Obama has already stated he is against the appointment, "hanging and lynching" accusations by Rush be damned (as they should be).

I heard on NPR and read on Huffington that all the grand-standing by Reid and Co. about "not seating" Burris is BS. If Burris was appointed legally (which it appears he was, because Blago still has the authority, and duty, to appoint a replacement since he is still the governor), then the Senate has no power or right not to "seat him". It is not up to anyone in the Senate or Congress to confirm or seat Burris.

12/31/2008 1:00:17 AM

As I understand it, if a majority of the senate wants you out, then you are out. While the Constitution lists a limited number of valid reasons to cast someone out of the senate, it is left to the senators to enforce that list, and if they choose to they can ignore it.

12/31/2008 8:55:44 AM

Obama's transition team at the justice dept. stopped this investigation before his people got too deep in this mess. A few more calls between Rahm and Blago's people and the whole ballgame would be different.

12/31/2008 9:15:10 AM

God, Bobby Rush is a tool

12/31/2008 10:42:49 AM

was reading some other people on this. apparently you can be "excluded" from the senate by a majority vote, but that doesn't really apply to burris, since that is apparently only if there is a question of citizenship, age, or residency. they could however vote to expel him for any other reason once he is seated, but this requires a 2/3 vote. the shitty thing about this is that burris doesn't seem like a bad choice on the face of it, other than the fact that he accepted a nomination from blago.

12/31/2008 10:53:08 AM

to accept the nomination from Blago, means Burris either is

(1) crooked
(2) unprincipled
(3) ignorant

i dont think he's crooked or ignorant, so that only leaves unprincipled.

i mean, how can you NOT understand that accepting this nomination is only going to trash your name by association AND wind up getting blocked anyhow?

what a dumbass. i felt sorry for him for about 6 seconds. at best, he's a goddamned fool to have accepted this nomination.







[Edited on December 31, 2008 at 4:15 PM. Reason : ]

12/31/2008 4:13:18 PM

yeah, i would go with #2 also.

He was interviewed on All This Considered a few minutes ago, and to hear him talk, this was just another normal, everyday Senate appointment. Burris was saying things like "It is the governor's legal responsibility to appoint a new Senator. I don't see how how his other legal problems have any impact on this responsibility". It seemed the point he was trying to make was as if Blago was in trouble for embezzling money from the Treasury or something, and while he's under investigation for that he is still going forward with his other duties, like appointing Senators. I wanted to yell through the radio "No, dipshit! He's being investigated for the exact thing he just did for/to you. That's why this whole thing looks funny"

12/31/2008 5:47:48 PM

what will be funny, is if he gets the nomination from Blago, gets rejected, then proceeds to draw a full pension from the Senate.

funny in a kind of way

12/31/2008 5:55:21 PM

He may be unprincipled, but he isn't stupid. Burris knows that the appointment won't be blocked; there's no legal precedent for refusing to seat a senator just because Congress doesn't like the governor who appointed him.

According to Eugene Volokh:

Quote :

"The Court held in Powell v. McCormack (1969), that "in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution," such as age and citizenship. Now perhaps the Senators are right and the Court was wrong, and perhaps today's Court would overrule Powell. But at least at this point, Powell seems to make clear that under Article I, Section 5 the Senate may determine whether the Senator should be seated solely based on the objective qualifications that the Constitution prescribes, and not based on its judgment whether Gov. Blagojevich ought to be entitled to make the appointment."

It gets better (and deliciously ironic):

Quote :

"Put another way, the law is that the governor fills this vacancy. That law was followed here. No one is claiming that Blagojevich broke the law in selecting Burris. In the absence of any such evidence—let alone in the absence of an attempt to even look for such evidence—the Senate cannot legitimately question the "returns" here. At least Amar and Chafetz have made a plausible legal argument, as opposed to Senator Reid's legally vacant pronouncements. I find it ironic that Reid, a Mormon, is hearkening back to the pre-Powell notion of excluding people from Congress through guilt by association. Back in the day, that illegal approach was used to keep Mormons out of Congress for being Mormons. Senator Reed Smoot was challenged on these grounds, and it took four years of hearings and debate before he was seated. Notwithstanding their hard-to-overstate distaste for the people who sent Smoot to the Senate, the senators eventually let him take his seat."

(from http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/more_on_the_rol.html)

Basically Reid is going to end up with mud on his face. The only way he can refuse to seat this guy is to get a conservative Supreme Court to overturn a standing precedent and grant the Congress more power than it presently has vis a vis Article 1, Section 5.

Once Burris is in, the only remaining option is to expel him. It's questionable whether he can be expelled constitutionally; more so, it requires a super-majority vote. And -- to top all that off, he'd be the only black Senator, with a squeaky clean record, and only guilt-by-association as a reason to toss him out.

At this point it looks like Burris will be the next Senator from Illinois. Blagojevich, clown that he is, played this one very well.

1/2/2009 1:40:41 AM

^ This whole election season has heralded a lot of firsts, I wouldn't be so sure that unprecedented things aren't going to happen.

Even if its only symbolic, congress must send a message that there is a zero-tolerance for the blatant corruption Blagojevich represents, and I would go so far as to say they are ethically bound to try and block in any way they can Burris' appointment by Blago. It would be the butt of many jokes, but I can even see Burris being blocked now, then re-nominated later on and accepted.

How bad would it look to our own people and other countries that a guy who was selling senate seats appoints another guy who had donated to his campaign, to one of the seats?

And i'm a little disappointed that the Ill legislature is moving so slow in getting Blao removed. The only thing that explains this to me is that enough of them have skeletons in their closets that they don't see it as a gross violation, or they're trying to reconcile their own behavior with Blago's.

A meaningful distinction regarding Powell vs. McCormick is that Powell was actually elected by and of the people. It makes perfect sense that congress shouldn't be able to block him based on associations. Burris on the other hand is being appointed by a corrupt governor, which is a different situation. I'd have to read how the constitution is worded, but it may be ambiguous on what is intended in this situation.

1/2/2009 3:20:54 AM

^

Powell was elected, but he was also corrupt himself. It makes absolutely no sense that a man who was corrupt himself was seated, but a man who is simply associated with (appointed by) a corrupt governor is unseatable.

The wording in the Constitution is not ambiguous:

Quote :

"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members"

Elections and returns -- well, there were none, it was an appointment. How about qualifications? It says the qualifications of its members. Not the qualifications of the people who appointed the member. Pretty straightforward, don't you think?

I personally don't think "guilt by association" is an appropriate legal test. The blogger above is quite right to relate its use back to the anti-Mormon bias. It's fine to use that argument in political circles against appointing someone; it's definitely NOT ok to grant Congress such broad discretion just because we don't like Blagojevich. Even if the court does allow for "guilt by association" tests, then it must compose some reasonable legal test that appropriately constricts the power. What would that test be? Besides unimaginably complicated and convoluted?

Burris should and will be seated; Reid is blowing smoke.

1/2/2009 4:04:40 AM

^^

Speaking to the politics, btw -- don't you think it's incredibly dishonest of Harry Reid to swear up and down he'll refuse to seat this guy knowing fully well that he can't legally do such a thing?

1/2/2009 4:13:57 AM

it really pisses me off that all these people are shitting on the state and us constitution in this case

i dont like blagojevich either, but he is still the governor of ill. and he still has the power to appoint based on the ill. state constitution

of course, what else is new? fuck that 220 year old document

1/2/2009 7:40:37 AM

Quote :

"It makes absolutely no sense that a man who was corrupt himself was seated, but a man who is simply associated with (appointed by) a corrupt governor is unseatable."

you seem to be making the same argument that Burris is - that Blago's allegations of corruption and Burris' appointment have nothing to do with each other, when in fact they are basically the same issue. It would be one thing if Blago was caught with a prostitute on week, then appointed Burris the next week. I don't think anyone would challenge that appointment. But to get caught on tape selling a senate seat to the highest bidder one week, then to go ahead appoint that seat the next? Surely you see how this must be preceived as more than simply guilt by association.

1/2/2009 8:16:06 AM

its people like ^^(no offense) that are ruining this country imo...the "constitution" ppl

1/2/2009 9:28:26 AM

Quote :

"i dont like blagojevich either, but he is still the governor of ill. and he still has the power to appoint based on the ill. state constitution"

That is exactly how I read it. Blagojevich may be crooked, he may belong in jail, but as of yet he hasn't even been convicted, and under our system of law, he has the legal right to appoint Barack Obama's successor to the Senate. The United States Senate, does not appear to have the power to determine who they want to represent the people of each state, if they are qualified.

In the case of Ted Stevens, he was a convicted felon, and the Senate would probably have grounds for removing him on account of his individual behavior had he won re-election. It would then be on Governor Palin to appoint a nominee, who if qualified, would be seated.

In this case, neither Burris nor Balgojevich have been convicted of anything, so how the Senate can refuse to seat him, I don't know. The most the majority party could do would be to refuse him a position in committees, refuse to caucus with him, and generally exclude him from active participation in the Senate beyond his constitutionally madated roll.

1/2/2009 10:10:00 AM

Quote :

"its people like ^^(no offense) that are ruining this country imo...the "constitution" ppl"

nice troll attempt

1/2/2009 10:11:33 AM

^likewise

1/2/2009 10:13:05 AM

Quote :

"But to get caught on tape selling a senate seat to the highest bidder one week, then to go ahead appoint that seat the next? Surely you see how this must be preceived as more than simply guilt by association."

Yes, but the law isn't about perception. I agree with your point, that Blagojevich has created a cloud of impropriety, and it does envelop all those around him. But it's my opinion, as based on reading the opinions of several very well-informed legal scholars -- posted above -- and the article itself, that it's not a sufficient legal reason to deny seating this guy. The standard for overturning a lawful appointment by a sitting governor has to be very, very high.

But speaking to the politics -- unless there's actually some concrete evidence that Burris is dirty, then it's best for his appointment to proceed. Given, of course, that the ideal scenario -- Blagojevich's resignation -- isn't going to happen anytime soon, it's the best of several bad options to have this guy in Washington.

[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 11:53 AM. Reason : foo]

1/2/2009 11:40:30 AM

the *best* option would be to have an empty seat until Blago is run out. which actually may happen sooner than later.

I still don't think it's going to serve Burris (or his constituents) very well, to have him be associated with a pay-for-play Senate seat-selling investigation.

I don't think he can possibly be effective at all, with this cloud hanging over him. I admit, I don't know the details about how and when the Senate can kick one of their own out, but i understand it's quite possible.

maybe Burris is quite crafty after all. his recent political aspirations have failed, and at 72 years old, perhaps he's looking for a cozy appointment that -- while it may make his name a short term political joke -- it will also score him a $150,000 pension for the rest of his years.

if you dont have any principles, that IS a pretty smart move.

1/2/2009 12:43:00 PM

How can he not be effective? In the worst case scenario, he still gets a vote. It doesn't take much effectiveness to say "yes" or "no."

Sure, he might not be able to sponsor much legislation or make deals in the Senate. But he'd be a freshman senator and ineffective in that regard anyway. Also he's only in until 2010, so unless he's properly elected he has no chance of achieving any kind of seniority. If he is duly elected in 2010 then the system of collegiality will work in his favor, especially given that he's close to Dick Durbin (the most powerful senator next to Reid).

So can you please substantiate for me why Illinois should have half a voice in the senate, and why that's better than this appointment? There is no evidence that Burris is corrupt. There is no attempt to find it, as far as I'm aware. He has a good record. He doesn't have to do much, realistically, except vote -- and most of the important legislation from Barack Obama will surely come very soon after inauguration -- which is all he'd be able to do as an appointee anyway.

As for taking a pension -- so what? Where I come from, working for money is a pretty common thing to do. In fact if salary were his primary motivation, that should be a relief for everyone.

1/2/2009 2:25:08 PM

as far as i understand it, he might be the weakest pick for the democrats. he's tried several times to run for statewide office and failed in illinois. now he'll be the incumbent. you gotta figure they run someone against him in 2010, so i guess it doesn't make a big difference. but i'm sure they'd prefer someone is appointed who would have a good chance to win in 2010. not to mention, if he does make it past the primary in 2010 somehow, he will most likely lose to the republican because of the stink from this whole scene.

not saying that legally he has any reason not to be seated, but it's a pretty shitty move from blago regardless. especially when he specifically said he wouldn't appoint a senator.

1/2/2009 2:35:42 PM

Quote :

" It makes absolutely no sense that a man who was corrupt himself was seated, but a man who is simply associated with (appointed by) a corrupt governor is unseatable."

It makes perfect sense. The rationale is that you would expect voters to NOT vote for someone who is corrupt. If the voters elect him, knowing the facts, there's no reason he should be rejected unless he doesn't meet the other technical qualifications. The voters ARE the initial vetting process and filter, there doesn't need to be any additional rules or limits. It's like if Bin Laden became a citizen and ran for a senate seat, you would need a new law or ruling that says "no terrorists can be senate" because the voters themselves innately embody this rule and many others (you'd hope...).

Blaogjevich actually being able to appoint a senator while under indictment for gross corruption relating to a senate seat is a complete joke. It shouldn't be able to happen, and while there's a good chance they won't be able to block blago's appointment, I think they should still look for any way to try and block it, and i'm hoping they succeed. It wouldn't be the first loophole congress has ever used if they find a way...

1/2/2009 2:42:07 PM

^

Blagojevich isn't under indictment. As far as I know, he was arrested and the federal prosecutor has yet to actually file the indictment:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/fitzgerald-asks-for-more-time-on-blagojevich-indictment/?hp

Quote :

"The United States attorney prosecuting Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois on federal corruption charges asked Wednesday for a 90-day extension to bring an indictment against the governor, as more details emerged about how Mr. Blagojevich worked behind closed doors to find someone to fill President-elect Barack Obama’s former Senate seat."

(New York Times blog, Dec. 31, 2008)

I know it's hard to imagine that a governor who a) hasn't been indicted, b) hasn't been convicted, c) hasn't been impeached has the full authority granted to him by the state constitution and applicable laws.

[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM. Reason : foo]

1/2/2009 3:28:20 PM

^ d) is in jail

seriously, does anyone doubt a conviction is not going to happen? Fitz is not known for screwing up on such monumental scales (and not small scales either).

1/2/2009 3:37:17 PM

Quote :

"So can you please substantiate for me why Illinois should have half a voice in the senate, a"

because for (1) they elected a two-bit mobster wannabe for a fucking governor.

because for (2) they would only be short one senator until they impeached the current Gov and promoted the Lt. Gov. who, at least at the time of this writing, hasnt been arrested for charges related to the attempted sale of a seat in the US Senate

1/2/2009 5:57:39 PM

The possible scenarios do not look good for Burris.

The last I read Illinois Sec of State Nancy Erickson said she would *not* certify Burris. So likelihood is on the second scenario, unless the IL Supreme Court forces her to to do so. Even then, the IL senate is moving to start impeachment hearings this week on Blago, so Burris may soon wind up as an unfunny joke in the dustbin of history.

Quote :

"The way Senate Democrats see it, Tuesday's drama unfolds in one of two ways, both involving a phone call by Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson to White, to confirm that he has or has not signed the certification. First Scenario: Burris appears at the Capitol with his certification signed personally by Blagojevich and White — either because a court forced White to sign, or for some other reason. White confirms that he has personally signed the certificate. Burris would then be permitted on the Senate floor. Vice President Dick Cheney, as president of the Senate, would ask whether anyone objects to the senators-elect being duly sworn. A Democrat would then object and propose that Burris' credentials be referred to the Rules Committee for an investigation of some period of time. If no one objects to that motion, the credentials go to the panel for a period of perhaps 90 days. Burris in the meantime gets the privileges of an unsworn senator-elect ... which by tradition means he'll be allowed on the Senate floor without voting or speaking privileges - and he wouldn't be granted a desk [or] a pay check, these officials said. The hope is that Blagojevich will be tossed from office and a new governor will have appointed someone else to the seat. Burris' appointment then would be moot, these officials said. Second Scenario: Burris shows up with a certificate signed by Blagojevich and either no signature by White or one done by auto pen or other questionable means. In that case, Gainer and the Capitol Police would steer Burris to Erickson, who would not be able to confirm that White signed the document. Burris then would be turned away from the chamber, these officials said. -http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/ap_on_go_co/senate_burris "

[Edited on January 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/2/2009 6:30:23 PM

Quote :

"d) is in jail"

So? That's not how the system works. This isn't Communist Russia where you get arrested and thrown into the Gulag never to be heard from again. The prosecutor doesn't have unilateral authority to toss this guy out on the street, he has to get others involved. Like, you know, the legislature -- which has yet to impeach him. Or a grand jury -- which has yet to hear an indictment.

We live in this little thing called a democracy, and the processes and institutions and the rule of law are more important than whether or not you like Rod Blagojevich. If you want the process to work differently for him and Roland Burris just because you don't like them, then you are looking for something far worse than any crime he committed or any senate appointment.

As to whether anyone doubts the possibility of conviction -- again, that is a political and not a legal argument. The legal system is built on the presumption of innocence. The entire justice system "doubts" his guilt until a preponderance of evidence convinces an independent jury of his peers.

Quote :

" because for (1) they elected a two-bit mobster wannabe for a fucking governor because for (2) they would only be short one senator until they impeached the current Gov and promoted the Lt. Gov. who, at least at the time of this writing, hasnt been arrested for charges related to the attempted sale of a seat in the US Senate"

See above. We live in the U.S., not Iran. We have rules and a democracy and processes for dealing with miscreants. So far no legal test has been met that will keep Burris out of the senate.

Quote :

"The possible scenarios do not look good for Burris. The last I read Illinois Sec of State Nancy Erickson said she would *not* certify Burris. So likelihood is on the second scenario, unless the IL Supreme Court forces her to to do so."

The state courts are certain to force her to do so:

Quote :

"Even on the state level, Democrats seem fairly hamstrung when it comes to stopping Blagojevich. Secretary of State Jesse White's office has said it will not certify the Burris appointment. But, here again, the law may not be on their side. State charter holds that it is the "duty" of the Secretary of State: 1. To countersign and affix the seal of state to all commissions required by law to be issued by the Governor. 2. To make a register of all appointments by the Governor, specifying the person appointed, the office conferred, the date of the appointment, the date when bond or oath is taken and the date filed. If Senate confirmation is required, the date of the confirmation shall be included in the register."

Quote :

""It looks to me that it is more or less a perfunctory act. And the refusal to do so will also be subject to litigation," said Ken Gross, the former associate general counsel of the Federal Election Commission. "If a certification of the Secretary of State is needed to qualify the senator, and that Secretary of State refused to offer the certification, you would likely see litigation in the state court.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/roland-burris-has-lock-on_n_154322.html

The use of the word "perfunctory" is being too kind. I personally would assume that if the Secretary of State does not execute her "duty" then she is violating the law.

Quote :

"Even then, the IL senate is moving to start impeachment hearings this week on Blago, so Burris may soon wind up as an unfunny joke in the dustbin of history."

That's a load of crap. If it's so damned important for the IL senate to have impeached this guy, don't you think they would have done it by now?

No legal scholar actually thinks the senate can refuse to seat this guy. Maybe they can keep the drama alive for a month until some final ruling happens at the Supreme Court.

1/2/2009 8:09:31 PM

so since this guy is decent i guess(burris) why cant they just let him serve? and then they can eventually kick out this blago guy

1/2/2009 10:44:11 PM

Quote :

""What is clear to me is that every candidate that was African-American was denied and every other candidate was acceptable," said Wright, adding, "I'm not going to read too much into that." "

i'm glad hes not going to read too much into that

1/4/2009 12:35:40 AM

Why is "Dingy" Harry Reid a racist?

Reid pressured Blagojevich not to appoint Jackson Jr. to Obama's U.S. Senate seat
Reid reportedly made it clear he didn't want Jackson, Davis or Jones to be appointed, fearing they'd lose to a GOP opponent in a future election

Quote :

"Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn’t want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1360191,harry-reid-blagojevich-jesse-jackson-010209.article



Emil Jones



Danny Davis



Jesse Jackson, Jr.

