So Rod Blagojevich is impeached while jogging.
The Illinois Supreme Court says it’s not going to force Jesse White to sign Roland Burris’s certificate of appointment because they say it’s valid without the secretary of state’s signature.
And Dick Durbin says the Senate will still refuse to seat Burris.
Now I have to ask the question:
Do these geniuses have an end game?
I ask this because after Burris cleaned out Reid, it seems to be Durbin’s turn — and he’s playing on a short stack.
Durbin is claiming that the Senate will wait for Blago’s impeachment trial to conclude, cross their fingers and hope that Pat Quinn appoints someone else to fill the seat.
That’s an inspired idea. In the mean time, nobody is going to talk about this. The headlines will cease, Burris will sit modestly at home with a cup of chamomile tea, and when Quinn makes his appointment Burris will slip back into quiet obscurity. The Senate will be unsullied by his taint and soon nobody will remember the entire thing ever happened.
…IN BIZARROWORLD.
What are they thinking?
The court said, "no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution."
But according to Durbin, the Senate is evidently claiming that they do supercede the state’s authority to fill the seat. Put aside the sheer breathtaking arrogance of the position — how do they think that’s going to play in the press?
Moreover, it looks like Durbin’s full of shit here. He cites Senate rules drawn up in 1884 which require the signature of both the governor and the secretary of state. But as Professor Erwin Chemerinsky states:
The problem here is that Burris unquestionably was lawfully selected. According to the 17th Amendment, "When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies." Illinois law gives this power to the state governor, and that is Blagojevich until he is impeached and found guilty.
In that regard, it is notable that the 1884 Senate rule Durbin and Reid rely on was promulgated before the passage of the 17th Amendment as well as before the Supreme Court decision in Powell v McCormack. Reid and Durbin are duplicitous in thinking their antiquated Senate rule trumps the official selection pursuant to the 17th Amendment and Illinois statutory law.
Durbin further states that "we have never, ever waived the rule for any election or appointment." Except that it did. In 1910, when they seated Sen. William E. Purcell with "irregularities in certificate."
I’m no lawyer, but good luck with that one.
Just to make things more complex, Jesse White says that while he won’t sign the certificate itself, he’ll sign a certificate saying Burris’s appointment is "true and accurate" — which further weakens Durbin’s case.
What will a court make of all this? Hell if I know, but a couple of things are worth noting:
- Roland Burris ain’t the chamomile tea type. He’s been out of the limelight for fourteen years and he’s lovin’ life. If you want him off the stage, you better bring the hook.
- Anybody see Burris get turned away at the Senate? That was Bill Jeffress standing next to him. Reid and Durbin may be auditioning for the original amateur hour, but Burris came to play. I watched Jeffress defend Scooter Libby. He’s absolutely crack and serious as a heart attack.
- At this point, it’s all about Reid and Durbin’s egos. The caucus is complaining about how poorly the whole thing has been handled, people are grumbling to the press, and the Democratic leadership looks like a bunch of four-fingered goofs.
However, the sideshow is just getting started — because Roland Burris has shown he’s more than willing to campaign for the seat in the headlines, and he’ll win too. Not because he’s right, but because the Democratic leadership are so spectacularly wrong — and because Burris has nothing to lose. It’s all upside for him.
Read the Politico rundown of the entire fiasco. It will scare the bejesus out of you to think these guys are in charge of anything more complex than scrambling eggs. But I think this was my favorite part:
On Monday, Obama met with Reid to talk about the stimulus package. During that discussion, Obama reportedly told Reid that Burris should be seated. Obama’s people subsequently leaked the details of the conversation in order to distance their boss from efforts to deny Burris the seat, a move that infuriated some Senate Democratic staffers.
Obama is evidently the only one with any common sense here. The entire issue is an open sore that will just continue to fester. It threatens to become an enormous media spectacle that will completely overshadow the opening days of the Obama presidency and erode public confidence in the Democrats’ ability to govern.
In other words, we all lose.
I mean, really. Let’s say Reid and Durbin don’t get smacked around in court and forced to seat Burris, and Quinn appoints someone else.
There will be two guys running around who think they are entitled to Barack Obama’s Senate seat.
Do they think nobody’s going to notice?
Related posts:
- Burris Makes it Official: Will Not Run for “Re”-Election (And GOP Rep. Kirk Won’t Run Either!)
- Burris: Health Care Reform Must Have a Public Option
- Sunday Late Night: Your NN2010 Host, Harry Reid
- Roland Burris Will Vote Against Any Bill That Doesn’t Have a Public Plan
- Obama Wants a Trigger, So Keep Calling Reid





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Jane, when are you playing Harry and what’s the minimum?
From Politico, we learn that (just as we have suspected all along) most Democratic caucus discussion goes into exactly how sternly worded the sternly worded letters are to be:
Ooh Teddy! So brutal.
Of course there was. They all had a good cry and felt much better. :)
Too bad that wasn’t on C-SPAN.
And Happy New Year Teddy!!!!
Reading the Politico argument, and knowing from reading DK that Obama is a political super-genius three-dimensional chess player who sees around corners, I have to wonder whether he has played this whole episode as a way to get rid of Reid.
Also, won’t this be an even stupider punk if Sean Quinn appoints a white dude?
No unless its absurdist comedy
Dugg right here — please join me!
The African Americans in Illinois would make the new governor’s life hell!
(third-to-last sentence: do you mean Sean Quinn, not Jesse White?)
Pat Quinn
Super Summary on the Sorry State of Senatorial Selection. Reid and Durbin are sticklers wherein trivialities and sticking points can be used to sandbag their own party. Republicans, however, are given Carte Blanche to steal the copper and the fixtures. Sorry SOB’s Chin Nuts Reid and Durbin Deep.
And whether to put a stamp on it or make it postage due.
Yeah, him, the Lt Guv
Pat Quinn, who would take Blago’s place
Maybe Harry should have stuck with playing GO FISH.
There are two things to note about this statement. First, lawful does not mean legitimate. Second, while many things are lawful in this world, they are not officially so until they have been determined to be so. And therein lies the time to remove Blagojevich and appoint someone other than Burris to Obama’s Senate seat.
Also, won’t this be an even stupider punk if Sean Quinn appoints a white dude?
Not if it’s Jan, the white gal!
I think we’re gonna see a lot of that for quite a while.
How long will this court drama play out because until it does the Dems will be short one Senate Seat they should have.
We need to pass a stimulus package if we don’t the DLC will take the hit for this we will likely be rid of Harry.
But we might not have an economy by then.
Not exactly how he would have liked his term to start, me thinks.
i don’t know if i want to laugh or cry.
since when is it a good idea to have the public believe something that is not supported by the available evidence?
Hey, no one said a return to reason was gonna be easy on the Congresscritters.
If Pat Quinn would announce he’ll appoint Roland Burris to the seat should he become governor, the problem goes away. He should do this. Soon. Actually, now would be good.
Jane..your ‘refuse to seat Burris’ link is actually a link to Gmail.
Reason and logic escape them. They still think Republicans are in control.
Good Point. Harry Reid implored Pachacutec to understand the express importance of kissing Lieberman’s ass for his critically necessary vote. “I’ve got to have every vote I can get. I need Joe Lieberman’s vote. I know I can count on Joe Lieberman’s vote. Joe votes with us on everything but the war.”
We have real problems.
Seat the man and get to work!
These are, please recall, the same geniuses who provided the frequently replayed video opportunity of a 57-second standing ovation for seven-time convicted felon Ted Stevens.
Thankfully, Rachel Maddow replays moments of it whenever the geniuses start talking about the sanctity of the Senate.
blue – fixed and ty
So seriously how does seating Burris help the people of Illinois? What do we get out of all these machinations?
The real problem is the dem so called leadership. Stupid, stupid, stupid!
I still don’t get why if seating Burris is OK when appointed according to law by Governor Quinn, seating the very same Burris is not OK when appointed according to law by Governor MacBlago. I mean sure, have the Senate expel Burris-appointed-by-Blago immediately after seating if you want, even without any evidence at all if you want — fine with me — but preventing the seating in the first instance on the basis of suspicion alone just flies in the face of the Constitution.
Reid is an idiot. First Lieberman puts it to him and then a punk like Blago really shoves it up his tookus. Pitiful! The man claims he was a boxer in his youth. I think he’s still suffering from being punchy. I’ll bet his claim is that he had 101 fights and won them all but 100.
Given our gubernatorial tradition here in Illinois, we should probably conduct Pat Quinn’s swearing in ceremony in a prison.
How about a petition Jane?I have no confidence left in Reid.
i’m really confused – went back and forth with bmaz and some other folks several threads back on the issue of sending the matter to the rules committee to review. are there any circumstances where this would be an acceptable way to proceed or is it under all circumstances illegal or unconstitutional?
Blago’s dealings with Fitz are a criminal matter.
Blago’s choice of Burris is a political matter.
Blago’s impeachment is a political matter.
Only the first of these deals purely with courts. The other two have certain legal tie-ins but they are primarily not court driven. So all of these invocations of the courts, and evidence, and the Constitution are not presumptive. You actually have to go through them and while it may be clear to you what the decision will or ought to be, it is precisely the political dimension to them that creates a space for other things to happen.
the reason i’m asking is that it seems the law and the political optics of the issue are being discussed, but somehow we’re leaving out the interests and rights of the people of illinois. is there any way to include that part too?
We are governed by clowns. Sad, Sad Clowns. Like these.
I replied over there (sorry for the cross-posting,m but it seems relevant in this case):
No, I can’t think of any reason why not seating would be OK because that’s what the Constitution says is to be done. But to turn it around, I don’t understand why you see that as a problem, because if Burris were to be caught (to continue with your fun how-bad-would-it-have-to-be scenario) on live coast-to-coast TV murdering someone with his bare hands and teeth — unlikely *g* — then the Senate could vote to expel him. Then he would no longer be a Senator. No problem, right? If anyone can show some actual evidence that Burris or his particular appointment (not just Blago’s prior seat-selling plans) is actually crooked, and not merely suspected of being crooked, then the seating can be undone through the Constitutional expellation process. Do you have some objection to expelling Burris from the Senate?
For Christ’s sake, seat the stupid bastard already.
If the Constitution and its provisions for the orderly transfer of power are not presumptive, then we’re screwed big-time.
So I’m still waiting for an explanation why a hack appointee of a crooked governor is something we should all get behind. Nor do I see that this one vote will be needed or determinative in any upcoming votes in the Senate. Nor do I see with Illinois having the number two man in the Senate and a President elect from here as well that we are going to be underrepresented.
I was just about to say, it’s like the Evil Clown Party vs. the Sad Clown Party.
Do you think Burris would be a bad Senator?
…and Presidential candidates. And…
Schumer wants no part of this Burris mess at Rules.
And he’s the new chair to whom many new members feel beholden after his DSCC service, so I expect it won’t go near Rules.
Well if they were, there would be no need for the judiciary at all.
Let me try again.
We are governed by clowns. Sad, Sad Clowns. Like these.
For Reid so loved the Lieberman, he lied for him.
That’s a good point. But folks are not exactly lining up to take this to court, are they?
This is about legitimacy and the interests of the people of Illinois. We are not served by such a tainted process or those chosen by it. If Blagojevich had sold the office to someone who was nonetheless qualified would that be OK? No. He got caught trying and followed it up with an equally illegitimate selection. This isn’t OK either.
julia upstairs
Democratic Leadership is an oxymoron.
Has been for a while.
More
Better
Sooner
Also: Why not seat, then immediately expel? Wouldn’t that be clearly Constitutional and avoid the uncertainty and delay of a rules challenge or a court challenge? By proposing not seating you seem to be trying to avoid some downside, but it’s not clear to me what that downside is.
LOL. but the murder thing doesn’t make the appointment improper – although it doesn’t exactly reflect well on burris *g*. that’s why i did the buy the appointment for the how-bad-would-it-have-to-be scenario. because that is what make the appointment itself improper (not necessarily burris).
not necessarily. the objection i think i have is that seems more applicable if there is some reason burris himself should not be a senator and not if the appointment process itself is the problem.
When I think of Republicans I think of the guy on the left and when I think of the rest of us I think of the guy on the right.
Seating Burris would in some sense legitimize his selection and I for one do not favor anything that would confer on Blago’s action any patina of legitimacy.
Yes. Incredibly bad. All Senate Dems voted to not accept any Thugojevich appointment, yet Thugo went ahead and found a patsy. Burris is slowly being revealed for the lying thug he is. With this beginning, I don’t see how Burris will get anything accomplished. He’s toxic and no Dem will want to be associated with him. The people of Illinois would be better represented by no one instead of Burris, who will not be able to get anything meaningful done. This is why it’s better to let stall now and let an IL Senate impeachment or indictment of Thugo to happen.
The only people Burris will be able to work with are Repubs, who will gleefully work with Burris just to thumb their noses at us with this whole sordid affair. Over and over again.
Thanks, that makes sense to me. So why not wait for Fitz to introduce at Blago’s trial whatever evidence he may have that Blago’s appointment of Burris is tainted, and if at that point there is Senate consensus that the case is sufficiently convincing — not beyond-a-reasonable-doubt convincing since expelling is not a court of law and does not require that standard of evidence — then expel Burris from the Senate?
At that juncture, Lieberman had not yet supported the Republican candidate. Lieberman had promised to support the Democratic nominee. Lieberman did vote for cloture on Alito, he voted to fund religious hospitals which refused to administer the morning after pill, he promoted war via the Kyl Lieberman Iran bill, he promoted Bush’s war on terror at every opportunity. He presented himself as a leading Democratic Voice in favor of global war on terror on Fox News. All the while he is not a Democrat. Lieberman lost his state’s primary and ran as an Independent. He was elected by Republicans.
we could be calling for burris with withdraw and explaining all the reasons that would be bests for illinois (see holder). or we could be calling on blago to withdraw the appointment and explaining all the reason why that would be the best thing he could do for illinois (see princess caroline). reid is a jack ass by why are burris and blago getting what amounts to a pass?
I guess I don’t understand how Blago could be in any meaningful way legitimized at this point. And at this point I don’t see what law Blago broke in appointing Burris — maybe we’ll get evidence later and if we do obviously it should be used. Unsupported suspicion is not enough basis to get in the way of an otherwise evidently legitimate transfer of power.
1. Because we don’t know with any certainty that any laws were broken in this case.
2. Because we don’t want crooked Senates in the future using this episode as a precedent to block legitimate appointments by Governors who they don’t like and can raise any wild suspicion about.
ok! now i’m getting somewhere – thanks!
if there was no evidence at this point, that would make sense. but isnt’ there enough to have some serious question if the appointment was legit? at least it looks that way to me. that is why the rules committee seemed like an option (not saying it is, just was considering it) to take a look at the questions about the appointment process.
Because this is primarily a political matter and how things play out in a court of law and how they do in the Senate or between the federal and state governments is very, very different.
And why would we have to wait for Fitz and not act on the removal of Blago from state office by the impeachment process which will occur much sooner?
So if Ned Lamont wouldn’t have kicked Traitor Joe’s tush, and J. Low would’ve stayed a “Dem,” do you think Joe would’ve endorsed Obama then instead of McInsane?
I don’t.
If Blago would’ve appointed Denny’s Hasturd, who is certainly “qualified” to be in the Senate, should we just seat him and be done with it, since it would technically be legal?
Why is it you completely ignore the impeachment process. Blago got impeached. He will be tried before the state Senate in a couple of weeks and be gone, removed from office because he will be found to be unfit for it. This does not mean all of his decisions should or need to be done away with. But this one which sparked the impeachment process, yes. Any decision that Blago made wrt Obama’s Senate seat is tainted. It is tainted by the impeachment process. It will be tainted by his conviction and removal from office by the state Senate.
The grounds on which he was impeached have nothing to do with the Senate appointment, IIRC.
Don’t misunderstand me, I would be very very happy to see Burris’ appointment legally attacked using actual evidence that his appointment in particular involved illegal acts. But we don’t have that. As you say, as of now all we have is “tainted”. “Tainted” is pretty vague, really all it means is “a cloud of suspicion surrounds the act” which really means just “suspicion” which is enough to start an inquiry but is not by itself — and should not be IMHO — enough to block a Constitutionally mandated process.
We have legal tools for this stuff, let’s use them. Properly. Justice grinds slow — one of the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to is, after all, the law’s delay.
No one is ignoring the impeachment. When Bill Clinton was impeached, not only did he refuse to resign, he continued to govern as the president, was acquitted and finished his term. Blago just might…
The beauty of democratic justice, even Blago is innocent until proven guilty.
Hugh, it doesn’t matter if Burris is an idiot. It doesn’t matter if Blagojevich is a crook. What matters is that the law in Illinois says that the governor of Illinois can appoint the senator. Now that the governor has done that, the only way to prevent his appointee from being the senator is to BREAK THE LAW. Durbin and Reid and you are trying to say that we should go ahead and break the law if obeying the law is embarrassing. Burris IS embarrassing, but breaking the law to run him off is much, much worse.
This is no less true if the legislature finishes up the impeachment tomorrow and throws Balgojevich out the same day. He was governor when he made the appointment, so the appointment is legal.
Nutella has it exactly right, IMO. If there were legal grounds to stop the appointment, we would see this being dealt with in the courts, not in the Senate.
As far as looking out for the citizens of Illinois (and I’m one):
1) The citizens of Illinois twice had the opportunity to elect a governor who was not Rod Blagojevich. They made bad choices both times. (This works at all levels of government, unfortunately.)
2) The citizens of Illinois have voted down constitutional conventions where we could have changed the rules for filling vacancies or even made it possible to recall a governor by vote.
3) The state is broke. We don’t need the cost of a special election right now, thankyouverymuch.
My $.02: seat Burris. Be very glad that Blagojevich didn’t appoint his wife, himself, or a conservative Republican.
RE: Jane vs Harry Texas Hold Em Showdown
Let the Card Game of The Revolution Be Televised!
Let it be a good ol’ fashioned game o strip poker..
Harry in a 3 piece Brooks Brothers with overcoat, Jane in a bikini…
My money is on Jane… she will not have untied one knot and ol’Barefister Harry will be covering nothing but his ace and Harry one with his empty hands as he slinks out the door…
Can’t lose his two marbles cuz it’s apparent he was eunuched way back when he was a bull calf… just another old steer past his prime…
Harry’s a Big Man when it comes to talking tuff to Dems and progressives…
Let a Republican whisper a minor complaint and ol Harry’s got his bufferpads on and gets down to work…
I agree with Jane’s take on this whole stupid mess…
Welcome to The Lake…
And again anyone with two brain cells to rub together has his/her conclusions about the Dem senate reinforced from all of this:
The Dem senate will do exactly the opposite of what is the smart and principled thing to do. They will take a strong stand when they should just sit down, shut up and go back to twiddling their thumbs. They will cave when they should take a strong stand. They will appease the most corrupt and incompetent people if they are Republicans, and they will challenge honorable people if they are Democrats (such as DiFi being “strong” against Obama), just to convince themselves they are not craven and spineless.
I don’t know if it is a cancer throughout the whole senate, or a consequence of insipid leadership. Either way, the result is the same.
all governors are crooks. and all appointments are for sale. at all levels. just consider how non foreign service officers become ambassadors.
and think upon how it is that some become appointed to judgeships.
paying for office is the way. and it is the way in countries other than the usa.
so, let’s get off the notion that blago is something new. and that his telephonic considerations[assuming that they were wiretapped legally] for an appointment were something unusual.
and let us also give up the notion that patrick fitzgerald is a straight usda. and that the judiciary is straight.
at its heart, this is a story of slime. the slimy reality of amerikan politics.
if you think that blago is/has been slimy, go back into this history of george walker bush as governor of texas.
a story that very few outside of the texas observer cared to examine.
seat burris. and tell the truth about how all amerikan pols are for sale. how both parties sell offices.
and as you will be learning, see how bill richardson[demtillian-nm] sold the denial of voting rights to reptillian interests/financial interests.
and if anyone would do it, investigating bill richardson’s new mexico, it could bounce so far that the entire municipal bond business could collapse, taking down every pol in every state[reptillian and demtillian].
mark my words, obombya and holder will not be conducting such a comprehensive investigation. which makes demtillians=reptillians.
Just a suggestion, feel free to ignore:
open a window and let in some fresh air. There’s more to life than manufacturing enemies.
After FISA – hell, after the last 200+ years – why is anyone the least bit surprised these pompous schmucks believe their personal whims supersede the U.S. Constitution?
And on the Executive side, I’ll say again I think it’s reprehensible that Obama’s stated that mere governmental accusation should carry the full weight and penalty of conviction at trial.
That he’s now flipped this position doesn’t strike me as any great support for the Constitution, simply political expediency.
So we have here both an utter disregard for the law and the foundational belief that their personal decisions are all that matters.
Good thing Dubya’s leaving in two weeks so we can start all that “change.”
i shall ignore. since you haven’t a clue as to how the system works.
nor do you seem to want to change it.
There was speculation as to why Blagojevich was arrested now. I think the reason was because he was recorded in November talking a lot about appointing himself to the vacant senate seat.
He wanted to rehabilitate his image in order to…drum roll, please….run for president in 2016. This is on page 74 of a 78 page PDF; the actual criminal complaint filed from Dec. 7/08.
https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/fbi-blagojevich-2008.pdf
A slight problem here. Ms. Hamster claims that the 17th Amendment trumps the Senate rule. The 17th Amendment says nothing about the details of the appointment, as in who signs and countersigns. Durbin’s argument may be ticky-tack, but it’s also reality. Where Ms. Hamster doesn’t dwell. She just sits around dreaming that Harry Reid isn’t the majority leader, though she has no idea what a majority leader actually does or how the Senate operates. Too bad for her.
am i reading the wrong resolution? from hr1671:
…And Durbin and Reid represent the “good guys?”
We is doomed.
p.s. unless i’m looking at the wrong final report, section IV-A contains multiple pages of details on this.