Burris Lawyers Behind Closed Doors; Resolution Imminent?
Word in the Senate is that Roland Burris' future may be decided today. His legal team has been huddling this afternoon with the Secretary of the Senate -- whose offices, for better or for worse, are next-door to the press gallery. No questions have been taken from the press so far, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) may be pushed to make it official with the would-be senator from Illinois as soon as he finishes meeting with Mexico's President Felipe Calderon.
Advertisement
I guess I should not be particularly surprised, but this whole situation has turned into a complete FUBAR. First Reid and Durbin state flatly that no Blagojevich appointee would be seated. Blago calls their bluff and they wet their pants. Then they make a big deal out of the SoS signature. Why? Who knows? They have available to them have an unassailable argument that Burris can't be accepted until after a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding his appointment, and they never go near it.
It's a wonder these guys get their pants on right.
January 12, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's official Burris is being seated. If you can seat Burris without his credentials being in order you can seat Franken provisionally (in the very least) without having his in order either.
January 12, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris' credentials are in order. Franken's aren't.
January 12, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, well, poop. This is all such a mess. I still do not understand why Franken can't be seated, if someone can explain it to me, that would be great.
"Should a contest be brought against a senator-elect prior to his being sworn in, the chamber's custom has been to seat the individual contingent upon his credentials being in order. (10) Thus, the precedent has been that a senator-elect has a "prima facie" right to the seat, while the contest brought against him is being investigated. Moreover, the individual is considered seated "without prejudice" to himself or to the office. This pseudo-legal arrangement allows the Senate to remove the individual by a simple majority vote, should a subsequent investigation find him not to be entitled to the seat. Otherwise, the Senate's only course of action would be "expulsion," which would require a two-thirds majority (12)." Partisanship and Contested Election Cases in the Senate, 1789-2002, Jeffery A. Jenkins, Northwestern University. Studies in American Political Development, 19 (Spring 2005), 53-74, Cambridge University Press. (Author's emphasis)
January 12, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken's credentials are not in order. He has no certification. It's not really that complicated.
January 12, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but there IS precedent and tradition for seating without having credentials in order. It can be done. See the above quote.
January 12, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you even read what you typed?
January 12, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contingent: not logically necessary. BUT it also means dependent on or necessary, so you're right too. I call that legal wiggle room.
Depends on the definition of contingent in this instance.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contingent
January 12, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they've been crystal clear on what they mean. No valid certificate (signed by Gov. and countersigned by SoS), no seat. It's been so for 125 years. The only wiggle room is in the imaginations of people who would like a different result.
January 12, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink