Comments on: Burris to be Sworn In This Week http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/ Firedoglake weblog Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:58:36 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: SomeGuy http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790981 SomeGuy Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:29:00 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790981 <p>Good. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>The circus is over. It’s time for the presidential inauguration and the start of the first one hundred days of the Obama administration.</p> 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.

]]> By: tam1MI http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790634 tam1MI Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:02:08 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790634 <p>Congratulations to 2010 Illinois Senator Elect Mark Kirk!</p> <p>… Because he’s the only winner in this whole sorry fiasco.</p> Congratulations to 2010 Illinois Senator Elect Mark Kirk!

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

]]> By: selise http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790632 selise Tue, 13 Jan 2009 01:00:41 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790632 <p>thanks ((Hmmm))</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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).</p> <p>thanks again.</p> 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.

]]> By: Hmmm http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790617 Hmmm Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:48:09 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790617 <p>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 <strong>I</strong> 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.</p> 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.

]]> By: AitchD http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790599 AitchD Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:35:01 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790599 <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: selise http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790597 selise Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:33:55 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790597 <p>oops. my 110 is for Hmmm at 109.</p> oops. my 110 is for Hmmm at 109.

]]> By: selise http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790596 selise Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:33:11 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790596 <blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote> <p>completely agree.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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?</p>

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?

]]> By: Hmmm http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790588 Hmmm Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:25:38 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790588 <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: Hugh http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790580 Hugh Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:21:25 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790580 <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: selise http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790567 selise Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:10:40 +0000 http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/burris-to-be-sworn-in-this-week/#comment-1790567 <blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote> <p>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.</p> <p>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?</p> <p>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).</p>

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).

]]>