Comments on: No Welcome Mat For Burris

By: Time » Blog Archive » Blagojevich v. The Senate: Going To The Mat

Time » Blog Archive » Blagojevich v. The Senate: Going To The Mat — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 01:49:16 +0000

[...] ready for the standoff surrounding Roland Burris to get even weirder, as Senate Democrats map out their options for [...]

By: sqr1

sqr1 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:09:16 +0000

"Not a fan of Burris, but if they can do this...what's to stop them from refusing to seat a Senator for ANY reason?"
.
100% right. It is naive in the extreme to believe that the taint of corruption could not be whipped up to oppose seating any Senator. This sets the bar so low it is meaningless.
.
I'll even go further. Patrick Fitzgerald is literally the only federal prosecutor in the entire country that starts off with a presumption of integrity in the eyes of most Democrats. If this was ANYONE ELSE, the entire blogosphere would be rolling its eyes as the Bush DOJ targeted yet another Democratic governor. Blago is unlikely to ever be convicted, based on what we now now (the caveat being that Fitzgerald is excellent at playing his cards close to the vest). Instead we continue to have mounting pressure against the governor to resign because of a federal criminal investigation that is likely to go nowhere. Have we seen this before, Elliot Spitzer?

By: sqr1

sqr1 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:51:27 +0000

Rose,
.
Of course, if there is actual evidence of corruption then Senate could refuse to seat Burris. But NOBODY is claiming that the process of picking Burris was corrupt. What Blago has been accused of -- but not indicted on -- is engaging in a corrupt process with OTHER possible appointees.
.
Again, what you're argument amounts to saying "once the Senator has been accused of wrongdoing, the Senate may consider any subsequent action to be tainted by corruption." Well, I'm sorry, but that's not the way things work.
.
The governor is entitled to a presumption of legal innocence in a court of law. Should the People of Illinois, through their duly-elected state legislators, decide that the governor is no longer competent to execute his legal duties then they may remove him through the process of impeachment. Until then, he is still the governor of Illinois and, short of evidence that the Burris appointment itself was corrupt, the Senate has no right to reject Burris.
.
That doesn't mean that Reid -- like you -- can't hang his hat on amorphous, undefined phrases like "a corrupt process" to reject the legal actions of a sitting governor. It just means that it is complete b.s. from a Constitutional standpoint.

By: rose83

rose83 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:20:04 +0000

I actually answered that question earlier: Well like almost everything else in politics this is a checks and balances question. If Senators routinely abused its power to judge elections and returns, they would be defeated in elections. That's the check on the Senate's power.
--
And according to Article 1 Section 5 they could only refuse to seat a Senator because of their election, return or lack of (constitutional) qualifications. If they refused to sit someone for policy reasons - e.g. a Senator with a rational approach to Middle East policy was miraculously elected - that would be unconstitutional. That said, obviously they could try to find some excuse. Anyone don't blame the messenger! This is all in the Constitution.

By: cincinnatus est exterminata!

cincinnatus est exterminata! — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:05:57 +0000

Not a fan of Burris, but if they can do this...what's to stop them from refusing to seat a Senator for ANY reason?

By: rose83

rose83 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 19:02:01 +0000

What Constitutional qualifications did Burris lack that would make his appointment improper? -- No one is suggesting that he lacks Constitutional qualifications. -- What power of appointment did the governor lack (or what formality did he fail to follow) when he made the appointment? -- But that's not the question. Here's the relevant passage again: Each house shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members. The power given to the Senate in the Constitution is broadly defined, and there's nothing about the power of a Governor or State Legislature or formalities. The question you asked doesn't encompass the issue of corruption. And regardless of whether or not there is enough reason to think that the Burris appointment may have been corrupt, it's clear that according to the Constitution the Senate may have the power to reject a Senator elected or appointed in a corrupt process. The Supreme Court may have to determine how far the Senate's power extends, but it's not crazy to look at Article 1 Section 5 and conclude that the Senate can refuse to seat a Senator appointed in a process they fear was corrupt.

By: sqr1

sqr1 — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 18:26:38 +0000

Rose:
.
I agree that the Senate has the power to judge the appointment and evaluate qualifications to an extent. But I vehemently disagree that it may do so with impunity.
.
What Constitutional qualifications did Burris lack that would make his appointment improper?
.
What power of appointment did the governor lack (or what formality did he fail to follow) when he made the appointment?
.
Once you realize that the answers to these questions are pretty clearly "none" then it becomes apparent that the Senate must "judge" the appointment to be valid and seat Burris.
.
Of course, this doesn't even take into account that it would be a political disaster for Harry Reid to not seat Burris, based upon some tortured notions of Senatorial dignity, after doing nothing to oust Vitter or Stevens.

By: 2008 in Central Illinois: Gravel Pits, Wind Farms, Crime, Presidents and Blago :

2008 in Central Illinois: Gravel Pits, Wind Farms, Crime, Presidents and Blago : — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:55:30 +0000

[...] new President-elect, an Illinois native; the recent appointment (or not) of former Atty. General Roland Burris to fill Obama’s US Senate seat. You all have been following this story, and it looks to be [...]

By: Swampland - TIME.com » Blog Archive Blagojevich v. The Senate: Going To The Mat «

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:44:33 +0000

[...] No Welcome Mat For Burris [...]

By: Karen Tumulty

Karen Tumulty — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:21:29 +0000

See my latest post for what the Senate leadership plans to do on Tuesday.