Illinois Legislature Won't Fast-Track Blago Impeachment
An aide to a top legislative Democrat in Illinois tells Election Central that the impeachment proceedings against Rod Blagojevich will not be sped up in the wake of Blago's stunning move of appointing Roland Burris to Barack Obama's Senate seat.
"No," the source said, when we asked if the impeachment proceedings might be fast-tracked. "They set out to do something in a measured and careful manner with an eye towards not creating or setting the wrong precedent, and not trampling upon rights and due process. And they're going to continue to do that."
So with the legislature still committed to a guarantee of due process in the impeachment, at least for now, Blago isn't going anywhere immediately.
Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn has estimated that Blagojevich could be out of office by early February, before Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday. The source told us that this projection still seems to be about right.
So when does Fitzy finally indict Blago for something? As Chuck Todd said last night The US attorney has 30 days to return an indictment after an arrest (Dec. 9). If Fitzgerald doesn't back up his trial by press conference and hamstringing of the resulting impeachment with an actual indictment he's gonna have a lot of explaining to do.
December 31, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Facts:
1) The Legislature does not want to impeach Blago.
2) Blago will not be convicted of anything and will serve out his term.
3) Fitzgerald has his head up his ass.
4) Burriss will be the next Senator from Illinois.
On number 4) it is just a matter of time. How long can Harry Reid go without his vote to overcome McConnell's endlesss filibusters?
December 31, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Kristol, is that you?
December 31, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just in case you believe that Republicans like Buchannan or Joe Watkins care about the rightness of Burris being seated rather than wanting a serial loser appointed by a scandal-plagued governor, here's Rush Limbaugh comparing the Democrats in the Senate to Bull Connor and George Wallace. . .
“Well, let me just say this, you know, the recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where school children — where you have officials standing in the doorway of school children. You know, I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Arkansas. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connors and I'm sure that the U.S. Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position. ...”
How many times has Limbaugh spoken out about the injustices of Bull Connor and George Wallace? How much sleep has he lost over the treatment of blacks under Jim Crow? Anyone? Anyone?
December 31, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read this was a quote from BOBBY RUSH, not Rush Limbaugh...
If his reference to "lynching" yesterday wasn't blatant enough, Rep. Bobby Rush made his argument abundantly clear this morning on CBS's "The Early Show:"
"You know, the recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where schoolchildren -- where you have officials standing in the doorway of schoolchildren," Rush said. "You know, I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Ark. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connor and I'm sure that the U.S. Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position."
December 31, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rush Limbaugh...Bobby Rush...who said it isn't as important as what it can be twisted it into. Stop spouting facts and jump on the FreeRide...
December 31, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the excellent reporting at FiveThirtyEight and HuffPo, it seems like neither the Jesse White nor Harry Reid roadblock is going to ultimately succeed in court. The question then becomes, can they, together, delay the appointment until Blago gets impeached. If we're only talking a month that this thing needs to get tied up in litigation, it seems like that's easily doable. So then, in February can the new gov rescind the appointment?
December 31, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Due respect to 538 for their ststs work, but as the comments over there show, Nate Silver is not an expert on the Constitution and there is good reason to believe that the Senate could refuse to seat Burriss. Whether that would be a good move politically is another question.
December 31, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Nate's not so dumb after all:
“I think the best reading of the text of the Constitution and the Powell case together is that the Senate has to seat Burris,” said Abner S. Greene, the Leonard F. Manning professor of law at Fordham University School of Law.
December 31, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
They seem a lot like the armchair constitutional lawyers that insisted Hillary was constitutionally barred from SoS.
There are questions of standing and justiciability in this case that don't necessarily mirror Powell. It seems the court has a lot of wiggle room not to hear the case if they don't want to interfere. Even if Powell is 100% applicable and the court will hear the appeal, the Senate simply has to expel him after letting him take an oath. Nixon v. US seems to indicate that the courts won't interfere with that process - regardless of the reasons for expelling Burris.
Of course, now I'm guilty of my own armchair lawyering.
December 31, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone's taken a crack at whether or not the Senate can refuse to seat Burris. My question is can a new governor rescind his appointment if he is still in litigation at that point? Anybody have anything on that?
December 31, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
And then what? If Quinn rescinds the appointment who will he appoint? Both Quinn and Blago have said they favor changing the law to a special election. I think that's a terrible idea. First of all Illinois will spend months with only one US senator and second it will discourage either party's voters from nominating an IL senator for president ever again if it risks losing a safe senate seat. Anybody doubt that Obama's shot at the nomination would have been less in the primary if Hillary's people could have used that argument against him?
December 31, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree special elections to fill an appointment are the wrong way to go - GENERALLY. This is a really special circumstance. Given the choice of a Blago appointment or an election, an election is far better for the integrity of the Senate and the democratic caucus.
Since that would require legislative action that Illinois has refused to take - it's sort of a moot discussion.
IMO, when Quinn takes office he will make an appointment. It will be drawn from the previous list of usual suspects - with Jessie Jackson no longer viable.
December 31, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Integrity of the senate..." blah blah blah The is exactly the kind of high horse nonsense that keeps Democrats from ever achieving anything.
Namby-pamby do gooders have destroyed the Democratic Party just as the psychotic religious right has destroyed the other one.
We need a Democrat in the vein of Lyndon Baines Johnson now, not Lincoln or Carter or Clinton. We need a ball busting, knucklecracking POLITICIAN in the best sense of that word.
This is some serious deep shit we are up to our necks in right now thanks to W and the Dark Lord. Let's worry about the proper placement of placecards AFTER the crap's been hauled away.
December 31, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh... Lincoln was a Republican, last I checked.
December 31, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the revelation that JJJ has been working with Fitz on this for quite some time exonerates him. He's still a viable candidate, but it's anybody's guess what's gonna happen now.
January 1, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a good person for Quinn to appoint is Davis who Blago first asked to take Obama's seat a week ago but he turned it down because he didn't want the seat because of Blago's taint. He would be a great person to be the Senator from Illiniois.
December 31, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid needs all the votes he can get as soon as he can get them. We don't have 3-4 months to pass economic stimulus. The stock market and bond markets have already priced in big stimulus now, not next spring. If Obama's plan stalls, the Dow will hit new lows, real estate will completely collapse, and the Great Depression II will be upon us.
By trying to delay (and that is all they can do, they can't stop it) Blago's perfectly reasonable choice, Reid and the Dems are cutting off their nose to spite their face. They are going to screw all of us for some Caesar's wife principle.
Time to get off the high horse. Stop the madness. Pass Obama's plan and have it ready on January 20th to sign. Otherwise armageddon will ensue.
December 31, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually don't think that the stimulus package will be that hard to pass. I think that they will be able to get 60 Senators to vote for it because Americans are behind it, it will create 3 million jobs, and the middle class will get tax cuts.
December 31, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your lips to you-know-who's ears... Now please tell the 500,000 people each week who are losing their jobs, most of them permanently, how confident you are that the Republicans will break ranks or that Harry Reid is the right person at the right time in our history to get everything needed to be passed, passed.
Harry Reid couldn't carry Sam Rayburn's jock on his best day. [Is it too late to appoint Harry Reid Secretary of State and get Hillary back in there to knock some heads?]
For all you Puritan Do-Gooder Democrats, if you think the forces of right wing evil are going to roll over and play dead for a guy they just called the "Magic Negro", with total impunity mind you, you got your head ensconced where the sun don't shine!
December 31, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democrats can give Joe Lieberman the chair of a committee for which he has not held even one hearing on anything of substance, and after he openly campaigned for John McCain, I say there is no good reason not to seat Burris. Keeping this going only benefits the GOP in the long run. Seat him and let's move on. Odds are he won't win the election in 2010 anyway. The Senate cannot constitutionally refuse to seat him, without invoking the "we decide who gets in and who doesn't" clause. The people of Illinois elected Blagojevich, the 17th amendment gives him the right, and Illinois law gives him the duty, to appoint a replacement, so until he is out of office there is no legal way to stop this, other than have the US Senate substitute their judgment for the judgment of the people of Illinois. Is that really a road the Democrats want to go down?
December 31, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink