No Welcome Mat For Burris

I think the real winner is going to be the person who comes up with some kind of negotiated settlement that makes sure it doesn't come to this on Tuesday. I agree. This is a real test for Reid's leadership, which has been found wanting to date. His most obvious quality is deference to his "friends" on the other side of the aisle when they pull partisan stunts and a willingness to circumvent principled stands by members of his own party - such as Dodd's stands on upholding the Constitution.

KT, I'm impressed by the fact that you both read and respect a number of the professional progressive/liberal blogs. Since facts have a liberal bias, that is a great choice for a fine reporter who cares about reality. In contrast, I remember reading a list ranking blogs read by reporters, that was remarkably biased toward the likes of Jonah Goldberg, The Corner, Drudge, and Hewitt. Explains a lot actually.
.
On topic, over at FDL Thers asks a useful question: Why Are Senators the Only People in America Who Take Senators Seriously?

KT - Nate Silver has some interesting thoughts about this, and some other "yes they can - no they can't" links. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
.
It seems that the tact may be to challenge the "election," rather than the qualifications of Burris. But reading has suggested that the real point here may be to delay seating Burris long enough for Pat Quinn to become Governor.
.
It is astonishing that no one seemed to have contemplated the potential difficulties of "letting" Blago make an appointment. Since his lawyer assured everyone he wasn't going to do that, maybe they made the mistake, once again, of believing something he said.

I guess I take the cynical view: Burriss was appointed by a man who has the legal authority to do so. The Secretary of State refusal to certify the appointment has no legal foundation. If Reid is shrewd he would let Burris take his seat and keep him out of the limelight. Sure, your colleagues, KT, will go to him. Flies etc! It will be old news by inauguration day. After the Lieberman episode I don't think much of our Democratic Senators. Wisdom? look elsewhere.

The way to settle this is for the Senate to refer the appointment to a committee to investigate whether the appointment was tainted. It's certainly debatable whether the Senate has the right to reject this appointment, but they certainly have the right to investigate the appointment to make sure the governor didn't sell the seat to Burris --- there are plenty of examples of 19th century Senate appointments that were held up to give the Senate time to investigate. Such an investigation will take time and during that time, the Illinois legislature will hopefully get their act together and impeach Blagojevich. Once Quinn is in office, he can appoint a new Senator to take Obama's seat and the Senate can seat this new Senator and the Burris appointment would presumably be moot.

But it's very possible to argue that the first appointment might have precedence over the second, so a way to resolve this cleanly might be if Quinn appointed Burris himself to the seat, particularly if he doesn't cause a confrontation on Tuesday. If Quinn appoints Burris, then the Senate can simply decide to seat the Roland Burris who was appointed by Quinn and the Roland Burris who was appointed by Blagojevich would be unlikely to object.

KT&All-I don't know about you young men and women, but what KT is reporting seems to me to be about the most brain dead idea that Reid could come up with. He seems to forget that his handling of this matter could have an effect on how Al Frankin will be treated by the GOP members of the senate should he prevail against Norm Coleman.
.
The only part of KT's analysis I would quibble with is the "questionable ground" part. There is no question that the senate can not do this. They have absolutely no grounds. Unless suspecting someone is a bad guy is grounds to punish someone else now. And I would also like to know who the other senate leaders are who apparently have not thought this thing through. I'm sure Durbin is on the list.
.
Finally, am I the only one that finds Reid's manhood only shows up when it comes to defying fellow democrats. He would not have the balls to do this to a GOP selection in a similar situation.

gunny, I also noted that "Reid's manhood only shows up when it comes to defying fellow democrats" up at #1.

For Reid, the best focal point for the fight is certification by the Illinois Sec. of State. It keeps Burris and the spotlight in Illinois, frames an issue for judicial review, and makes the key figure denying the seat an African-American. If I'm Reid, that's where I'd try spin it as hard as possible as being controlled by the lack of IL certification. Otherwise, every word out of his mouth will be digging a deeper grave.

Jane sums up why Reid (and the entire Democratic establishment) is looking so stupid right now...

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.

Reid is the one who should be kept out of the Senate -- he's an embarrassment to the government and the Democratic Party.

Thank you wvng-I'm so glad I'm not alone. But I would like to quibble a point in your post. Reid is incapable of providing leadership so there is nothing to test. Its not that I don't like Reid. Its that I detest his weak f***ing ass. You would think after getting that weak ass handed to him on a regular basis the guy would get a f***ing clue.
.
Obama better not be counting on this clown for help in getting a note passed around the senator chamber let alone a bill.

gunny, I would refer you to the FDL link in my #2 post. It elaborates on your point more generally to the Senate as a body. I vividly remember one of my senators saying he didn't want to push the investigation of manipulation of pre-war intelligence by Bush because it would harm the sense of senatorial "comity" on the committee. Interesting that only the Dems care about such things.

The Powell case rests on an election result and citing it may well be misleading. The issue has already been politicised as at least six members of the CBC are asking Reid to seat Mr Burris. There is a bad smell emanating from this business: Blagowhiff?

KT-Thanks so much for the link. The blogger raises good questions. However, in one area the law is not going to help the democrats with is how they handle this in the public arena. So far they are bungling.

The Secretary of State refusal to certify the appointment has no legal foundation.
.
Well, what exactly is the function of the SoS certification? Just a mere waving of the magic wand over the deed? In that case, why bother?
.
Sincere question.

"He seems to forget that his handling of this matter could have an effect on how Al Frankin will be treated by the GOP members of the senate should he prevail against Norm Coleman."
.
I think gunny is exactly on point here. If the senate bases it's "non-sitting" of Burris based on the process rather than qualifications (which seem to be unassailable) I assure you this will boomerang back on Franken.

I'm thinking that this phrase is pertinent:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
as well as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
.
The failure to remove Blago's perogative either by impeachment or change to the Illinois Statute was a fatal flaw in reasoning. There is currently no basis to prevent him from acting, and if they try to bar Burris from the Senate floor, they will unabiguously be on the wrong side of the Constitution and the Law.
.
Not that it would be the first time.......

James: The SOS has to certify that the appointment was duly made according to the State's laws. It is almost a pro-forma second signature because under normal circumstances the Blag and SoS would have talked about this before the appointment was announced. If there was a legal impediment or anything to disqualify Burris then he has a duty to say so. If White had a legal basis to his refusal you would have seen it splashed all over the Chicago Tribune and Lynn Sweet on MSNBC droning away. Has White refused to do any other certification since Blago's arrest and bail? I'd like to know about that.

.
I see that, KT, but what is the actual function of the certification? The function of the certification of *votes* is purportedly the assurance that the election was legally held and the vote count true and accurate. If the certification of the appointment has a similar function, I would think it is wrong to say that the failure to certify has no legal foundation.
.

At least when the big three CEO's flew in on their private jets we could chalk up their tone deafness to being businessman. So what possible excuse will Senate Democrats cling too? For politicians they are remarkably ignorant of how blocking Burris at the gate by the Senate's Sgt. At Arms will play politically. Talk about your public relations nightmare. I'm a freelance professional perhaps I should send Reid my resume because clearly he needs some guidance before the caption reads "Modern Day Bull Connors..."

You guys are missing a major factor here that we talked about a LOT yesterday over at Ta Nehisi Coates' blog at the Atlantic. Now most people totally brushed off Bobby Rush's race baiting statements the other day and Burris' rhetorical "is it because of race, some people may ask that" bullsh!t too. But imagine the visual, and don't think there won't be plenty of cameras there, of some armed police officers possibly forcefully denying Burris access to the floor of the Senate. I have already gone on record as saying Reid is going to cave on this one but after BRush and Burris made such a spectacle out of themselves using race to try to give him the upper hand I started secretly rooting for Reid to have some nuts for once. But handling it that way will not be a good look AT ALL. For a lot of older black folks it will indeed invoke memories of George Wallace trying to deny access to black kids trying to integrate white schools. If they are going to stand on principle and keep him out they had for damm sure better find a better way of doing it.
.
I still say that politically the right move is for them to bluff and bluster and then let him in "over their objections" and claim their hands were tied because of the legalities. It will get the story out of the headlines quicker and they can primary him in 2 years. But the longer they fight him and he takes them to court the bigger the circus gets and the longer the story has legs

1. Blago is my new hero. I know he is a dirtbag...but damn if picking burris wasn't the most brilliant political move I have seen in a long time
.
2. Only in the bizzarro world of politics is violating the constitution a logical (and ethical) response to an allegation -- not even an indictment much less a conviction -- of a violation of statutory law.

3. The contrast between how Reid responded to felon Stevens and Burris is comedy gold.

4. Delaying the seating of Franklin is likely a feature and not a bug for Reid.

What exactly is the issue? Is it that Blago is "tainted". He hasn't been indicted much less convicted. I am obviously missing something. How does this not end without Reid looking like a clown?

James LA - but the issue here is precisely whether the election was legally held. In other words, if Blago "sold" the election to Burris in some way, the election would have been fraudulent. And while there is no evidence that has happened, since Blago has been accused by the USA of intending to sell the election, this is perhaps a defensible legal approach. No?