Reid is a tool.

Good. Reid is so embarrassing.

Jane- Yep. This thing had no where else to go..

Dammit. I was hoping they’d keep blocking the thugs, and that “Give ‘em Head, Harry” had some plan.

Shoulda listened to y’all. I guess I can’t be right ALL the time…hehe.

P
S
Y
C
H

Who could have imagined /s
186 hrs & 23 min

Do Senate Democrats know or care how bad this makes them all look?

Harry is an embarrassment. We — and they — can do better.

Time to swap Harry out like Trent.

But where is the part that says “Harry Reid has shot his wad… and he missed. Senator Reid will be replaced as Majority Leader.”?

This was a whole lot of wasted time.

Sorry, but this is too comical. Looks like we may have another toe-tapping wide-stancer in Ken Blackwell:

“I’ve never had to make the choice because I’ve never had the urge to be other than a heterosexual,” Blackwell said, “but if in fact I had the urge to be something else I could have in fact suppressed that urge.”

http://tpmelectioncentral.talk…..11;_if.php

Oh god. Even with the inept Dem “leadership,” it’s gonna be really hard not to continue gaining Dems on Capitol Hill. Palin? Wurzelbacher? Blackwell? The wheels have come off the Repub bus.

Yes it was a lame threat, Jane. And 50 Democratic Senators signed onto the letter saying that it was a good idea. Sigh.

You make me smile.
And, really, of all the things we do not need – another media freak show.
((teddy)) and ((jane)).

The Senate leadership did have a reasonable strategy if they had followed it. Instead they reverted to form and caved. The people of Illinois have been forgotten in these political games. Burris, the hack choice of an impeached and soon to be removed governor, does not and can not represent the people of Illinois. As I wrote a couple of threads down, is this change we can believe in?

Wait… Blackwell says he’s never had any urge to be gay, so he knows nothing about what being gay is like, but he can unequivocally state that he could resist an “urge” that he’s never had? A. So what? and B. What a tool.

Some of the teevee people (tweety for one) have been saying that the dems had no choice but to say that they wouldn’t accept a Bloggie appointee- and then no choice but to accept him when he was appointed.

Whether true or not, it’s an interesting story to add to one’s political anecdotes.

who performs the actual swearing in?

No wonder Burris has been on my teevee laughing.

Earlier on, trying to be polite, I discounted a mean streak handed golden opportunity as part of Burris’ motivation in taking the appointment.

Maybe I was wrong.

Sounds as if Blackwell is probably gay.

As ridiculous as this is, will anyone even remember it in a couple months? I’m guessing no. The obstructionism by the childish and churlish GOP and the wave of retail bankruptcies and massive unemployment will be on everyone’s minds, not some silly country club membership follies before Obama even took office.

To bad that we won’t be able to see Franken sworn in at the same time. Now Cheney will have to make two trips to the senate.
186 hrs & 15 min

Do Senate Democrats know or care how bad this makes them all look?

I go with they don’t care. This is another case where the Democrats could have taken a principled stand and even if they lost they would at least have shown that they stood for something, that they stood for good government and against the machinations of a corrupt governor. This way though they get to look weak, stupid, and still don’t stand for anything.

Ain’t the capacity of the ‘Merican media to distract themselves with silliness and minutia in the face of catastrophe amazin’?

WASHINGTON — Advisers to President-elect Barack Obama say one of his first duties in office will be to order the closing of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay

Burris is a hack. Who else do you think would accept an appointment from a governor as corrupt as Blagojevich?

Halleluja!!

But the question is when will it be closed. He can announce on his first day in office and then drag it out for a year or more.

A misanthrope, whether hackish or not.

There have been two IL supreme court decisions. First when the AG tried to get a ruling that Blago was not fit – result – he was fit. Second when they ruled that the Govs appointment did not need to be countersigned by the SoS. It is the rule of law. If the people of IL don’t like it they can vote Burris out in 2010 and/or change the law for the future.
186 hrs & 7 min

I did!

so what about the CRS study that marcy reports says:

Under the Powell decision and rationale, and under the express constitutional grant of authority, the Senate (and House) may, in addition to examining “qualifications” of Members-elect, examine the “elections” and “returns” of their own Members, that is, whether an individual presenting valid credentials has been “duly” chosen. A few years after the Powell decision, the Supreme Court in Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972), clearly affirmed the right of the Senate to make the final and conclusive determination concerning the election process and seating of its own Members.

[snip]

Additionally, the Senate has from time-to-time examined the election or selection process (prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, Senators were selected by state legislatures) to see if corruption or bribery has so tainted the process as to call into question its validity

and from her link to tribe:

But if, as some have argued, the Senate is constitutionally bound to seat any qualified person the Illinois governor appoints, then one of the newly elected president’s first quasi-official public pronouncements will prove to have subordinated constitutionalism to politics, not an auspicious start for an administration determined to replace the rule of expediency with the rule of law.

Happily, the president-elect had his constitutional law right, and the critics who said the Senate would violate the Constitution if it carried out its threat to exclude any Blagojevich appointee had it wrong.

But the arguments saying the Senate must seat Burris miss the mark as well. The fact that he is indisputably “qualified” in the constitutional sense has no bearing on the authority of the Senate under Article I, Section 5 to serve as the sole “Judge of the Elections”–and, by extension, the temporary appointments–of would-be members.

And the fact that the governor has yet to be convicted or even impeached is hardly conclusive when dealing with a Senate decision that a particular election or appointment process has been too tainted by evidence of corruption for any victor in that process to represent the electorate with honor and, equally vital, with the appearance of honor.

It matters not that the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not yet been met and might never be: The question for the Senate isn’t whether the Illinois governor truly is a crook, but whether reasonable observers would deem the process too crooked to produce a credible result.

The task of deciding whether public trust would be unacceptably compromised by seating any appointee of a governor whose overheard comments had poisoned the public well should not be confused with the task of deciding whether someone is guilty of election fraud or of corruptly conspiring to sell a public office for personal gain.

i’m no lawyer, but i can’t see how this issue wasn’t at least in question.

disclaimer: reid is still a jackass.

I think I read somewhere the other day that the British had decided to take the Gitmo detainees…maybe they changed their mind, but maybe that is what is enabling this. Also, it looks like Leavenworth is out of the question since the Gov said no way Jose. It will be interesting to see where this all goes.

Awww, poor Harry. He was forced to obey the law. After 8 years of allowing George Bush & Dick Cheney to break the laws of this country, today must be such a heartbreaker for him! Spit.

Pissing everybody off in the process.

Which, after all, seems to be what Harry Reid specializes in.

Capitulation.

At least all 50 Democratic Senators agreed exactly how strongly worded the letter needed to be. How much taxpayer money was spent on that little exercise alone, set aside all the rest of this absurdity?

Getting your colleagues all to sign a letter you then back away from counts against you, in my book. I think Harry Reid’s got about one more strike in him.

I am shocked that you reacted that way.

Darth is President of the Senate until 20 Jan.

very good news.

and here is some more good news for you – norske just showed up in the previous thread.

Thanks Jane.

digg

186 hours? That long? Shit!

Leavenworth is also a Federal facility. It is the primary prison for the military. The KS governor would have no say in who is transferred to the Federal section of the complex.

Good point, but apparently she had a hissy fit or something :)

Tick tock, tick tock
185 hrs & 58 min

Can they use Kansas airspace :)

Hissy fit:

http://www.ksallink.com/?cmd=d…..ormat=html

Sending gitmo detainees to Kansas would be cruel and unusual punishment and therefore banned by the constitution.

Although I think Brownback has already done the NIMBY thing. As have Dewint and Graham when the idea of a brig in Charleston, SC was floated.

Obama can say :

“Look- I have hundreds of these people and any state that votes gooper from now on is getting a shipment”

Is she planning on running for Brownbacks soon to be vacant senate seat.
185 hrs & 54 min

They’ll violate it. Bring them in on Jolly Greens escorted by Cobras and Huey gunships.

detainees?

How bout we build an Ark?

What’s a cubit?

What the State Supreme Court did was incidental to what was being done in the US Senate. If the nomination had been referred to the Rules Committee for a few weeks, the state Senate could have removed Blagojevich and opened the way for the Lt. Governor to make a selection which would not only have been legal but legitimate. I would note that only a small part of what Bush did has ever been successfully challenged legally but almost none of it was legitimate. Are we now following Bush’s example here?

If the law says that the governor gets to make the appointment, then that is the law. The state of Illinois and all states might want to look at the issue now that a possible gap exists in the current process.

But I do not want to see any more Bush-like treatment of the law – the old “it applies to other people.” I am astonshed how many people claim that they want to retroactively toss out inconvenient laws.

To the rabbits:

Only two! Only two!

yes- rabbits—AND GOOPERS…and one of em needs to be an ex senator from Idaho.

I’m going to go with Reid and Durbin and not with Jane. In the first place, Burris didn’t seem to be a team player when he accepted the appointment. 50 dem senators and a dem president-elect said don’t do it, but Burris took it anyway.

Also, at that time Al Franken was not ahead in his recount, and the dems didn’t think they would need 60 votes to seat him. And Burris would help Franken get to 60.

At that time, Eric Holder seemed very likely to get the 60 votes he needed. That was before his relationship with FALN was revealed. Suddenly his confirmation was going to need the votes of both Burris and Franken.

So you can put it back in your pants about Burris’ poker game with Reid and Durbin. There was a lot more going on here than FDL even dreamed about.

Headline: “Democrat Burris forces Democrats to Backdown.”
Yeaaahhh! A Democrat wins a showdown.

I am shocked that you reacted that way.

Yes, well after hearing Obama talk about Guantanamo yesterday I am pretty cynical about anything he has to say about it now. I think it is a stall.

Can you send someone to a prison before they have been convicted of something. I thought that only convicted felons go to prison and otherwise they are jailed. BTW Hamdan was released last Saturday.
185 hrs & 49 min

Proly drop em in a HALO!

Send them to Dallas with George.

Cynical now ? Come on big boy.

Sorry but that plan was so squirrely both of the Rules Committee chairmen, incoming and outgoing — Schumer and DiFi — wanted nothing to do with it.

It would definitely set the stage for some very interesting legal proceedings.

Thank goodness no Seems like everyone has now agreed to follow the law.
185 hrs & 47 min

As I have often pointed out, this is primarily a political process. As often happens in such processes, things can change between the beginning and the end of the process. Saying that it just the law and walking away from it is simplistic.

Regarding Al Franken….. I know the election board certified the election….Is there a Secretary of State to certify the election in MN?

can you explain how it was squirrely? i’m sorry to be so thick, but i really want to understand (schumer and difi not having my confidence in this or most matters).

i mean, blago was impeached for abuse of power wrt the games he was playing on this matter. doesn’t that rise to the level of worth taking a look at?

Sorry but that plan was so squirrely both of the Rules Committee chairmen, incoming and outgoing — Schumer and DiFi — wanted nothing to do with it.

Yes, it is infinitely preferrable to stiff Illinoisans and cede the field to a corrupt governor. You know what was up with all those anti-Vietnam war protesters burning their draft cards, refusing to go, I mean it was the law, end of discussion.

Yes- and he is a dem- and he says that it’s illegal for him to certify unless and until all outstanding legal issues are resolved- which could be sometime before the six year term is up if Coleman wishes to continue making a general nuisance of himself.

Wouldn’t hafta worry about feedin’ ‘em afterward.

As I understand it if there is a legal challenge the certification by the governor is put on hold until the court makes its ruling(s).
185 hrs & 40 min

I agree. Schumer and Feinstein are hardly the people I would go around citing as authorities on well, anything.

Thank the Creator, our Long National Nightmare is over.

Now you Senators get busy and expel him if you want.

IMHO, the best option would have been to seat Burris immediately. Blago was the unimpeached gov when he made the appointment.

FYI, my attorney (a Democrat) says that nothing revealed so far indicates that Blago could be criminally prosecuted successfully. He could be impeached because the parameters are much more open in cases of impeachment.

FYI, my atty thinks Blago is a really bad guy.

Beautiful screamer
open for me
blue skies above me
no canopy

Yes, right and wrong are simplistic. I vote for staying out of Illinois’ business and when things are my business I will choose right over wrong, even if it is inconvenient.

Interesting. I haven’t looked carefully into the “evidence” but most of what I heard documents his desire to be bribed rather than him in fact offering or accepting quid pro quo.

My atty said essentially that Blago wanted to know what are you going to do for me politically.

In 62 there was a collision between 2 AF fighters over Manila. A local called in to say that a body had come down in his yard. When the medics and stuff got there the local pointed to a indentation in his yard covered with newpapers.

so … everybody in teh senate signed off on this as well as obama and they got punk’d by reid … can we get rid of him now? Wahhhhhhhhhhh!

OT: chimpy is giving tv speech on thursday … oh, gods and goddesses i thought his orginal plan was no farewell interviews, no conferences, no speeches. did he speak before they told him what he was supposed to do? and since we have a speech now when we didn’t have one planned before i guess that means they didn’t get *what* they were *looking* for out of this morning’s performance???? and *****waht**** ARE they looking for? some ”good” clips???? WTF?

Augered in

Are there any tapes of him actually speaking to potential bribers asking for anything? All I’ve read was between Blogo and his own staff.

Ironic that Blago is going to swear in all the Illinois lawmakers (who just impeached him) on Saturday making them “legally” lawmakers…that’s okay…but, appointing someone to the Senate (before he was impeached) isn’t.

Oh wait…is this Blago’s brilliant revenge??? Will they be legally sworn-in..or will they all have to wait until a new person can legally swear them in? Out of power by their own hand…

Heh, heh!

What a hypocritical crock of BS.

BTW: Congrats Jane on calling it precisely correctly. Frickin’ pre-cog.

Now, what will it take to get the guy elected in Minnesota to be seated as Senator? It’s been thirty years…give the guy his limo, already!

Can we put Sen.-designate Burris in charge of devising strategy against the senate Republicans?

–Josh Marshall

None, that I know of. Maybe Jane or someone else here knows. My atty based his opinion on whatever has been made public up to last Friday morning. FWIW, my atty usually does not offer up opinions without some prodding. For some reason, he was compelled to share this opinion on the Blago matter without any prodding.

The Senate leadership did indeed have a winning strategy, in fact they won. Shortly after those 50 Democratic Senators declared they would not seat a Blagojevich appointee and facing universal condemnation (I’ve never sen a pol with fewer friends than Blagojevich) Blagojevich said that if the state legislature would send him a bill mandating a special election to fill this and future empty Senate seats he would sign it and call a special election.
HOORAY HOORAY DEMOCRACY WINS.
Desperate to find a way to turn victory into defeat Harry Reid asked Illinois Democrats not to act on a special election bill. The legislature does not act and Blagojevich puts out the tale, possibly true, that Reid had previously asked him not to appoint three specific African Americans
to the seat and then appoints a fourth African American to the seat. All legal and proper.
boo boo democracy loses
Roland Burris will most like be primaried out in 2010. God knows when we’ll be able to get rid of Harry Reid.

Sunday before last 60 minutes interviewed a woman who wore a wire for quite a while obtaining evidence of the bribe info from her request to get permission to enlarge the hospital that she was the administrator. It implied that there was actual statements of the request that Blago would approved the build IF she used only one builder. It is my understanding it was the builder who made the donation to Blago’s campaign.

Ironic that Blago is going to swear in all the Illinois lawmakers (who just impeached him) on Saturday making them “legally” lawmakers…that’s okay…but, appointing someone to the Senate (before he was impeached) isn’t.

apples and oranges. blago has not been accused (and impeached) for abuse of power wrt swearing in lawmakers.

That won’t be necessary because President Obama and Ass Sunstein are developing a new-centrist-third way where everyone can agree that the Republican way is the best way.

“We used to go out Saturday mornings and steal babycoach wheels.” (his second album)

Back to back by The Cos, great albums . . . . *G*

Is there reputedly tape of BLOGO saying that- or was it someone else who purported to be able to speak for him?

Burris was legally appointed, the Illinois court confirmed it, so no they didn’t want to participate in some charade to keep him from being seated — especially when they were likely to get smacked down if Burris filed in federal court, which he was clearly going to do.

Just because people hate them doesn’t invalidate everything they say.

If there is concern for “the people of Illinois” then blame ought to be directed at the State leg who had the opportunity to take the appointment power out of Blago’s hands if they thought he shouldn’t be using it, that’s their system. But they didn’t do that.

Their laws, the ones enacted by the representatives that the people of Illinois voted into office, are being observed, and the Illinois court affirmed that. I’m not quite sure how the US Senate coming in and mucking things up serves them better.

Blagojevich is impeached and will be convicted and removed from office. Other than a few quacks and charlatans Blagojevich has no friends in the state. His approval ratings make Cheney look loved.

I am just surprised that so many progressives are willing to ditch legitimacy for legalisms. This rule of law BS is especially annoying because it is being enlisted to further the interests of a corrupt governor, his political stooge, and completely ignore the interests of the citizens of this state. The rule of law is supposed to advance the interests of the people. When it is hauled out to trash those interests then I think some people have seriously lost their way.

And what bothers me is that very curious application of the rule of law in this case. Part of the rule of law is that actions can be challenged in the courts. In the case of the Senate this would be SCOTUS not the state Supreme Court. While this was being done, Burris’ selection could have been held in abeyance. None of this, not one single thing in it, violates the rule of law. This is precisely how the rule of law is supposed to work. If Blagojevich was not removed and the Burris nomination superseded, and if SCOTUS found in his favor then he would be seated. If things fell out otherwise, then that too would have been defensible. But the idea that there is no process here and that the law can not even be challenged prejudges the case and weakens that rule of law people claim they wish to uphold.

If the senate can reject people legally selected by state law- then fascism has gained another potential leverage point.

There potentially both state and federal issues present in an election for federal office.

Did your friend who is an attorney actually read the criminal complaint?

Yes but any that involve the Senate have to be resolved in the federal system and in this case that means SCOTUS.

If the Illinois court rules that Burris’s appointment was legal (they did), do you think the Federal court was going to step in and say that the Senate has the right to reject him?

I have to agree with rwcole here — the fact that each state has the right to select their Senators is not a “legalism,” it’s the foundation of our representative democracy.

thanks.

Just because people hate them doesn’t invalidate everything they say.

not to worry, i hate reid more. *g*

i guess if you are certain that burris would win in court, then i think i see your point (or at least half of it). i just haven’t seen any explanation of why that ought to be a certainty. but again ianal.

does this mean we are going to have to defend bush’s pardons?

That doesn’t sound right to me- many have already been resolved in state court in Minnesota for example. Deciding exactly how to elect senators is a state issue I believe- and the laws governing the process are largely state laws- but perhaps I misunderstood you.

Little Annie Coulter in trouble about voting again- this time for registering in Connecticut while living in New York….

Some things are just too hard to keep straight!

Coulter accuses her critics of being transvestites.

Burris was legally appointed, the Illinois court confirmed it,

Actually they merely affirmed that Blago could not be ruled unfit per an old and seldom used law whose application was clearly for other circumstances, and they ruled that Burris didn’t need the Secretary of State’s signature on his credentials. They never ruled as far as I know on the question of the legality of the Burris appointment. And even if they had, any such ruling could have been contested in the federal courts.

I was just wondering what kind of dog Obama is going to pick

No, you didn’t. The difference is that when the Senate made itself a party to this, that shifted the venue for any legal question it presented from the state courts to the federal system.

There is as yet no federal component to the Franken-Coleman election. Maybe at some point Coleman may try to find one.

What happened to her house in FL? Guess the Palm Beach crowd was a little too dull for Her Lowness, havin’ to eat dinner at 4:30 and bein’ in bed by dark an’ all.

The rule of law is supposed to advance the interests of the people. When it is hauled out to trash those interests then I think some people have seriously lost their way.

jmo, but i think the law is supposed to represent in some way part of the social contract we have with each other. part of that social contract is to never ignore of break the law lightly, but that does not mean we must obey mindlessly. earlier you gave the example of anti-vietnam war protesters burning draft cards, but there are other examples that might touch closer to home: what if abortion was made illegal? does that mean we would, while advocating for a change, condemn people who helped a friend obtain an abortion? would we advocate jail sentences? i wouldn’t.

but this question of seating burris does not appear to me to rise to this level – it only could if what the senate was doing was actually in violation of the law. but no one, i think, has made that claim. the questions we have are 1) is there any action the senate can legally take? and 2) should they?

i do not understand the calls for “rule of law” because i don’t see how anything the senate was doing is either illegal or unconstitutional (although i’ve asked the question many times).

I agree. The Senate may not have had much of a case for what they were doing but there was nothing illegal about it. Burris if he had a problem with it could have gone to court and contested it. And SCOTUS could have ruled one way or the other or mooted it. This all looks like standard operating procedure to me and completely appropriate. None of this is an assault on the rule of law although the Burris nomination is certainly an assault on its spirit.

But see, what if the shoe were on the other foot? Wingers believe in their ideology as strongly as we believe in ours. We can’t give ourselves a pass on shining the rule of law on without also giving them a pass for doing the same. Which is the forbidden tree whose fruit is the last 8 years of lawbending, law redefinition, and general lawlessness which nobody here is willing to accept. It’s IMHO unprincipled to insist others follow the Constitution and the rule of law when it benefits us, and then refuse to play inside those same lines ourselves when we see some transient momentary advantage. That’s no more than ends-justify-the-means. There are remedies available inside the system, and so there is no need to become a mob operating extra-legally to prevent the orderly transfer of power.

It’s IMHO unprincipled to insist others follow the Constitution and the rule of law when it benefits us, and then refuse to play inside those same lines ourselves when we see some transient momentary advantage.

completely agree.

but this is not about advantage for the D party – have i not, if nothing else, earned a reputation for hating on the Ds in congress? i didn’t even vote for obama.

please disagree with me as much as you like (as i know and trust you will *g*), but please don’t claim that our differences are because i’m all about crass advantage and you are all about pure principles.

maybe we each of us actually have a different idea about what is right and wrong? could we not at least give each other the benefit of that doubt?

oops. my 110 is for Hmmm at 109.

Didn’t see ‘Jane Hamsher’ or any blogger mentioned in the ABC News link. I’m reasonably confident that every US senator watched/listened to Jane last week when she was first-up for MSNBC’s David Shuster’s blog featurette. Her influence is serious. I wonder how seriously-on-purpose the Senate this time showed-off its supreme power to be the world’s Greatest Deliberative Body. Glad it’s settled, now I can wonder whose rookie bubblegum card will be more valuable, Hamsher’s or Blagojevich’s.

Sorry, selise, my mistakes. I should have used a different tense in that sentence: “It would IMHO be unprincipled to insist…” because I meant it only as an explanation (though admittedly more intense than I usually get) of why I decided differently from some other folks, not as a slam on them. And it certainly was not meant as a personal attack on you, nor any other particular person. (That’s why it’s not a “In response to…” comment.) I apologize for being so vague that you could reasonably interpret it that way. I think you and I in particular have been good at maintaining a dialog on the underlying issues and value differences all along, and I guess I assumed you’d keep that history of civility in mind. Wrongly, mea culpa.

thanks ((Hmmm))

it was the “we” in the previous sentence: “We can’t give ourselves a pass…” that made me think your comment was meant for all of us.

imo, no apology needed. very much appreciate your explanation and all our helpful discussions on this topic (which mean far more than civility in my book).

thanks again.

Congratulations to 2010 Illinois Senator Elect Mark Kirk!

… Because he’s the only winner in this whole sorry fiasco.

Good.

Sen. Reid made a gamble that he could get Gov. Blagojevich to resign and get a strong candidate for the next election. That did not happen. Should Sen. Reid have fought on to the bitter end? In the end the result would have been the same. Unlike Gov. Blagojevich, Sen. Reid is concerned about more than just himself.

The circus is over. It’s time for the presidential inauguration and the start of the first one hundred days of the Obama administration.