Blago’s crime was getting caught or, more elegantly, stating explicitly what has always been understood. Blago’s one-fingered salute to the political establishment for throwing him under the bus was to appoint somebody who, so far anyway, appears unimpeachable. I don’t think there are any grounds for rejecting Mr. Burris’s appointment.
The grounds would appear to be, in actual fact, that Democrats think Burris won’t be elected when he runs in 2010, and they’d lose the seat. Blagojevich has not been convicted, and is still the elected Governor of Illinois. I agree with Democrats that this is probably a weak Senate candidate, even as an incumbent. Politics is politics, I suppose, but I don’t see a legitimate reason to refuse this appointment.
The Illinois Sec. of State refuses to sign his certificate of appointment (or whatever it is called), and that is a Senate rule (however dubious its constitutionality is). Nevertheless, the Sec. of State’s unwillingness to comply is a sign of how bad things are for Blago.
The appointment of Mr. Burris to the United States Senate was made according to the Constitution of the United States, by a duly elected governor who is not currently anything other than an indicted individual, presumed innocent in our justice system until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Burris ought to be seated by the Senate. And boy, how it pains me to acknowledge that!!
News reports say Burris is considering suing to force the Ill. Sec. State to sign the certificate. I don’t know on what grounds this is being refused, other than distaste for the Governor. I didn’t know it was warm in Illinois; it sure sounds like a banana republic.
The dispute could be seen in better context if we recalled the original Constitutional scheme of Senators as the States’ representatives in the federal government. With direct election of senators they no longer represent their respective States, rather, they represent political parties.
Katherine,
We have been trending toward banana republic government for some time now and close behind that trend, as always, is banana republic business. All that is left now is to fill up the place with banana republic citizens.
Gee…almost the only black senator to be seated. But this is not racism, he is just “50 years behind the times” as another famous liberal would say…
Intercessor
Burris was duly appointed by a sitting governor according to the rules in play. There is no legitimate reason for the Illinois secretary of state not to sign the certificate – Burris meets all the requirements of a U.S. senator. Either you follow the rules or chaos rules. Right now we have chaos since the Illinois secretary of state did not follow the rules. Our personal feelings about how someone was chosen or who chose them is irrelevant – where the rules followed correctly? Yes, they were. The SoS should sign the certificate and Burris should be sworn in as a U.S. senator. Just because the Democrats think he won’t be able to be elected once his term is up is no reason to deny him the seat. Once again, “feelings” and the struggle for power run roughshod over the rule of law.
Why does Mr. Franken, a nice liberal caucasian, get seated while still in a contested race that he leads by a margin that is eclipsed by at least 3 times or more contested ballots and a soon to be filed lawsuit to remove him while Mr. Burris,the only black man appointed to this current Senate is deemed a leper?
Just curious….
Intercessor
What I don’t understand is why Mr. Burris (or anyone) would want to hold a Senate seat with the taint of appointment by Blagojevich. Surely it’s something that will follow him all his political life.
I share the opinion of post #13. Burris’s efforts to be seated beg the question of why someone would accept such a tainted appointment. I’m reminded of the saying “there is no honor among theives;” it appears by such acts to also extend to politicians.
#17 BlueOntario:
[blockquote]I’m reminded of the saying “there is no honor among theives;†it appears by such acts to also extend to politicians. [/blockquote]
No BlueO ….It BEGINS with politicians….
Intercessor
Perhaps Mr. Burris doesn’t care about whether he’s re-elected. He has sought higher office before and failed. According to reports he’d like very much to put “U.S. Senator” on his tombstone, which is already in existence. How many like-minded people would refuse a seat for two years because it might not last longer?
Pure Kabuki. Insignificant political Neros fiddle while the economic crisis they helped create burns. Pathetic.
Blago’s crime was getting caught or, more elegantly, stating explicitly what has always been understood. Blago’s one-fingered salute to the political establishment for throwing him under the bus was to appoint somebody who, so far anyway, appears unimpeachable. I don’t think there are any grounds for rejecting Mr. Burris’s appointment.
The grounds would appear to be, in actual fact, that Democrats think Burris won’t be elected when he runs in 2010, and they’d lose the seat. Blagojevich has not been convicted, and is still the elected Governor of Illinois. I agree with Democrats that this is probably a weak Senate candidate, even as an incumbent. Politics is politics, I suppose, but I don’t see a legitimate reason to refuse this appointment.
The Illinois Sec. of State refuses to sign his certificate of appointment (or whatever it is called), and that is a Senate rule (however dubious its constitutionality is). Nevertheless, the Sec. of State’s unwillingness to comply is a sign of how bad things are for Blago.
The appointment of Mr. Burris to the United States Senate was made according to the Constitution of the United States, by a duly elected governor who is not currently anything other than an indicted individual, presumed innocent in our justice system until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Burris ought to be seated by the Senate. And boy, how it pains me to acknowledge that!!
News reports say Burris is considering suing to force the Ill. Sec. State to sign the certificate. I don’t know on what grounds this is being refused, other than distaste for the Governor. I didn’t know it was warm in Illinois; it sure sounds like a banana republic.
The dispute could be seen in better context if we recalled the original Constitutional scheme of Senators as the States’ representatives in the federal government. With direct election of senators they no longer represent their respective States, rather, they represent political parties.
Katherine,
We have been trending toward banana republic government for some time now and close behind that trend, as always, is banana republic business. All that is left now is to fill up the place with banana republic citizens.
Gee…almost the only black senator to be seated. But this is not racism, he is just “50 years behind the times” as another famous liberal would say…
Intercessor
Burris was duly appointed by a sitting governor according to the rules in play. There is no legitimate reason for the Illinois secretary of state not to sign the certificate – Burris meets all the requirements of a U.S. senator. Either you follow the rules or chaos rules. Right now we have chaos since the Illinois secretary of state did not follow the rules. Our personal feelings about how someone was chosen or who chose them is irrelevant – where the rules followed correctly? Yes, they were. The SoS should sign the certificate and Burris should be sworn in as a U.S. senator. Just because the Democrats think he won’t be able to be elected once his term is up is no reason to deny him the seat. Once again, “feelings” and the struggle for power run roughshod over the rule of law.
Why does Mr. Franken, a nice liberal caucasian, get seated while still in a contested race that he leads by a margin that is eclipsed by at least 3 times or more contested ballots and a soon to be filed lawsuit to remove him while Mr. Burris,the only black man appointed to this current Senate is deemed a leper?
Just curious….
Intercessor
Oh…and where is the obligatory mass media indignation???
Intercessor
IMHO, it appears to be difficult to argue not to seat, even though this is not my practice area. Here is Larry Tribe’s take.
What I don’t understand is why Mr. Burris (or anyone) would want to hold a Senate seat with the taint of appointment by Blagojevich. Surely it’s something that will follow him all his political life.
Intercessor wrote:
[blockquote] …Why does Mr. Franken, a nice liberal caucasian, get seated …[/blockquote]
I don’t believe that’s correct. Franken wasn’t even in Washington today.
#14–I stand corrected…the theft is still in progress…read link:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/minnesota.recount/index.html
Intercessor
Ah, yes, the Democrats, the party of fair play, of representing minority rights, of anti-discrimination, etc. Now we see the true colors.
I share the opinion of post #13. Burris’s efforts to be seated beg the question of why someone would accept such a tainted appointment. I’m reminded of the saying “there is no honor among theives;” it appears by such acts to also extend to politicians.
#17 BlueOntario:
[blockquote]I’m reminded of the saying “there is no honor among theives;†it appears by such acts to also extend to politicians. [/blockquote]
No BlueO ….It BEGINS with politicians….
Intercessor
Perhaps Mr. Burris doesn’t care about whether he’s re-elected. He has sought higher office before and failed. According to reports he’d like very much to put “U.S. Senator” on his tombstone, which is already in existence. How many like-minded people would refuse a seat for two years because it might not last longer?