Burris Turned Away, Declares To Press: "My Name Is Roland Burris, Junior Senator"
It's official: Roland Burris came to the Senate, he saw the Senate -- and he was turned away at the door.
Burris just made a brief statement to reporters, after his credentials were rejected by the Secretary of the Senate. "Members of the media, my name is Roland Burris, junior Senator from the state of Illinois," Burris said, in an effort to establish his legitimacy. "I presented my credentials to the Secretary of the Senate and was advised that my credentials are not in order, I will not be accepted, and I will not be seated, I will not be permitted on the floor."
He then added that he was not seeking any kind of confrontation -- but did not expressly rule out any lawsuit. Instead, he said he would be consulting with his attorneys on what his next step will be.
Late Update: Burris' lawyer Timothy W. Wright III declared that the rejection of Burris "was improperly done and is against the law of this land." Wright added: "We will consider our options and certainly let you know what our decisions will be soon thereafter." So it sounds like we're looking at a lawsuit -- or at least the threat of one, as a bargaining chip.
What an embarrassment this Senate leadership is. He will win the legal battle and be seated eventually. Like it or not Blago is the governor and still had the power to appoint him. Why play out this stupid drama? Do they take a stand on executive privilege? Or removing Lieberman from his rpecious chairmanship? Or FISA? Of course not.
Obama might need a vote for his stimulus package to pass, and we are delaying Burris taking his seat for what possible gain? Absolute idiocy.
January 6, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think you're right. burris seems to be on solid legal ground.
January 6, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
BULLSHIT! Burris is a unethical shitbag who just happens to be black. When a federal prosecutor arrests you for trying to sell a senate seat YOU DO NOT GET A DO OVER just because the scumbag you get to conspire with you is black! You people are swallowing the Blago baloney without even chewing it ..... yuk .... because you want a black senator. Burris is just a scummy old lawyer who thinks he might pull this off on some legal technicality and because he is black. What complete cynical bullshit! Other decent people turned this "appointment" down because it stinks to high heaven. Burris jumped at it like a dog who smells bacon. Scumbag!
January 6, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The right action was for Dems to impeach Blago back in the summer - when far worse than selling Obama's Senate seat was shaking out of the Rezko investigation. The Dems have been stalling and foot-dragging, the Madigans appear more motivated by national face time for Lisa than doing right by the state. Then they push for a special election - until it becomes clear that they Repubs could pick it up.
Seat Burris and impeach Blago. These can happen in parallel. I have not doubt, whatever his personal or political motivations, Burris will be a solid vote for Obama's agenda.
But having a Governor Pat Quinn pick a solidly progressive Dem for Senator was the LAST thing the Madigans and the IL Dems wanted..
January 6, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Whatever issues one might have with Blago making the appointment, he's not yet been indicted, found guilty of any charges, or impeached, which makes him solely qualified to appoint Burris. It's his last big FU to the Democratic establishment before he is hustled off stage.
Though, I think the Secretary of the Senate handled this properly. The lawsuit, if there will be one, will be against the Illinois Secretary of State who refused to sign the appointment (which was the grounds for Burris' credentials not being in order).
Definitely not a good example of how to make friends and influence people.
January 6, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you complaining that the Democrats are finally taking a stand? As a citizen of Illinois, I think it is fantastic. Sure it would be to the Democrats' crass political benefit to seat Burris, but they (and Obama) are unwilling to let that happen. It is, above all, a strong stand on clean and ethical government, which I happen to think is extremely important. The sort of short-term results-based notion that corruption is tolerable as long as we get things done is the reason things have gotten so bad in Illinois. By all means, keep the cancer from spreading on Capitol Hill. Incidentally, the goal is not to ultimately deny Burris the seat through legal means, but to delay him taking it until Blago is impeached and we get a proper appointment.
