Another quote: “We note, however, that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the seventeenth amendment must be signed and sealed by the state’s secretary of state.”

A lot of talk back and forth about this, but the question that comes to mind is what do the Dems get out of this very public and ugly fight? Nothing. It doesn’t accomplish the people’s work any. It doesn’t advance any agenda. And now that the Illinois Supreme Court has stated the obvious, there’s no real reason to continue this charade.

What should follow on Monday is a very short and direct statement from Reid, Durbin, and company indicating that they are disappointed with the taint in Burris’ appointment since the Illinois governor was arrested for statements made in the appointing process of this very seat, but that the court has ruled that the appointment is legal and we’ll welcome Mr. Burris into the Democratic Caucus despite our disappointment. But we know the Dems… they’ll screw even this up.

I didn’t notice anyone here saying that seating Burris was an example of America at its most noble or its most inspiring. What I heard was, this is the least bad option, and we’re making things worse by playing Blagojevich’s game for him.

given that blago is being impeached for abuse of power wrt to the senate appointment, i just don’t get why the right thing to do is to ignore that (at least, that’s what i think the argument is).

. . .in his conduct while Governor of the
17 State of Illinois, Rod R. Blagojevich, has abused the power of
18 his office in some or all of the following ways:

19 1) The Governor’s plot to obtain a personal benefit in
20 exchange for his appointment to fill the vacant seat in the
21 United States Senate, as more fully detailed in the Final
22 Report at Section IV-A and in the Committee Record as a whole.

I also disagree with icons like Feingold. And I was just thinking today about what issues I disagreed with liberal economists like Krugman and Stiglitz on where I think they drank the koolaid but overall I would rather have their voices out than not have them (and both have been doing good work recently).

I should add that my understanding of the Powell case is that it turned on the fact that while Powell might be tainted the process by which he was elected was not. This is the opposite of the present case where it is the process that is in question (although my opinion of Burris is pretty low) and not the individual.

I am also surprised that after all the years we have seen parliamentary manuevers used to produce bad results we are now told that these should not be used even if they produce a good and legal result.

Blagojevich is a little like Bernie Madoff. He has been caught redhanded in illegality. But pending his trial, I suppose it would be OK for Madoff to open another hedge fund and defend himself by saying that this one really is above board. And if regulators said no to him, I hope you would defend him just as strongly as you defend Blagojevich and Burris.

Because the legislature deferred to Fitzgerald, this will not be the focus of his trial however. But Blago was so corrupt that they found without difficulty 13 other charges to lay against him.

in hr1671, there are 13 charges, but the very first one is on the senate appointment and in the final committee report (from thursday) there are multiple pages on it. (links @46. i went back and checked, and this sure looks like the resolution that was voted on yesterday.

so i don’t see how the legislature has deferred to fitz – wouldn’t that charge have been removed before voting to send it to the senate? i haven’t read everything carefully, and i certainly haven’t been following the details, so i expect i just have something wrong – but i can’t seem to figure out what it is.