And "Dingy" Harry doesn't like "smelly tourists":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP6qeBPl_HA

What a fucking out-of-touch elitist douche bag.

Dennis Miller sums Reid up nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32MMrsQXW6A

1/5/2009 6:57:55 PM

Quote :

"Before their contacts, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Blagojevich to tell him to expect to hear from Senate leadership because they were pushing against Jackson and others, according to statements the governor made to others. "

Looks like Obama is racist too. I bet he kicks himself everyday for having black kids.

1/5/2009 7:19:51 PM

I'm no Harry Reid fan, but...

GOD FUCKING FORBID the Democratic leader of the Senate try and exercise some leadership by counseling a Dem Governor on who would be the best pick for an open Democratic Senate seat, with an eye towards long-term viability for the Democratic Party.

i mean, holy shit. what the hell is he thinking??? God knows any honest Republican would never try to counsel the best approach for the Republican Party!!! :fucking roll:



i swear to christ, hooksaw, you are blind with your hate of all things democrat. you're such an obvious tool and a douchebag, it's incredible.

1/5/2009 7:37:40 PM

^ You are a buffoon. FACT: Reid discouraged the appointment of ALL the black candidates and pressured Blago to appoint one of two others--who are not black.

Reid to meet Blagojevich Senate pick
Senate leader rejects charge of racial bias

Quote :

"The Senate's top Democrat would not rule out Sunday the possibility of seating Roland Burris, saying he will meet with Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich's choice to succeed President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday while insisting the Senate had the constitutional right to reject him over the scandal surrounding Mr. Blagojevich. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also denied charges of racism, based on reports over the weekend that he had told Mr. Blagojevich before the governor's arrest that several black candidates would be unacceptable and had pushed two women, neither black."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/05/reid-to-meet-blagojevich-senate-pick-burris/

1. "Dingy" Harry has flip-flopped (Is it any big surprise?) on the Burris appointment--one he called a "tainted appointment."

2. If this had been a Republican denying all those qualified black candidates a chance at a Senate seat formerly occupied by a black senator, you and the other moonbats would have gone totally batshit by now.

1/5/2009 10:45:36 PM

reid needs to go ahead and die so that we can get yucca mtn. online with reprocessing

1/5/2009 11:02:35 PM

blagojevich ...another proof serbs have the absolute worst politicians.

1/6/2009 12:27:10 AM

Well, now the real theater begins - Burris was escorted off Capitol Hill because Reid & co. refused to seat him... because he lacked "credentials."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_go_co/senate_burris

Quote :

"Burris denied seat in US Senate to succeed Obama By LAURIE KELLMAN and ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writers Laurie Kellman And Ann Sanner, Associated Press Writers – 4 mins ago WASHINGTON – Roland Burris failed in his bid to take President-elect Barack Obama's Illinois Senate seat on Tuesday in a scripted piece of political theater staged just before the opening of the 111th Congress. "Mr. Burris is not in possession of the necessary credentials from the state of Illinois," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in his speech opening the new session of Congress. Burris, 71, earlier confirmed that Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson had informed him in a private meeting that his credentials lacked a required signature and his state's seal. "I will not be accepted, I will not be seated," Burris told a mob of reporters who had followed him across the street for a news conference in a cold and steady rain outside the Capitol. The former Illinois attorney general said he was "not seeking to have any type of confrontation" over taking the seat that he was appointed to by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich. But Burris, who would be the Senate's only black member, also said he was considering a federal lawsuit to force Senate Democrats to seat him. It was a major distraction for majority Democrats eager to project an image of progress with Obama on an economic stimulus package that could cost up to $1 trillion. Democrats and Obama have said that the corruption charges against Blagojevich would strip credibility from anyone he appoints to the seat. Burris and many of his supporters have suggested that the real reason for the rejection involved race. Blagojevich denies federal accusations that he tried to sell Obama's seat. Democrats, for their part, deny that race has anything to do with Burris' rejection and say that it's a reflection on Blagojevich. That Erickson turned away Burris was no surprise; Senate Democrats had warned for weeks that if Burris showed up to be sworn in on Tuesday without the signature of the Illinois secretary of state, he would be turned away. That's just what happened. But if what Burris really wanted a circus, he got one. A mob of reporters awaited him outside the Senate's North Door, where Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer and a throng of officers escorted him through security and up to Erickson's office on the third floor. There, more reporters waited. Once again Burris went through a metal detector and into Erickson's office, nestled between the elevators and the press gallery. Twenty-one minutes later, Burris left; a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed that Burris had been rejected. Burris left the building, escorted by Gainer and his officers. And soon, a noisy throng of reporters followed him across the street, and Burris confirmed that he'd been turned away. An attorney for Burris, Timothy W. Wright III, said that "our credentials were rejected by the secretary of the Senate. We were not allowed to be placed in the record books. We were not allowed to proceed to the floor for purposes of taking oath. All of which we think was improperly done and is against the law of this land. We will consider our options and we will certainly let you know what our decisions will be soon thereafter." Asked what his options were, Wright said there possibly could be a court challenge and he said that Burris also would continue to talk to the Senate leadership. There had been earlier indications Burris would not be allowed to take his seat, at least in part because his letter of appointment from Blagojevich was not co-signed by Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White. Some of Burris' supporters have bemoaned the fact that Democrats would stand in the way of the Senate gaining its only black member. Burris himself downplayed the issue of race, telling reporters: "I cannot control my supporters. I have never in my life, in all my years of being elected to office, thought anything about race." Earlier Tuesday, Burris had tense negotiations with Terrence Gainer, the Senate's sergeant at arms. "I'm presenting myself as the legally appointed senator from the state of Illinois. It is my hope and prayer that they recognize that the appointment is legal," he said earlier in a nationally broadcast interview. Burris dismissed the Senate Democratic leadership's position that he cannot be seated because he was appointed by a governor accused in a criminal complaint of trying to benefit financially from his authority to fill the seat that Obama vacated after winning the presidential election. Burriss said his belief is that his appointment is constitutional and that "I have no knowledge of where a secretary of state has veto power over a governor carrying out his constitutional duties." Burris also maintained that the announcement by Blagojevich Monday of a date for an election for a successor to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., proves the governor still has legal authority to carry out his duties. Emanuel will be Obama's White House chief of staff. "There's nothing wrong with Roland Burris and there's nothing wrong with the appointment," Burris said. Burris has found little support among fellow Democrats."

Hilarity.

1/6/2009 2:23:29 PM

Quote :

"Additionally, Reid pushed back against Bobby Rush's charge that Burris should be seated because there are no African-Americans in the Senate, by pointing out that Rush did not support Barack Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate primary when there were also no African-Americans in the Senate. Zing!"

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10721

lolz

1/6/2009 2:56:24 PM

Quote :

"against the law of this land"

interesting.

because HE'S the one trying to claim appointment to a US Senate seat without the certification of the Illinois Sec of State.

if he's got a problem, the problem is in Illinois. Not with Erickson, or the US Senate.

1/6/2009 4:06:47 PM

^ LOL! The alleged engineer thinks he's a lawyer, too. Burris will be seated.

BTW, could you provide a link to the "law" that requires the Burris paperwork be signed by the Illinois Secretary of State, joe_esquire? Try the statutes concerning "The Tainted."

The Left will eat itself:

Feinstein backs Burris appointment - The Washington Times

http://tinyurl.com/86oxxa

Democrats' opposition to Burris begins to crack - AP

Quote :

"'Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes,' said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, which judges the credentials of senators."

http://tinyurl.com/84cgbt

Quote :

"The U.S. Senate is the 'last bastion of plantation politics.'"

--Congressman Bobby Rush

This is what some are seeing--and it's getting ugly:

Quote :

"'It's a travesty,' said Rod White, the owner of Bertha's Soul Food in Los Angeles, where he said his customers had been talking about it all day. 'The man walked over there this morning and he was rejected. It reminded me of my father. He's 72. An old black man walking in the rain and they closed the door in his face.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/WireStory?id=6589057&page=2

1/7/2009 3:26:56 AM

lol. the alleged teacher thinks it's people.



you're a joke, oldsaw

1/7/2009 9:42:55 AM

^^ what exactly is your vested interest in this? Do you have anything to add except DEMOCRATS ARE ARGUING OMG THIS IS HILARIOUS!

1/7/2009 9:51:04 AM

^ Actually, the latter is interesting enough for me.

^^ Thanks for the dazzling rejoinder, joe_esquire!

1/7/2009 5:16:21 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17195.html

Quote :

"Just a week ago, Reid said unequivocally that anyone appointed by scandal-tarred Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich “will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.” But after a 45-minute meeting with Burris on Wednesday, Reid and Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin said they had come up with a three-part plan to get Burris into the Senate — and that the hurdles in his way would be “pretty easy” to clear. Sources say Reid and other Democratic leaders underestimated the spectacle that would be caused by blocking Burris’ appointment and that they’ll now have to explain themselves as they clear the way for him to take President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat. “It wasn’t Reid’s finest moment, that’s for sure,” said an aide to one veteran Senate Democrat. “This looked bad from the beginning, and it hasn’t gotten any better.”"

How the heck did they think that Burris would NOT create a media frenzy? I may dislike the man, but props to Blago for pulling off this last laugh.

1/8/2009 11:06:39 AM

Quote :

"How the heck did they think that Burris would NOT create a media frenzy? I may dislike the man, but props to Blago for pulling off this last laugh."

That's what I was thinking. He has played this well.

Burris seems too complacent about the whole thing, which is somewhat troubling to me. I hope he doesn't get elected, if he gets seated.

It's funny though that on one side, you have the democrats getting roasted for trying to block a "tainted" senate appointee, then on the other, people seem mostly aloof of the republicans trying to block the election of a voted-for senate candidate: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/republican-leader-threatens-to-block-seating-of-franken/

[Edited on January 8, 2009 at 11:12 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2009 11:10:49 AM

because contesting legitimacy of election results is a type of political shenanigans typical of republicans. but this Blago scandal is new for democrats everyone, and will probably involve an historic precedent being set by the Supreme Court.

in any event, Reid needs to be stripped of his leadership. I wish someone would challenge him. he's a fucking embarrassment. his leadership of the past 2 years has been a joke. what an ineffectual, bumbling sonofabitch.






[Edited on January 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM. Reason : ]

1/8/2009 11:16:30 AM

^ On the latter we can definitely agree. But please don't use "an historic" (shudder)!

1/8/2009 5:20:34 PM

^^ I really wish that Hillary Clinton had stayed in the Senate and tried to take over as majority leader. I have real misgivings about her as Secretary of State, and I think she was a) in a position to challenge Reid for leadership and b) would probably have done a much better job.

Then again, trying to run the Senate is like herding cats.

1/8/2009 6:25:22 PM

it sucks that reid isnt telegenic

1/8/2009 9:15:07 PM

i saw some of Burris' testimony in front of an Illinois hearing yesterday on CSPAN. I only watched for a few minutes, and it appeared to be mostly to be politicians giving mini speeching and grandstanding about how ethical they are (no big surprise there). But from the responses I saw from Burris, it reinforced my notion that he is being really, really disenginuous by not even acknowledging that his appointment was under a cloud or not under ideal circumstances. There was one representative who had a rambling question that ammounted to "Will you admit that it is possible for some people to view this appointment as being under a cloud or not under ideal circumstances." A stupid question? maybe - but I think the point was she was trying to get him to go on record saying as much. But he literally put on a show for them. He scrunched up his face and acted completely perplexed like "what? i have no idea what your talking about", then he leaned over to his (I assume) lawyer and gave motions like "do you know what this lady is saying", then the lawyer got on the mic and said "is that a question, or commentary", then the lady said it again, getting flustered and tripping over her own sentences, and Burris went through the whole show again. After a couple rounds of this, all he could say was "i was appointed legally", all the while doing his damndest to make the Representative look like an idiot.

legal or not, the guy really acts like a dickhead. And The Daily SHow the other night showed his pre-built mosolieum at a cemetery in Chicago complete with a list etched in stone of "First African-American to do ____", including something like first to be on the "First non-CPA to be on the Ill board of CPAs".

1/9/2009 1:59:26 PM