January 6, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a losing case legally. He hasn't even been indicted (and won't be for another three months). Blago is presumed to be innocent. He has not been impeached (yet). No court is going to after the fact nullify the appointment of someone who had full authority to make the appointment at the time. And even if the Senate leaders really had legal grounds to stand on, do we really want to make this legal battle play out and leave the seat vacant that long? There is so little upside to this. I am just dumbfounded this crap is what the Senate takes a stand on. And we are further playing into Blago's hand by prolonging this ridiculous circus.
January 6, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Innocence until proven guilty is a procedural nicety in a criminal trial. It does not nullify the clear evidence of Blago's corruption for purposes of impeachment from office. The Illinois legislature is moving to impeach him. I have seen nothing to indicate that future IL Governor Pat Quinn would not have the power to rescind Burris' appointment when it's still in litigation in about March. And you know, it will have all been worth it for clean and ethical government.
January 6, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
If there were clear evidence, Fitzgerald would have indicted already. Sorry, the appearance of impropriety is not a valid hurdle to being seated, whether for William Jefferson or Tom DeLay.
January 6, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Procedural nicety"? You misspelled "legal requirement".
January 6, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another point...why would a QUINN appointment be challenged legally? The issue that Illinois and DC Dems have with Burris is that he's a BLAGOJEVICH appointee.
If Blagojevich had temporarily stepped down (even, say, just long enough to let Quinn make the appointment), no one would have said "boo" about Burris.
Burris is, as I've said before, just about the perfect seat-warmer. He's 71 (gravitas and experience), probably unelectable for a full term (so he'll be supported by Illinois Dems looking to make a Blago-free run for the seat in '10), he's black (so you'll avoid a messy PR situation), and he'd be a reliable Dem vote.
I'd like to think that, 15 years ago, at the height of his political career in Illinois, Burris would've turned down an appointment under these circumstances. Then again, I never thought he'd really try to unseat a popular Republican governor by using race as a major issue, either. *shrug*
January 6, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
dijamo please! as much as you try to rationalize that this is technically legal it STILL STINKS! When you are arrested for trying to sell a senate seat ..... YOU DO NOT GET TO STILL MAKE THE APPOINTMENT ON YOU WAY TO JAIL! You seem only to care what color the senator is and not how unethical he or she is. Burris is a scumbag who tried to have a man convicted and executed for murder when it was well known he was innocent. BLIND AMBITION! He disgusts me and playing the race card here disgusts me even more.
January 6, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it was Tammy Duckworth or Schakowsky appointed, I doubt Harry Reid would probably never have objected because those candidates are more electable. That said, it's not about color or electability - it's about what is legal. YOU can ANgry CAPS all you WANT, but it doesn't change the fact Blago is still governor just like William Jefferson is still in the Senate. Jefferson still performs his duties as Senator even though he is under indictment and his trial has now been postponed to 2009. This has been damn near 2 years. Blago is still governor and can appoint whomever the hell he wants as long as they were not implicated in buying the seat.
January 6, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again you are trying to stand on a technicality and ignoring the bottom line here. Blago was arrested for trying to sell the senate seat to the highest bidder. THAT ENDS HIS ETHICAL AUTHORITY RIGHT THERE! No he doesn't get to sneak one in on his way to jail ... NO! It is not that complicated. He is also blatantly playing the race card by daring the senate not to seat a black senator. That diminishes us all to a level I thought we had just gotten beyond.
( I LOVE caps btw)
January 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hollywood, take the fucking caps lock off.
January 6, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My caps lock doesn't FUCK, it's waiting for the right keyboard to come along and get married first. You have to respect that!
I keep my pinkie on the shift key the whole while ......
Why on Earth does that bother some people so much???
January 6, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, *you* are ignoring the bottom line. In the end, the real bottom line is what is legal.
Blagojevich, until such time as he is removed as governor (one way or another), acts with full executive authority as the (slimy, oozing, despicable but still) legally elected chief executive of the state of Illinois.
You do not get to throw out the law just because someone you don't like is protected by it. All the ranting in the world doesn't change that simple fact.
If you don't like it, perhaps you should take a trip to Springfield and suggest amending the state Constitution. Good luck with that.
