how hard it is to get every Democratic Senator to agree on anything?
Here’s the fact: Blagojevich was caught, on tape, trying to sell the seat. He is corrupt. He is tainted. It may be true, on the strict letter of the law, that Blagojevich is still entitled legally to appoint a Senator (since the Illinois Senate has refused to do its job). Morally, however, it is odious to allow a Governor who, again, is caught on tape trying to sell the seat, to appoint someone to it.
Letting this play out legally, right to the Supreme Court, is the right thing to do. If the Supremes rule that Burris must be seated, so be it. It is then on them that a man appointed by a known seat-selling Governor is in the Senate. It is not on Senate Democrats that they were willing to allow someone who was willing to accept a tainted seat to enter the Senate.
I will also note that Progressives are being played by Blagojevich. He appointed a black man exactly to jerk around white liberals with conflicted feelings about race. It’s working perfectly.
Over the years, few people have been as harsh as I have to Harry Reid. But he’s not wrong, Senate Democrats are not wrong, to not want to seat a man so morally depraved that he would even consider accepting an appointment from a man who tried to sell that seat. If the law requires him to be seated, so be it, but that’s not settled till the courts rule on it, and there is nothing wrong with making them rule on it.
Harry Reid’s doing the right thing this time and so is Barack Obama, who also opposes seating Burris.
Related posts:
- Sunday Late Night: Your NN2010 Host, Harry Reid
- Hey, Harry Reid, Stop Protecting Democrats Who Want to Filibuster the Public Option
- Nevada Phone Bank Tool for Harry Reid and Public Option Now Live
- Schumer Raises the Stakes: If Final Bill Has No Public Option, Blame Harry Reid
- Harry Reid Punk’d by Tom Coburn: AK-47s Now Welcome in Yosemite
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Ian!
Hmmm – let’s not apply the rule of law because, well, it just doesn’t sound right. Same thing with that silly prohibition against torture and treason in the constitution.
Complicated situation – appreciate your walking us through this, Ian.
I do hate to disagree with you Ian but regardless the belief that Blagojevich is corrupt (and I do believe so), I have to agree with bmaz on this. Legally, the law is on the side of Blagojevich.
By the Constitution of the US, he is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore he retains all his rights of office, unless the IL House impeachs and the IL Senate convicts and removes him from office.
We have spent a number of years here at FDL crying about the “Rule of Law.” We can’t afford to change now, just because it is inconvenient.
My $.02
This.
What the rule of law is not clear until the courts rule. The constitution gives the Senate the right to not seat people if the Senate believes they are not qualified. If the courts rule otherwise, the Senate will accept it. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
This is over the top. Blago stands convicted, and he hasn’t even been formally charged. Arrested on a complaint, and now a three month delay so the case can be fully prepared? Welcome Lieberman but not follow the law on a gubernatorial appointment? This sounds like something that Repugs would do. I’m nowhere near buying Reid’s foolish pre-emptive strike.
i haven’t really followed this one – so please excuse me if this is a very stupid question: why should reid and the other senators have gotten involved at all? isn’t this up to the people of illinois, their representatives and the courts? doesn’t the senate have one or two other things they should be dealing with?
All their seats are tainted. They kowtow to lobbyists and corporations instead of representing the best interests of their constituents. Pearl-clutching hypocrites. Some, like Harry Reid, have relatives that curry favors. Some are likely concerned that Blago’s corrupt stink will call attention to their own dirty dealings.
I appreciate your premise Ian. But this also appears to be something like… not approving of the will of the voters on the part of Harry and Co. I don’t know about the fellows record, but I do think the senate need only look at the appointee. And the fact Burris has been elected for other position state wide with no current allegations of Blago connected impropriety makes this much easier, imo.
If the Ill State folks didn’t see fit to remove Blago, it’s not the duty of the senate to usurp them in this case. Long before a Blago trial etc.
And the U.S. Senate needs every Dem possible right now.. there are far bigger fish to fry. The timing is crucial.
TP has a simple post up that sums up Burris to a tee…!
A picture does equal a thousand words…! ;-)
The voters of Illinois would like to have liked to see Blagojevich resign or barring that impeached, convicted, and gone. Blago’s approval ratings were in Cheneyland. One of the reasons for this is that whoever’s interests Blago is looking out for they aren’t those of the voters of Illinois.
Ian, I have to disagree with you. Harry Reid is not the judicial system in this country. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. We wanted Libby to be held accountable and the others too for what they did. Justice is slow.
Blago may be and probably will be found guilty of he in fact was trying to sell a senate seat and was caught on tape. Wiretaps for fun and profit in America!
There are means available to get a new senator. The IL could have a special election and send the people’s choice to the senate. Harry Reid you are not the judge and jury.
We need to get rid of these power plays and Ian.. you should know better.
This also shows exactly how power is abused. In this case by the accused and the accusers!
Yes! Did you see Blago as he was leaving the Burris press conf? After the Bobby Rush ramblings about lynching, Blago yells out, “Yeah, and you can ask questions, but don’t lynch this fine man!!” It seemed like you could even see a little smile as he yelled it under his faux outrage.
Dude’s right outta a Scorsese movie. And using the mafia metaphor, which essentially all this is, I look at Blago as part of an individual city operation which reports back to the main operations in Italy. In the American political context, DeeCee is Italy and where the real stringpullers are. The DeeCee Dems are dealing with a much bigger beast than just one troublesome governor.
It appears that beast has coughed a hairball named Ron.
Blago wasn’t even a Dem before he ever ran for anything, and picked Dem because it was advantageous at the time. He voted for Raygun and clerked for the guy Obama referenced in his “Dreams” book that fought Harold Washington. I think Blago’s starting to get a kick out of all this now and is more than happy to screw up the Dems and Obama’s chances to get a lot accomplished.
While the united front is nice to see with Dems, they should’ve realized that Blago was not going to step down no matter how much pressure they apply. Ill Dems tried this last year and Blago didn’t budge. Perhaps they thought Fitz would come through a little sooner and they miscalculated?
None of this would be happening if Blago would step down and prepare for court, where the rule of law will take of the rest.
All true, but does it mean the actual appointee is tainted? I just don’t see any evidence that Burris is a problem.
Democrats could fork up a wet dream. And I voted a straight Democratic ticket in Illinois. Some times I wonder.
well, if he’s tainted in the eyes of the voters of illinois that looks like a problem to me. but i just don’t see the rational for reid and the other senators getting involved. however, as i wrote above, maybe i’m missing something basic.
As I wrote earlier today, it is up to the courts to decide if this is a political or a legal question. If they rule it is political, they won’t intervene. If they decide that there is a legal issue, then they will weigh in.
The Illinois legislature already has a committee up and holding hearings to determine if there are grounds for impeachment. So the process is underway. And this is a political not a judicial process. Different rules apply. That Blago made a decision on an issue which he is almost certainly going to be impeached and convicted on makes the Burris choice a lot iffier.
Reid’s back is against the wall — if he doesn’t oppose Burris, Cornyn and the Republicans will make the Democrats wear Blago around their necks for the rest of their natural lives.
But it’s a politically motivated decision, not based on the law. They’re only in this position, and looking so compromised, because of bad decisions Reid has made in the past.
How will it look if the Sergent-at-arms bars Burris, but did nothing to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove?
How will it look if they refuse to accept Burris in the Democratic Caucus, after they accepted Lieberman?
How does it look to be screaming about Burris’s “taint” when they did nothing for decades about Ted Stevens, and gave him a standing ovation even after he’d been convicted?
How does it look now that Reid is manipulating Senate procedure to exlude Burris, but rolled over on Alito, FISA, and the Military Commissions Act?
I’ve been surveying African American blogs today, and this is not playing well. Despite the fact that they announced they would not honor a Blago appointment, Blago is still innocent until proven guilty, and there’s no evidence Burris is not qualified.
While there are certainly a variety of opinions, this is pretty representative:
It’s all over black radio, too, particularly in Chicago.
Fitz is no doubt tearing his hair out — his jury pool is going to be extremely problematic now at the very least.
It all could have been avoided if the Illinois legislature had just called for a special election for the seat at the same time Rahm’s is held. Reid didn’t want to risk a loss, but that gave Blago an opening, and he took it.
Reid got played by a superior (if corrupt) politician, and now he’s got a huge problem on his hands. I don’t think he realizes how big it is yet, or Jim Manley wouldn’t be so cavalier in the press. But he’s got nobody but himself to blame.
Here’s what bmaz says next door right now!:
It’s really interesting to get both perspectives.
I’ve never seen anyone around here advocate ignoring the rule of law. The Ill and national Dems are simply applying pressure to Blago so he’ll step down, which he’s not going to do unless he gets something he wants in return (we know that’s how he operates). We all want him to have a fair trial, but a good case can be made that he cannot be an effective Governor anymore and “serve the people of Illinois” because of this scandal, and the several that preceded this one.
How exactly does Burris not meet the constitutional qualifications to be seated in the Senate? He’s been appointed by the sitting Democratic governor, who won’t resign in the face of prosecution by a Bush-appointed USAttorney who claims to now need more time to develop an indictment because of the Federal holiday calendar.
Sure, Blago played everybody by picking Burris. But Burris is also an extraordinary pick: the first African-American elected statewide in Illinois, to be Comptroller and Attorney-General. Roland Burris accepted the appointment, probably to provide needed representation to the state of Illinois as well as to provide a way out of the dilemma. The Senate now finds itself looking stupid, and worse. The optics of a lily-white US Senate ordering their heretofore inert sergeant-at-arms to block the entrance of a legally appointed African American Senator to take the seat of the only legally elected African American Senator, who happens to be ascending to the Oval Office, is absurd and damaging to the Democratic party in a way that seating him never would be.
Seat Roland Burris, and get busy on the people’s business, Senator Reid. In case you hadn’t noticed, there’s quite a bit of it to be done.
Jane is right as always!
Happy New Year Jane and 4 legged furry ones!
Kinda worrisome that we’ll have a dead senator, though.
Oh and the only reason all 50 of them signed anything is because the Republicans are standing there ready to beat the shit out of them.
It’s the only thing they can ever get together on — the desire to stay out of the GOP line of fire.
Yes. He’ll have some fond memories while serving his time.
Since Blago hasn’t been charged with anything and Fitz doesn’t seem like he is in too much of a hurry, I don’t see how Reid can make this stick. Either arrest and charge Blago or cut the crap. Fitz got Libby for lying when it was treason that was afoot. Will Blogo end up with a misdemeanor charge at the end of the day?
Enjoy.
Who’s chairing the Senate Rules Committee in the 111th? I had thought the Burris “investigation” would land in Feinstein’s lap, but she’s going to chair Intel.
Reid got played by a superior (if corrupt) politician, and now he’s got a huge problem on his hands. I don’t think he realizes how big it is yet, or Jim Manley wouldn’t be so cavalier in the press. But he’s got nobody but himself to blame.
An all too familiar refrain about Reid’s prowess…! 8-(
So is Reid supposed to just shut up and accept anyone Blago appoints, since that’s the process? I don’t think so. They should be weighing in IMO.
While no fan of Dem “leadership,” I do feel for them in this situation. It’s a very tricky spot, just like the Traitor Joe bullshizzle. Perhaps Reid will realize how nice it would be right now to have the Liberal blogs supporting him strongly right now. Too bad he lost that support by his actions over the last few years.
It would certainly be interesting to watch the same Senate who gave convicted felon Ted Stevens a standing ovation (Reid calling him “distinguished colleague”) exclude Burris.”
Hasn’t Burris filed to suit? If so, the court will decide whether it is political or not. If it isn’t then the law rules.
Kennedies and Clintons…
Obama’s own choice for his Senate seat a convicted slumlord…
And now this guy…
You must be so proud. I HOPE some of that CHANGE we were promised shows up soon…
That would be Kennedys. (And is your handle a reference to Exxon?)
Don’t understand why the Kennedys and the Clintons have something to do with this. Obama’s choice?
Methinks Harry Reid and all the other outraged Dem pols are more outraged that they did not get to make the Senate pick. It’s so much more convenient to be outraged by the universally loathed governor.
You know, supporters of Caroline Kennedy’s appointment say that she would provide a very strong donor base to the ticket when she runs in 2010 alongside the Governor who will have appointed her. Isn’t that a bribe?
Governors always get something for appointing people to office. The idea that Blago wanted something for appointing someone to Obama’s Senate seat didn’t shock me, and it shouldn’t shock anyone else, really.
Sometimes I think Fitz is a bit of a Boy Scout.
So then, our President-elect is also tainted and thus nearly useless, by virtue of his four years in the Senate?
So then, there is no hope, and no we can’t.
Pretty grim POV…
Burris’ suit is against IL’s SoS for refusing to file/certify the paperwork…
This is not rocket science! The Dems must oppose any appointment by Blago. Period. To do otherwise would be political suicide. Can you imagine what the Repubs would do to them if they allowed a Blago appointment to be seated? Think Rovian.
Even if all the law and the courts will rule against them in the end, they have no choice. They must try. To do otherwise would be to invite criticism of seating a tainted, as in seating a Senate appointment being made by a Gov who tried to sell the seat to the highest bidder.
In my humble opinion, regardless of the laws that may or may not apply, they have no choice. They know this. They must do the right thing, even if legality isn’t on their side.
I would think that Burris accepting this position under such tainted conditions would be prima facie evidence he isn’t qualified.
I think one of the things that is getting lost here is that there are two processes going on. Fitzgerald intiated the current round of action with his arrest and criminal complaint. But I didn’t vote for Blago 2 years ago because I couldn’t bring myself to vote for someone that I was sure would be indicted at some point in the future. The problem I have with Fitzgerald is precisely that he has been investigating Blago for years and probably could have indicted him on something at least a couple of years ago. As the criminal complaint shows, it isn’t Blago’s style to be subtle about his criminality. So the first process is the legal one by Fitzgerald and it has been moving at a glacial pace.
The second is the impeachment process. And the impeachment investigating committee has been meeting for a couple of weeks now. Fitz’s foot dragging is largely irrelevant to what they are doing and it is looks like they will act long before Fitz does. As this is a political process, they can rule that both Blago trying to sell the seat and then name Burris to it are impeachable.
Finally, of course, politics are going on here. But even with a special election, it is very unlikely that Republicans would get the seat. But I just don’t get why running an election to replace Emanuel is a rationale or makes it easier to have an election in the state’s other 18 congressional districts.
I agree. Seat him and be done with it.
Speaking of taint, David Vitter still holds a Senate seat.
ba-dum-bump
Not just tainted but diapered. :)
If the court rules that the SOS has to certify then it’s done – at least for me. He will have to be seated.
If the senate refuses to seat Burris, it will create a delay in the courts that should take us to the next Illinois election for the seat.
Twain — Ex Executive Officer and a thirty-year Democrat until this last election.
Back in NY, look at who the Democratic machine is considering for THAT appointed seat (not even taking into account that Hillary can’t even Constituionally take the SOS job).
Look at the slumlord/donor Obama WANTED appointed to his little-used seat.
Same stuff, different day.
I have no sympathy for the Vichy Democrats. In particular, when they act in a lawless manner. There is no basis under Section 5 of the Constitution to deny Burris.
For these spineless bastards to protest over someone selling political influence is really rich. You just can’t make stuff like this up.
So wait now…we wanted Democrats to follow the law in regard to Bush impeachment proceedings, and inquiries and the like, and we hate it that they didn’t because of political pressure to play nice and have comity in the Village.
And now we want them to play politics and disregard the legal process because the GOP will hold this over them?
The GOP will find an excuse to hold something over them. For eight years I’ve heard a constant refrain of “Clinton did it too” wrt rendition, etc. They will hold whoever they want over us for however long they want. That’s no excuse to not follow the law.
But. But. But sex is okay if you are a Republican. Blue dresses only apply to Dems.
And, by the way, he already held the seat. Seating him in the first place wasn’t an issue.
Just another politician who didn’t have the dignity to resign.
I gotta agree with Moe Lane of Red State here (who frequently makes me laugh):
Seems to me there ought to be some objection to the governor of Delaware appointing a placeholder to Joe Biden’s seat so that his son can run for the full-term when he returns from Iraq. I mean, there’s a tangible benefit being conveyed to the outgoing Senator, isn’t there? Doesn’t the family of the Vice President elect benefit from that decision? And doesn’t the Attorney General of Delaware benefit from that decision? Has anyone looked into the conversations between the Biden family and the governor of Delaware? Isn’t it possible that there’s a consideration there?
The issue here is Senate appointments by state executives. This should be removed from the US constitution and from state law. But until that happens, an appointment by a legally elected governor of a constitutionally eligible individual cannot be overruled by the Senate, and certainly not by the Democratic caucus, as Harry Reid continues to claim in his ever-so-stern correspondence.
Think how many dead Iraqi children would still be alive if Harry Reid had shown this stiff spine to George Bush over the funding for his illegal war. Think how much more we would know about US Attorneys if Harry Reid had shown this stiff spine about the legally mandated appearance in front of Senate committees of Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, and Josh Bolten.
Think about whether we would consider legitimate any prosecution of a Democratic governor by a Bush USAttorney — if the US Senate had conducted any investigation of the takedown by the US Attorney in New York of that state’s governor.
Harry Reid is entirely responsible for the disrespect he generates from politicians everywhere. He’s earned it. That he would expect support, and get it from some quarters (!), just because he’s decided to go after an African American appointee to the only African American United States Senator’s seat due to some claimed illegality by a Bush US Attorney is absurd.
Seat Roland Burris.
Other than his seeming sense of entitlement, and his going along with Blago playing the race card? And his tune changing over Blago after he was appointed?
What are the senate requirements?
Do they vote on Burris? If so, how many votes does the senate need to approve the appointment?
And then there’s Athenae:
I find this whole thing entirely too amusing.
Heh, He waxes poetic, non?
Harry Reid finally taking a stand on something is some kind of miracle.
Why this?
Blagojevich totally played the Democrats in the senate and Fitzgerald.
Yes, other than all that. That’s all par for the course, unfortunately.
I don’t have to like Blago in order to advocate moving along with the appointment. Besides I cannot imagine the racism one like Burris must have experienced (ignored) in order get close to where he was before this happened.
His “seeming sense of entitlement”. Where is it? Is it bigger than a bread box? Can I have some evidence of it?
Reid now has to choose between two mutually exclusive goals: massing maximum strength for the first months of Senate votes in the 111th (seat Burris), vs. maximum perceived purity of the D party in this critical time of Obama’s arrival as POTUS (don’t seat Burris). As commenters have noted above, not seating Burris also brings alienating AAs, highlighting all the Senate D leadership’s prior rule-cheats, enduring a long legal fight, being on record as opposing the plain meaning of the law, etc.
Insofar as my priorities are first to follow the rule of law, and second to get a Krugman-approved economic stimulus package done absolutely ASAP, I recommend Reid & Co. get rational fast and stand down w/r/t opposing the seating of Burris.
Also: There is an important issue buried in here. The Constitution tells us that Senators can expel a Senator once seated, and they can refuse admission of a new Senator on the basis of a dodgy election, but they have no authority to reject any state’s lawfully executed Senatorial appointment. This would be a terrible, terrible precedent to set that could well lead to a major Constitutional crisis down the road in a time of great national emergency — imagine e.g. coordinated assassinations of Senators of a given party, etc.
Also (just for completeness): An incoming Senator can be rejected on the basic of not being qualified to hold the office, but as a former stage AG that does not apply in the Burris case.
I for one am always up to trash Harry Reid. But the Democratic Caucus announced its intention not to seat any nominee that Blagojevich might make. How is this then about race since it applied to any Blagojevich choice? The voters of Illinois elected Barack Obama not just the African American ones. It is their seat, not an African American one or a white one or a Hispanic one.
Again what Fitzgerald is doing in Chicago is distinct from what the impeachment committee is doing in Springfield.
That Blagojevich claims that he is acting on the part of Illinois voters is a bad joke. We want him gone. Burris is being a willing accomplice of the governor and any credibility he might have had is pretty much shot as well. Burris is not representing the people of Illinois. Burris is representing Burris, period.
All this is a variant of my Mukasey Principle. No one with a shred of integrity would work voluntarily for Bush. Well no one with a shred of integrity would accept an appointment from Blagojevich. That Burris somehow can remain a “good” guy even as he is accepting the fruits of a thoroughly corrupt process is ludicrous.
I have known for a long time that Reid and his Vichy associates couldn’t play chess, but until this cluster-f*** I thought they might be able to play checkers.
They are hopeless. It is going to be embarrassing watching them surrender over and over to 41 Republican Senators led by excremental McConnell.
Oh well.
As an added Laugh-In moment, consider the Blagojevich/Burris situation that Harry “Hit me again” Reid and the Senatorial Democrats face in conjunction with the Minnesota Franken/Coleman Senate race.
As Jane said (liberally interpreted *g*), Harry walked straight into his own right cross, and never saw it coming.
Punch-drunk Harry can’t find a way to get out of his gaffe on Illinois and at the same time, plan to seat Minnesota’s Franken. Not without the Senatorial Repugs throwing a fit.
If Jane ever wanted to produce a Comedy, this one might be it. *g*
He may well not be good, but the controlling question here is whether he is legal.
Maybe I should have put that as a question instead: Should the controlling question here be what is legal, or what is politically advantageous?
Now that, my good friend, is shifting the Eureka court of opinion. *s*
We are going to uphold the rule of law by violating it?
Yep, and Isreal is going to bomb its way into peace.
Silliness.
I see another layer to Blago’s appointment of Burris. Burris has, in the past, been a political opponent of Blago’s. And I think Blago may just have permanently tainted him politically by appointing him. Viciously clever, if true.
“Hey, you! — the most loyal members of the Democratic coalition!~ We aren’t blocking this man’s entrance into the United States Senate because he’s BLACK. We’re refusing to seat him because he’s been appointed by a corrupt governor. Just because we chose not to eject a member of our own body when he was convicted of multiple felonies, and then gave him a standing ovation: pay no attention to the salient difference between these two men.”
That won’t fly. Ted Stevens is white. Roland Burris is black. Unfortunately this appointment, like so much else in American politics, will be seen through the prism of race.
Quite frankly, Senate Democrats could almost make an argument for not seating the Blago appointee if he were white. In this case, though, I think they can’t. And notice, please, that Blago approached one other possibility: Congressman Davis, also an African American. Did he do that because he knew that Illinoisans wanted another African American in Barack Obama’s Senate seat?
Or did he do that to create these optics for Harry Reid? Let’s not forget that Harry Reid is a Mormon, a faith that until not long ago did not permit African Americans to join their church, and to this day perpetuates a theology based on skin color.
Don’t think that won’t go unremarked on black radio.
Maybe there isn’t evidence that Burris is not qualified, but I’m not sure that’s the standard by which we should make that decision. There is no evidence that he is qualified, either.
More importantly, there are reasons he didn’t ever show up on Blago’s list in the first place. Of course, one of them is that Burris wouldn’t likely pay out to get the seat–or he didn’t have a powerful/wealthy enough network that would do it for him. For those same reasons, unless something dramatic happens, should Burris be seated, he’s not likely to be elected when his seat is up for election in 2010. And that’s because Burris just isn’t there…the experience isn’t there, the network isn’t there, the appeal just isn’t there. Speaking about somebody from my own home state, he’s a perfectly fine guy, just not a senator. That’s why he’s had a limited career up to this point and another reason he didn’t show up on anybody’s list as Obama’s replacement.
While the fights will continue in the short-term, in the long run I think this will be viewed as an impossible situation that will be corrected in an election in the not-too-distant future. As far as I can tell, this will be a blip on the radar. Too many big issues, too little time.
If we are desperately looking to place blame somewhere, we should place it on the Illinois state government for not promptly coming up with an alternative plan for what to do in this scenario. With the legislature sitting on its hands, too much space was given to Rod and he took advantage of it. Of course, his insistence on pushing forward with a candidate only exemplifies the type of hubris that got us here in the first place.
We don’t know yet if this is a legal matter justiciable by the courts. The US Supreme Court may decide that they want no part of it. Or they may rule for Burris and Blagojevich. We simply don’t know. I think that if the impeachment committee in Springfield added the Burris appointment as another count in its eventual impeachment bill (i.e. showing a pattern of malfeasance in the selection process) this would strengthen the hand of the Senate in any possible review by SCOTUS. You are, however, prejudging this matter.
Yes, I am prejudging the matter based on the rather clear language of Sections 3 and 5 of Article I of the Constitution, the Seventeenth Amendment and the Powell case. This isn’t really a close call.
For Reid and his fellow Vichy to get into this is about as productive as opening an e-mail from Nigeria.
Let me see. The last two African American Senators were both elected in the state of Illinois. Remind me again how many African American Senators California has elected? And although I didn’t vote for him because of FISA, an African American Senator from Illinois just got elected President, something he never would have achieved without the exposure that his election to the Senate gave him, but somehow now Illinois has to carry the burden of the rest of the country’s failure to elect African Americans to high office? I think some explaining needs to be done about this but not by the voters of Illinois.
The Powell case was about an elected Senator. There is a major difference between an official who gains their office because of an election and one who does not.
I’m not having much hope for impeachment anywhere in these modern times. It seems to me it’s too nuanced and complicated and too much about honour for these thieves and scoundrels.
If the Senators considered Ted Stevens an esteemed honorable colleague to applaud after he was convicted then, I ask, how could the Senate NOT seat even Blago himself???? So, how can they not seat Blago’s appointee, regardless of another {silly, silly} Congressional letter.
They are all corrupt. That’s the fucking problem.
It’s not about race but that aspect may indeed fatally wound the inept Reid. Which would be at least satisfying.
So what? Powell made it clear that the “qualification” standard of Section 5 was to be strictly construed as opposed to liberally interpreted.
And, yes, there is a difference between an elected member and an appointed member, unfortunately that difference argues against your position. It takes the ‘elections and returns’ standard of Section 5 out of play.
(With great respect:) That’s a surprising statement coming from you, Hugh. You don’t feel the Constitution is clear?
I should say that Adam Clayton Powell was a representative from New York not a Senator. The decision I believe made a distinction between Powell who may have been tainted as a person and his election which was seen as untainted. This is the reverse of the Burris situation.
I think people are missing the point that SCOTUS will not rule on something if it sees it as belonging solely to the “political branches”. This is the obverse of Marbury. SCOTUS will intervene if there is a legal question but not if it is deemed a political question which it leaves to either the executive or legislature whichever is involved. What was held in the Powell case may or may not be pertinent here. We just don’t know. As I pointed out above, the Powell case was about a tainted individual in an untainted process. The Burris case is the opposite. So they aren’t analogous. SCOTUS might buy into Blagojevich’s argument or it might not.
My own view is that there is an ongoing impeachment inquiry with the selection process being its prime focus. Selection should not go forward until the impeachment process has had a chance to do its job. To act otherwise would allow the potential for a corrupt governor to enjoy the fruits of his malfeasance. But again that’s just my view. We won’t know until this goes before the Court.
I can’t ignore this – link above at 34 leads to:
Burris sought death for innocent man…
Public fury over the governor’s alleged misconduct has masked the once lively debate over [senate appointee] Burris’ decision to continue [as state attorney general] to prosecute, despite the objections of one of his top prosecutors, the wrong man for a high-profile murder case…
But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris’ own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.
Burris refused. He was running for governor…
Anybody who understood this case wouldn’t have voted for Burris,” Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, told ProPublica. Indeed, Burris lost that race, and two other attempts to become governor.
Burris’ role in the Cruz case was “indefensible and in defiance of common sense and common decency,” Warden said. “There was obvious evidence that [Cruz] was innocent.” …
Burris was never accused of any wrongdoing or misconduct…
Homework (runs from keyboard)
http://www.politico.com/news/s…..16981.html
Please discuss, if you like. Not mentioned in the thread so far is that the Prez-elect opposes Burris’ appointment as well. Is he holding the bar high with no regard for race? If there’s a record of questionable, closed-minded decisions in matters as serious as capital crime prosecution, then do the people of Illinois – and the former holder of that Senate seat – want such a person representing their state?
If, indeed, the law allows the Senate in some manner to police itself in this matter, then it should make a statement.
I’d also like to know why Illinois seems to be sleeping on a special election? Blago could veto, but what about a veto override?
Think of the fun: Would Burris dare run in the election? Who would the Senate seat, Burris or the winner of the special election?
Thanks for re-stating. I don’t see how this can -not- be a legal question. If any gang of Senators can keep an incoming appointed Senator out when there has been no finding of any violation of law, then we’re screwed as a nation — all bets are off. There would have to be some basis in law for the opposition to the seating.
Jane and Bmaz are right Reid is wrong. Burris is qualified. Blago is the Governor. Simple. Reid is a cetified asshole.
The imagery just hit me: Reid is setting himself up as George Wallace barring the door. Cripes, wotta maroon.
Here is the Costiutional answer.
Seat him. If Fitz or the Ill Legilature establishes evidence that the appointment was corrupt, expel him by a 2/3rds vote as Section 5 provides.
Because it would cost up to $50 million and the state is already $5 billion behind in its payments. Because all sides are playing politics on this including Blago and Burris.
On this, we agree.
Come on, Teddy. This is what the American people are so sick of. It’s why they suddenly became democrats.
was on the phone and am trying to get caught up..
what i still don’t get is why should the rights of reid, blagojevich or burris be our primary concern? or how this looks politically? shouldn’t we be, at least as a first pass, thinking about the rights of the citizens of illinois and how they are best served?
or have i just missed that discussion?
Timely action by the Illinois legislature would have guaranteed the interests of its constituents… but they slept instead.
Oh dear!
What would we do for kabuki?
What would we have to aggravate each other over?
You are a party-pooperator, oldgold.
;~)
[I find the almost palpable annoyance developing among the denizens rather astonishing, given that no-one, beyond ourselves, is interested in what we ‘think’, whichever ’side’ of this ‘controversy’ we might choose to align ourselves with … (full disclosure: I agree with you) and the ‘process’ of attempting to do more that simply stating our individual ‘convictions’, that is, attempting to ‘win the hearts and minds’, of those persuaded ‘otherwise’ is limping past ‘amusing’, or so it seems to me …]
;~(
Blago is presumed innocent until proven guilty. He is legally required to appoint a senator. There are no grounds to deny Burris a seat because of allegations against the governor.
right. but what about going forward? how do we, as progressives, work to support the rights of the citizens (primarily of illinois, but also the rest of us)?
(BTW — Happy New Year to you, selise!)
There is a diversity of opinion on that question. Above I asked: “Should the controlling question here be what is legal, or what is politically advantageous?” And on another thread bmaz said:
Personally I think bmaz’ answer is the right one. The situation will resolve itself in time through a Blago resignation, impeachment, and/or indictment and perhaps conviction… or if Blago is cleared of wrongdoing. If appropriate, Burris can be expelled from the Senate at the time of that resolution.
happy new year to you too Hmmm!
i’m not suggesting breaking any laws… i just want to start from the position of understanding and supporting the rights of the citizens – and i don’t think i’ve seen that laid out yet. instead it’s all about the rights and options that various politicians have.
but i maybe i’ve missed it?
Succintly put and absolutely correct.
Jane is correct that Reid was out-maneuvered (big surprise there) but I agree with Ian that the right thing to do is to let this play out in the courts and not seat Burris. I don’t believe there is a clear precedent and I said he (Burris) was an asswipe but “morally depraved” works too and sounds ever so much more refined.
Disagree.
Blago has no one to blame but himself.
His indictment (so far) is something like 72 pages, which suggests a pattern of very bad judgment.
Blago still has the right to defend himself in court.
But if he cared what was best for his state, he’d have resigned.
He looks like a narcissistic jerk, and the appointment of Burris ices it.
Blago can go join Abu Gonzo for a little Pity Party, and they can both claim that they’re ‘victims’. It’s all about how they feel; the rest of us don’t matter.
FWIW, I’m really interested in that whole ‘change’ mantra, which means that I don’t think someone with a 72-page indictment should be calling the shots on a Senate seat.
WTF!!
Is this really FDL or has my browser gone crazy on me? I guess it’s OK for us to throw out the constitution when we feel like it, but not for the Repugs, eh?
Reid was wrong when he said he wouldn’t seat anybody appointed by Blagojavich, and he’ll be wrong if he refuses to seat Burris. No extra points for consistency.
Blago is an empty suit with the personality and judgment of an adolescent, and although the transcript in question sure sounds like he was selling the seat, it is just as likely that he was tweaking the federal agents he knew were listening, like a juvenile phone prank. Trust me on this, I’ve seen this clown in operation pretty up close and personal.
I’m not arguing that he’s not corrupt; he could just as easily have been opening the auction in that phone call, but because he’s such a jerk, we’re going to have to wait until court when Fitzgerald unveils what else he’s got to support his claims of corruption.
In the meantime, the lynch mob that Tim has so embarrassingly joined would ignore the rule of law and deny the citizens of Illinois 1/2 of their representation in the U.S. Senate. We’ve already been more than sufficiently punished for electing the guy governor (the choice was a very grim one): The state is a mess. Don’t deprive us of a sentor.
Have to disagree with you. The Senators have far from clean hands given their own responses to lobbyists and funders. So getting all hoity toity about Burris is hypocritical. Question: Does Blag have the power to appoint Burris? Does White have the authority to refuse to certify the documentation? And Paddy Fitz has not exactly moved with speed: after the presser he has been quiet and wants more time. One could say: wasn’t all that stuff premature? Even the Blag seems to know he was being recorded. Sure Blag is an @@shole; but does he have the authority to make the appointment? To me: yes he has!!!