January 6, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the bottom line in ethics is *perception*. That is why judges recuse themselves from deliberating on cases where there is any *perception* of personal bias or undue influence. It is exactly what is taught in every law school and is exactly what is practiced by ethical lawyers and judges everywhere. Even the Supreme Court has this expectation that any member with a personal interest in the outcome of a case is required to recuse themselves so that the final outcome has no hint or taint of corruption.
It could not be any more obvious that Blago has lost all consideration of ethics in government and is playing this out to benefit himself politically and financially. It is a legal and ethical no-brainer. This is not a game won or lost on technicalities.
January 6, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that it's a ridiculous circus. However, the Senate is actually on pretty decent ground - until Burris can get IL SoS Jesse White to sign his election certificate.
I believe the better thing to do would be to suspend the Senate rule requiring all Senators-elect to have an election certification signed by the governor and secretary of state in question. However, with both Obama and Durbin saying Burris shouldn't be seated as a Blagojevich appointee, that particular rule is very handy to enforce right now. Also, this rule isn't like the Saxbe fix - suspending it could create some very bad precedent.
In the long term, this will work out. There's a very real possibility that the IL Supreme Court may force White to sign the certificate, at which point the Senate has no procedural leg to stand on in terms of not admitting Burris. Also, the state legislature does appear to be fast-tracking the Blago Boot, so Quinn may make the appointment within the next couple of months - and Burris would be a good pick.
January 6, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris would be a HORRIBLE pick! He has disgraced himself with this naked power grab and the circus atmosphere he has created. He uses his friend Bobby Rush to accuse anyone of not being behind this bullshit as "hanging or lynching" poor Mr. Burris. That tactic was disgusting! It certainly turned my stomach.
Burris is also reported to have continued the years long prosecution of a man who was accused of murder even though another man confessed and DNA evidence did not match the innocent man to the crime. THE DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY QUIT THE CASE IN DISGUST. Burris proved his character by choosing his own political advancement over the life of an innocent man.
Burris is not qualified to be Cook County Dog Catcher!
January 6, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're entirely too reactionary - and obviously know nothing of Roland Burris's history.
Quoting an unsourced allegation as evidence of his lack of fitness for office says more about your lack of fitness than it could ever say about Burris's.
He is an excellent pick, and if you can't get over yourself and your third-grade emotional screeds long enough to comprehend why, I'll try to make it easy for you to understand.
1) Due to his age (71) and the circus around his appointment, Burris might not even bother to run in 2010 (and would lose to any of several top Dems if he does). This makes people like Davis, Schakowsky and JJJ happy, because Burris takes the Blago stench off their hands and leaves them time to prepare for 2010.
2) He'll be a very reliable Dem vote in the caucus, so he's a good seat-warmer in that sense.
3) He's far from a political n00b, so he should be able to handle himself fine for two years.
4) Either Blagojevich or Quinn, whoever made the appointment, would be under tremendous pressure from the Chicago crowd to select a black person to replace Obama. (Note: I'm not arguing that's a good thing, but it's the stark reality of the situation.)
When Harry Reid, Jesse White, et al., get tired of fighting the law, Burris will be seated, and life will go on.
January 7, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to see someone thinking clearly. And you're absolutely correct that the strategy is to stall for time until Quinn makes an appointment. At that point the legal question isn't whether Burris is legitimate or not but between two competing claims of legitimacy. Big difference.
January 6, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
He might have to be seated eventually - if the armchair blog lawyers are right. But how long would that process take? Senate democrats only have to prevent this criminal from getting seated until the removal of Blago. Once Blago is gone ... Burris is out on his butt and Illinois gets an untainted senator (who might also be black BTW). If Blagojevich is acquitted (at his impeachment hearing), Burris can be seated without prejudice.
Any democrat who endorses the idea of hanging this tainted ghost of Blagojevich around their necks for years is crazy. The guy has LOST every election he's stood in for more than a decade - clearly his fellow citizens of Illinois don't want him. He would be a senatorial version of Jefferson(with all the money in his fridge): a joke, distraction, and negative foil for the GOP to use come election season.
The false equivalency between this and "standing up to Bush" is amazing. The cloture argument is weak enough, but the premise that Burris could be the single vote that passes economic stimulus is just batty.
January 6, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, what crime exactly is Burris accused of? Being egotistical is nto a crime. Accepting a Senate seat that pisses off the Democratic leadership is not against the law. There is zero allegation that he was part of pay for play.
When Spitzer resigned, did that mean all of his appointments were nullified too? Of course not. When Senators are accused of corruption like Ted Stevens, are their corrupted votes nullifed? Of course not.
I don't get the logic that a lawful governor can have an appointment overturned after the fact unless there's proof that Burris himself was appointed as part of pay for play. But hey, if the Senate wants to play ball without an extra vote from Burris (or Franken until that's finalized) they are free to do so. I still don't get the logic here.
January 6, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aaahhh but Spitzer honorably resigned. If he had appointed Kennedy real quick on his way out the door in the midst of an impeachment proceeding .... what would your opinion be then?
Blagojevitch's actions are an attempt to make it more difficult to prosecute his crimes. Burris is a willing participant in this. In my view, it makes him an accessory after the fact.
January 6, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the Democrats at their worst. The Illinois Dems would not impeach Blago because Lisa would rather not run against Pat Quinn for Governor.
So Burris is on solid moral grounds. Did anyone stop to think that the Black Caucus and Burris are more concerned than the average D.C. politco that Obama is down one critical Senate seat - and will be until deep into summer at least the way that things have been moving in Springfield?
OTOH, all the Repubs have to do is say "filibuster" over seating Franken provisionally, and Reid throws up his hands and gives them whatever they want - without filibustering..
Reid is unbelievably lame. He jumped the gun proclaiming that he would not seat a legally appointed Senator, and appears to be on shakey legal ground. This only weakens the Dem's position - and Obama's, and, in this instance, the country's.
January 6, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Criminal use of the third person when referring to himself. I'm pretty sure it's illegal in 39 states.
January 6, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo sincerely hopes New York is not one of those 39 states :) No seriously, I grant you that Burris is obnoxious, has not acted in the best interests of the democratic party, and will likely lose in 2010. But none of those are valid legal reasons for keeping him from the seat. Why not have the Senate start preparing folks for the inevitable primary now?
January 6, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's a losing case for the Illinois Sec. State alright! Here is the only thing I think they can get away with, and it depends to me if they can impeach and remove the rapscallion quickly:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/2009/01/only-one-way-for-burris-not-to.php
January 6, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's a losing case for the Illinois Sec. State alright! Here is the only thing I think they can get away with, and it depends to me if they can impeach and remove the rapscallion quickly:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/2009/01/only-one-way-for-burris-not-to.php
January 6, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's a losing case for the Illinois Sec. State alright! Here is the only thing I think they can get away with, and it depends to me if they can impeach and remove the rapscallion quickly:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/2009/01/only-one-way-for-burris-not-to.php
January 6, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's a losing case for the Illinois Sec. State alright! Here is the only thing I think they can get away with, and it depends to me if they can impeach and remove the rapscallion quickly:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mare_nostrum/2009/01/only-one-way-for-burris-not-to.php
January 6, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone being black, white, brown, yellow, pink, blue, or green! Wake up dijamo! Hasn't the election of Obama taught you a damn thing? Blago was caught redhanded trying to SELL the senate seat and then shopped around to find some coldly ambitious black person to take it and try to fuck over his fellow democrats on the way out the door. Anyone with decency or integrity turned him down and this clown Burris jumps in like he was born to the circus. THE FACT THAT BURRIS TOOK THE APPOINTMENT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS ACTUALLY WHAT DISQUALIFIES HIM. What an unethical bag of shit! It has also been revealed that when Burris was a prosecutor he was trying to put a man to death for a murder he did not commit. It was prosecutorial misconduct of the HIGHEST ORDER! The deputy prosecutor QUIT her job in disgust at what Burris was trying to do to advance his own career.
Worshiping Burris because he is black disgusts me and anyone who has an ounce of fairness and objectivity. Haven't you learned anything???
January 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, where did I say seat Burris because he's black? I said seat Burris because there's no legal grounds for denying him the seat. Wonder where your assumption came from. There's plenty of African Americans opposition to seating Burris.
And just as a side note that's a really quite bizarre argument to throw at an African American who chose Hillary rather than Obama.
January 6, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My assumption came from Rep. Bobby Rush who 'rushed' to the podium and declared that you had better not "lynch" Burris or else.
Did you miss that little bit of racist theatre? The only thing Burris really has to bargain with here is his race and they played that card right off the top of the deck. Disgusting. Blago shopped around for a black politician in Illinois and others turned him down. So sad to see you play along with this cynical circus.
January 6, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI - I'm not Bobby Rush. I know, I know. We all look alike. But perhaps you shouldn't judge all black people by one guy's behavior.
January 6, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that you mention it, I've never seen you and Bobby in the same place, at the same time...
January 6, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try at victimhood but Burris and Rush played the race card right out of the box ....." please don't lynch good Mr. Burris" ..... so obviously they think being black was good cover for a naked power grab. An unethical and illegal power grab.
Thanks for assuming you know my racial background as well .... YOU DON'T .... Bigotry comes in many forms from many places....
January 6, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Blagoyevich is under investigation for attempting to sell the senate seat, it seems only proper that ANYONE he appoints should not be permitted to take their seat. That is just common sense. All the posturing by Burriss and his attorneys are blatant attempts to grab power. It's obvious to anyone with even half of a brain!!!
January 6, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why the Democrats suddenly find a spine to stand up on principle against a fellow Democrat, and to make a scene involving a perfectly qualified representative and humiliating a member of their most reliable voting bloc, just rubs alot of us the wrong way.
If they had shown just a fraction of their outrage at the Republicans imposition of a police state and the destruciton of our economy that they have shown over Blagojevich and Burris, I think most of us would be on their side.
As it is, it just reinforces the suspicion that establishment Dems are more worried about the rabble getting out of line than stopping Republican depradation.
January 6, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
The criminality The Reid and Pelosi enabled outweighs any petty thuggery coming out of Springfield, IL.
January 6, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
it seems only proper that ANYONE he appoints should not be permitted to take their seat.
proper, sure, but legal? hardly
OTOH, if the bush administration has taught us anything, it's that the law can be ignored when it's inconvenient.
January 6, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
the democaratic leadership of the senate is bumbling along without any insight to the future. What possible gain do they have here in stopping burris to this seat. good old harry is so out of touch and playing right into the gop hands of game playing....dijamo is absolutely coorect in her comments here...
January 6, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about some integrity?
C'mon...if the shoe was on the other foot and this was going on with the republicans, everyone's hair would be on fire and we would be screaming "party of corruption"! I'm not talking about the legality of Burris' appointment...but just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean that they SHOULD.
If Blago was concerned about the people of IL having Senate representation perhaps he could've had a commission appoint someone who would have some legitimacy. This was a pure political power play and Burris should be ashamed for taking the bait.
I don't blame Reid at all for trying to stall this as long as he can. After all our foot stomping over Republican scandals over the past several years, I think that we, as a party, should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
January 6, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
what a freakin mess. first of all, even though I thought at first and still basically do, that there are too many actually important things to worry about for the Dems to bother with this, this guy has made such a flaming ass of himself in the past week and a half, that I really want to see him sent packing by now, just because I like to see annoying people lose arguments.
he is on the technically correct legal ground thought, and we can blame Mr. Harry Reid, once again, for mouthing off and claiming to have powers he never had in the first place (like the power to block an appointee because of a possible conviction some time down the road).
got that? Burris = ass. Blogojevich = ass. but this is all Harry Reid's fault, for becoming this much of a 'High noon' scenario. what a joke Reid is.
January 6, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Burris is similar to the problem with Coleman. He wants it so bad that he doesn't care how he gets it. The Senate is a career move for both of them. It's not about serving their constituents, it's about serving themselves. The spin coming from both of them is about the same, too, except that Coleman hasn't gone as far as to say that it's God's will to put him in the Senate.
January 6, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Much of this is true. But it leaves out a major difference: the problem with Burris being in the Senate is TOTALLY different than the problem with Coleman being in the Senate.
Burris has been legally appointed to the position by the only person with authority to make the appointment. He is being kept out on what really amounts to a technicality.
Coleman is trying to convince a Minnesota court to overturn a legally conducted recount. He wants to explicitly overturn the certified result of his election.
January 6, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid should have been on the phone with Burris directly discussing this. It is now a distracting circus.
January 6, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid: "We really don't think you should come to Washington until this Blago mess is sorted out."
Burris: "God told me to come ... so I'm a-coming"
Reid: "But under the circumstances it's a no-win situation for everyone."
Burris: "God told me to come ... so I'm a-coming"
Reid: "The caucus is unanimous in agreeing you shouldn't be seated at all, and there is some question about your paperwork."
Burris: "God told me to come ... so I'm a-coming. Why don't you understand I'm the junior senator?"
Reid: "Our parliamentarian seems to think differently, and there are a couple of teams of lawyers who seem to support that position."
Burris: "God told me to come ... so I'm a-coming"
Reid: "You won't have any support when you get here."
Burris: "God told me to come ... so I'm a..."
[Phone fumbling ... intrrupted by Rush]
Rush: "Don't lynch him just because he's black!"
[Phone fumbling ... Burris takes back over]
Burris: "Why don't you understand I'm the junior senator? Don't try to block what the Lord has ordained! You'll go to hell for this!"
Reid: "OooooK. Did I mention the caucus supports the parliamentarian's view?"
Burris: "God told me to come ... so I'm a-coming"
.
.
.
Six hours later
.
.
.
Burris: "Why don't you understand I'm the junior senator? The Lord has ordained this!"
January 6, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did you get that transcript? It has all the marks of authenticity!
January 6, 2009 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if the Dems greeted Burris with open arms the GOP would raise a huge stink about the Dems allowing Senate seats to be sold.
Let the Dems stand with integrity, and if the law forces Burris into the Senate then so be it, it won't be on them, and the Dems can run a clean candidate in 2 years time and Blago will not be held against them nearly as much if they accepted Burris with no questions asked.
I think this circus makes the Dems look better. Blago, Burris and the race-baiter look worse.
January 6, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And if the Dems greeted Burris with open arms the GOP would raise a huge stink about the Dems allowing Senate seats to be sold."
There is no evidence that the seat was sold to Burris and if Republicans don't want him in, let them filibuster like they do everything else, and like they've already threatened to do with Franken. Republicans love it when Reid does their dirty work for them.
The fact is that Democrats are going to need every vote to get anything past the Great Republican Filibuster, and whatever else he is, Burris is one more vote for Democrats. Obama is going to quickly discover that if he wants to get anything through the Senate, he needs to replace Reid rather than keeping Burris out.
January 6, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing.
Speculations:
Burris will be seated
Blago will remain governor
There wil be no impeachment or indictment
Fitzgerald will be embarrased
Burris will hold a grudge that will come back to bite Obama in the ass.
January 6, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not amazing in the least. No way that Burris will hold a grudge that will bite Obama in the ass. That is absurd Republican-talk. And it is not Burris. He may be a clown but he is not one to hold grudges. Especially against Obama since he and his proposals are so popular.
January 6, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know nothing about Burris, but if he holds grudges anything like his chief proponent in this circus so far, Bobby Rush, I'd say that if the prior specualtion comes to pass this last one stands just as good a chance.
I think Fitz has the goods on Blago though and he goes down. It might take 4-6 months though, so Burris will likely have to be seated in the meantime.
So I agree with 1 and 5, but not 2, 3, and 4.
January 6, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Observations:
-Fitzgerald doesn't have any skin in impeachment.
-Blago has many instances of pay-to-play; only one must be proved to convict.
-Fitzgerald rarely loses his cases.
-Burris can't seem to get elected in Illinois.
January 6, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have as much reverence for Fitzgerald as some other Democrats seem to: #1 He's still a Republican and #2 He never got around to indicting Rove, Cheney, or or any of the other hoodlums in the criminal conspiracy known as the Bush administration, even though everyone knows they're guilty as sin, and much more dangerous than Blogoyavich.
January 6, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Responding in order:
1) Fitzgerald does have some stake in the impeachment proceedings; namely, in the evidence he chooses to turn over to the investigative committee in the Illinois House.
2) I agree - but proving even one is not easy. And Blagojevich appears to have been a particularly incompetent shakedown artist - which may end up helping his defense.
3) Most US Attorneys don't lose too many cases - or they end up no longer being US Attorneys.
4) Burris has won four statewide elections in Illinois. It's not that he can't get elected - it's that he's tried to run on racial issues for the last 14 years or so, instead of defusing race as he successfully did at the start of his political career.
January 6, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Responding in order:
1) Fitzgerald does have some stake in the impeachment proceedings; namely, in the evidence he chooses to turn over to the investigative committee in the Illinois House.
2) I agree - but proving even one is not easy. And Blagojevich appears to have been a particularly incompetent shakedown artist - which may end up helping his defense.
3) Most US Attorneys don't lose too many cases - or they end up no longer being US Attorneys.
4) Burris has won four statewide elections in Illinois. It's not that he can't get elected - it's that he's tried to run on racial issues for the last 14 years or so, instead of defusing race as he successfully did at the start of his political career.
January 6, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Magic Underwear Reid grows a pair to refuse to seat one of our own? Why didn't he refuse to seat Vitter the whore-splitter? Isn't that immoral AND illegal?
January 6, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the same Harry Reid who gave Traitor Joe LIE-berman everything he wanted, the same Reid who was part of the love fest and standing ovation for CONVICTEDfelon, Ted Stevens, Reid's "distinguished colleague".
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/20/stevens-ovation/
And he doesn't want to seat Burris because Blago is 'tainted'????
Can someone please unseat Reid?
January 6, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Obama who made the call on what happened to Lieberman. I thought that was very clear to everyone. As senate leader Reid has to know how to compromise to keep things from gridlock. That is not a negative it is how the job works. He is good at his job.
January 6, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So where's President Obama in all of this? I find his silence to be a bit perplexing. Perhaps he realizes the Senate leadership is on unstable legal ground and has decided to withhold his voice from the argument?
January 6, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama said he didn't think he should be seated.
How about this. Since Blago is trying to look like this was an earnest appointment and not just using a black guy for a human shield, Reid should propose to him that they'll seat Burris if and when Blago resigns. Kill two birds with one stone.
January 6, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That can't be proposed publicly. However, I would be surprised if that precise chain of events hasn't been proposed sotto voce.
January 6, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't that be making a deal of sorts, the very thing that is 'tainting' Blago?
I realize one is allegedly for money and the other is for a resignation, but what they both have in common is that they're both an attempt to bypass the law, the constitution, and ethics.
January 6, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
harry reid and dick durbin does not deserve another black vote for putting a grown well respected blackman thru this humiliation - just because someone they do not like legally appointed him. i sat thru eight years of hell and these idiots did not do a thing and now they are going to draw the line on a blackman
January 6, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody--black, white, or other--should have accepted an appointment from someone who has said he wanted payback for it and who called our president-elect a motherfucker for not wanting to give him anything more than gratitude for it. Burris shows himself to be politically tone-deaf and ethically dubious to take it. But, he didn't just accept. He's acting as if he's entitled to it. And, he's not being straightforward in his defense.
Burris might be a good Senator, but he's cast a lot of doubt over himself by either being unaware of the ethical problems Blago is having and how it makes the appointment look or just not caring.
January 6, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with much of what you say. However, I completely disagree with this:
Roland Burris does not have to "defend" his appointment. In the general disgust about Blagojevich, there seems to be a widespread willingness to ignore the basic point that he is, as of right now, still the legally elected, fully empowered governor of Illinois.
Burris has not given a "defense". He says he is the legally appointed Senate replacement for Barack Obama. As of this writing, Burris is completely correct in that contention. No defense is required - and none will be given.
Of course, as of this writing, the Senate is also completely correct not to seat him. This is because Burris's certification is missing a signature that is required by Senate rules.
So, the real question appears to revolve around whether the Illinois secretary of state can be compelled via court order to sign the certificate.
January 6, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another question: how does the refusal to seat Burris and the delay on Franken affect possible confirmation votes? For whom would Burris or Franken be likely to vote "Yea" or "Nay"? Reid's acting awfully decisive...why now?
January 6, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid's backbone about Burris is courtesy of transfusions from Durbin and Obama. If they wanted Burris to be seated, Reid would be singing an entirely different aria.
As for Al Franken, his situation is different. Norm Coleman is trying a one-in-a-million lawsuit to overturn a legally certified recount result that makes Franken the winner. Doesn't take much chops to get behind the Democrat in that case.
January 6, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The arguments for not seating the duly appointed Senator from Illinois, Roland Burris, seem to be legally and ethically weak and as prejudiced (not in a racial manner)as was Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett's arguments (circa 1962; arguments were racially motivated) against permitting James H. Meredith's registration to attend the University of Mississippi.
I can imagine people viewing the Senate's refusal to seat Roland Burris through the prism of race.
January 6, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm asking myself if Reid is whipping up this circus for the purpose of distracting attention from the possibility that he himself may have stepped over some legal or ethical lines in his discussions with Blago. It's not as if Burris is being accused of any legal or ethical infractions. Maybe we should be waiting for Fitz's other shoe to drop, right on Reid's head.
January 6, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Burris, here is a hint, the applicant must wait at the steps of the Capitol for three days without food, shelter or encouragement and only then may he enter and begin his training...
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2009/01/senate-to-burris-its-not-gonna-happen.html
January 6, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every one needs to take a deep breath about the legalities here. The Senate has clear authority to investigate and judge the selection of anyone who presents credentials. Article I, Section 5, cl. 1, gives them broad and unquestioned authority to do this, as a matter of self-protection, to look at the "elections" and "returns" (credentials, i.e., certificates of election)of their own Members, and it would be shirking their responsibility to ignore the allegations of corruption and bribery swirling around the Governor and his selling of this appointment. Whatever you think of the POLITICS of it, thats another story completely, but read Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972), if you have any question about the consitutional authority of the Senate to make "an unconditional and final judgment" about the seating of their own Members. The Senate has done this literally dozens of times in the past in similar "election/appointment" cases (remember, Senators were selected by the State legislatures up until 1913 - and there were a lot of allegations of bought seats then). If it turns out, after investigation by the Senate Rules Committee, that Burris is clean and did not "pay to play," then there would then be no reason to exclude him at that time, and he could be sworn in and seated.
January 6, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not believe the Senate is concerned with investigating Burris.
There is no precedent of which I am aware for the Senate taking up an investigation of a man who is not a target of any criminal investigation.
The Senate is (validly) citing a rule about having a senator's proper election certification signed by the governor and secretary of state of said senator's home state.
Of course, the Senate could suspend its own rules to seat Burris. The Senate could even ignore its own rules (for example, the standing ovation given to former Sen. Ted Stevens after his farewell speech on the Senate floor).
Right now, though, there really isn't any drama, other than the manufactured variety. Until Burris can convince Jesse White to sign his election certificate (or convince the Illinois Supremes to force White to sign), he isn't going to be seated.
It should be noted that White's refusal to sign isn't about Burris at all. It's about Pay-Rod making the appointment. I suspect the idea is to stall on signing the certificate until the Illinois legislature can impeach, convict and remove Blagojevich. At that point, Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn would make the appointment - and Burris is a very handy stand-in appointee until 2010's elections.
January 6, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink