Burris: "Why Don't You All Understand" That My Appointment Is Legal?
While speaking to reporters earlier today, after the Secretary of the Senate rejected his certificate of appointment, Roland Burris seemed dumbfounded that there's so much controversy.
"Why don't you all understand that what has been done here is legal?" said Burris. "That's legal, I am the junior senator from Illinois and I wish my colleagues and the press would recognize that. All the drama, I guess it keeps you all in a job."
Burris is probably right -- this does appear to be legal. But the circumstances of an appointment by Rod Blagojevich mean that people will be looking for every loophole they can.
Here's the video:
Advertisement
He's either disingenuous or not very bright if he truly doesn't understand why there are questions about this appointment.
January 5, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either way I'm incredibly sick of this guy already, and I've only known he exists for about a week.
January 5, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Harry will wake up this week and realize he hasn't got a legal leg to stand on.
Let Burris have his seat and move on with the Obama agenda.
January 5, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is about right.
Harry Reid needs to focus on helping Al Franken and giving Gov. Paterson a hand in NY, so we can get two more Dem Senators seated. No matter who the governor is in Illinois, a Democrat will be appointed to the seat.
January 5, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems like this was a constant refrain from the Bush administration the last 8 years-- something horribly unethical happens and the justification given is, well, but it wasn't illegal. Um, congratulations?
January 5, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw c'mon. Isn't it just a little comforting to know that the status quo in Illinois politics is alive and well.
January 5, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't YOU understand that you are acting like a damn fool? Seriously, ordained by god (ie Blago)?? Trying to make this all about race? You should be ashamed of yourself Burris.
Hmm, let me get this straight...man tries to sell seat to the highest bidder, gets busted for it, is correctly seen as the last person on Earth who should be deciding who fills that seat, and then fills it anyway, with someone who donated $14,000 to him, and this person is rejected because...Democrats hate black people even though the previous occupant of that seat, and the hugely popular next President of the United States, is himself black? Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense. Let's just forget the fact that Harry Reid and all of the Democrats in the Senate vowed to refuse any appointment by Blago long before they even knew who was going to be picked.
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2009/01/mr-burris-goes-to-washington.html
Idiot!
January 5, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question isn't whether Burris's appointment is legal (I don't think anyone disputes that it is). What the Senate is saying is that it was an improper appointment, and that the Senate is thus legally entitled to block Burris's seating.
The only question is then whether the Senate's blocking Burris's appointment is illegal. And Reid's argument that the Senate is allowed to say that the process by which Burris was appointed is tainted and thus block Burris is a fair one.
January 5, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Powell case applies here and that there's no legal way for the Senate to permanently block Burris' appointment. The strategy seems to be to stall for time until Blago is impeached and removed from office, whereupon Quinn will make an appointment. At that point the Senate has a better legal ground to accept one appointment over the other. Who knows? Quinn might even appoint Burris.
January 5, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is either a total idiot or a disingenuous jerk. Either way Burris is a clown.
January 5, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in addition to all of his other problems, I think telling the truth may also be a problem for Mr. Burris. He is correct that he got elected state-wide four times because he did not make race an issue. However, he has since then lost, I believe, five state-wide, or city-wide, races precisely because he and his supporters suddenly thought it was a good strategy to run as the "black candidate". This was most apparent when he ran against Daley in the primary for mayor of Chicago. I lived in Chicago at the time and its my recollection that the only issue he and his supporters raised was race. This was all before the youtube/google era, but I bet the clips will surface soon enough. Obama has done so much to help us get beyond racial politics. Its sad to see people like Bobby Rush and Burris trying to pull us back down into that gutter.
January 5, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, it is horribly counterproductive, and I hope for the sake of racial progress that they stop crying "racism" when it is obvious that this has NOTHING to do with race.
Even Obama says he shouldn't be seated. Do Burris and Rush actually expect us to believe that Obama hates black people?
January 5, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris got on the wrong track politically when he tried to run for governor in '94. (I don't think Adlai Stevenson - who, until Obama, was the most successful Democrat in state history - could've beaten Jim Edgar, and a black candidate had no chance in hell at that time.) He couldn't even get past Dawn Netsch in the primary, whereas if he'd just waited until '98, he might've been able to take Carol Moseley-Braun's Senate seat on a reform platform.
On the other hand, Moseley-Braun's seat is the one that Obama won in 2004, so maybe it all worked out for the best.
Ever since then, he's been like a political train wreck. The Chicago mayoral race was just the last collision. Trying to beat Richard the Second was even loonier than trying to knock off Edgar.
January 5, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris got on the wrong track politically when he tried to run for governor in '94. (I don't think Adlai Stevenson - who, until Obama, was the most successful Democrat in state history - could've beaten Jim Edgar, and a black candidate had no chance in hell at that time.) He couldn't even get past Dawn Netsch in the primary, whereas if he'd just waited until '98, he might've been able to take Carol Moseley-Braun's Senate seat on a reform platform.
On the other hand, Moseley-Braun's seat is the one that Obama won in 2004, so maybe it all worked out for the best.
Ever since then, he's been like a political train wreck. The Chicago mayoral race was just the last collision. Trying to beat Richard the Second was even loonier than trying to knock off Edgar.
January 5, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seat him but don't caucus with him and run somebody against him in 2010. Of course you risk splitting the vote and letting a GOP win, but Burris vs a GOP candidate will lead to a GOP win anyways. If the Dems can have a open primary for the seat - at least their candidate won't have the stink of Blagojevich all over them.
It's not like the GOP will reach out to him because he's tainted by Blago, and if they did it might be toughter for them to make a run at the seat with a staunch GOPer in two years time.
Dems need to forget about the 60-seat filibuster-buster. Seat him to end the drama and then isolate him into utter nothingness in the Senate.
January 5, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isolation won't happen. The Senate does not work that way.
What will likely happen is that Burris will be seated, as he is (even though I don't personally like it) a perfectly legal appointee. He'll be welcomed into the caucus, and be a Senator until 2010.
There's a big list of Democrats waiting for the primary for that seat. Burris may choose to run in the primary, but he's likely to face a slew of challengers (Davis, Jackson and Schakowsky being the main names at this point).
His chances of winning that particular primary are Slim, Fat and None - and Slim & Fat are about to hop a plane to a non-extradition country.
The sad part about this appointment is that if anyone but Blagojevich had made it, Burris would be just about the perfect appointee.
January 5, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the appointment is legal, the Senate needs to seat him.
Period.
Politics is messy. Whether or not one likes Burris, whatever one things of Blagojevich, refusing to seat Burris - when the consensus seems to be that the appointment is legal - smacks of the same kind of disregard for the law that we've been fighting against these past 8 years.
You don't like the appointment? Run against him.
But don't ignore the law just because you think it's inconvenient.
January 5, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris has a point. The problem isn't with him. The problem is with the entire Illinois Democratic Party, for which Blagojevich is, sadly, altogether representative. The Dems all supported him in 2006 - again - primarily because of his fundraising prowess. If the Dems were ethically intact as a party they would have impeached Blago this summer. They very reluctantly voted to override a Blago veto of ethics legislation, that made his activity explicitly illegal under Illinois law... only after Obama personally asked Il Senate Leader Emil Jones to do so.
The bottom line is that the Illinois Dems have put their own political maneuvering above the interests of the state. The last thing they wanted was a progressive Governor Pat Quinn (now Lt. Gov) to be making this appointment. In particular, the last thing that Lisa Madigan wants is to run against a governor Pat Quinn.
Burris will be a much needed vote for Obama. He's only "tainted" to the extent that the D.C. and Illinois Dems are tainting him. They could have impeached Blago, they didn't do it. They could have enacted legislation for a special election, they didn't do it. They have no moral legs to stand on right now. And any excuse they come up with to hold off seating Burris, the Repubs will be eagerly using to hold off seating Al Franken. Seat him.. 2010 is two short years away, and we and Obama need the maximum Dem support in the Senate THIS MONTH.
January 5, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct about Burris having a point. The rest of this, though, doesn't track.
(1) Madigan is no worse than even-money against Quinn, period. And eve that is assuming he becomes governor sometime this spring, and does well in the year or so he'll have before he's up for re-election in 2010.
(2) You can't run around just impeaching people you don't like. Hard, incontrovertible evidence of unethical or illegal behavior is the bare minimum standard before most any legislative body will even consider the possibility. Remember that the good stuff on Blagojevich didn't even get to Patrick Fitzgerald until Antoin Rezko started singing after his conviction, and even then, Fitzgerald didn't have enough to move against Blago until after Obama's Senate seat came open. So just saying, "Impeach Blago" - when you have NO evidence to support removing a legally elected state executive - is simply not realistic.
(3) Burris will eventually be seated. There's some horse-trading that's going to happen on the Hill, but there's nothing that can legally stop Burris from being a Senator (until the 2010 election, anyway).
(4) You say:
The Burris and Franken situations are simply not even remotely compatible. The Republicans are angling to hold off on Franken because there is probably going to be a legal challenge to the Franken certification. That's a legal problem, not an ethical one. This is what's causing the issue around Burris's appointment, as even IL SoS Jesse White has admitted he can't stop the appointment even though he refuses to sign Burris's certification.
January 5, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one thing that can stop Burris from being seated. If they stall long enough to have Blago impeached and removed from office and Quinn makes a different appointment, the legal question is quite different. Now the Senate has to choose between two rival appointments. Don't discount the possibility that Quinn could just appoint Burris, making the whole mess disappear.
January 5, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Provided that Burris isn't seated, Quinn appointing him is actually what I think will ultimately happen, for a number of reasons.
Burris really is the best pick for the seat. The political optics of replacing Obama with a black appointee are good. Burris is 71, so he's an ideal place-holder. He's certainly not a political neophyte, so he shouldn't be out of his depth. Finally, he can't really have too many political ambitions at this point in his life.
There's even time to get this position etched on his tombstone. :-)
January 5, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trouble is, a place-holder is exactly what they don't want. Why give up the advantage of incumbency in 2010? True the seat is likely to be won by a Democratic candidate in 2010, by why take a chance? And I wouldn't trust Burris not to run in 2010, creating a messy primary fight.
There are lots better candidates than Burris. The only reason I can see for Quinn appointing him is to avoid a credentials fight.
January 5, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
To respond to each of your points in turn:
1) It is harder to run against an incumbent under any circumstances. And the longer Pat Quinn is in office to have a track record, the better his chances - and he will be a breath of populist fresh air after corrupt instances of both parties. Of course Lisa Madigan would vastly prefer not to run against him.
2) And likewise, just because you don't like the Governor, it doesn't invalidate his state constitutionally-mandated function - in this case choosing the Senator. If that sits uncomfortably with people, then the law should be changed - but the Dems haven't acted on this.
3) If Burris is going to be seated, why prolong this nonsense? It certainly is not in the interests of the people of Illinois (or the country for that matter..)
4) Burris and Franken are comparable - not in and of themselves, but because their respective parties have been gaming the system for political reasons. In neither case are their constituents being served by delay, despite their divergent circumstances.
January 5, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing about how Illinois Democrats are sooooo undemocratic in not IMMEDIATELY voting to have a special election. I'd have to count them, but I'm pretty sure that a (large) majority of states fill Senate vacancies by gubernatorial appointments, especially when there is no intervening national election before the end of the term.
Secondly, the mantle of legitimacy conferred by a special election, where voter turnout is notoriously low and elections can be swung by small blocks of voters, is illusory. Add in the facts that the earliest it could be held is April and the cost would be in the neighborhood of $50 million (which the state can ill afford), and it's positively silly to be carping about this.
Senators are being appointed in New York and Colorado, and I don't hear any squawking about those.
January 5, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seat him.
Seat Franken.
SeatKennedy/Cuomo/Whomever.
Then do something about the economy and wars.
January 5, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The racial bullshit Burris is allowing his surrogates to spew about the Senate being all about "Plantation Politics" is simply unacceptable. They know what this controversy is about. They know it has nothing to do with Burris' race. But for exploiting that issue, for that alone, screw him, and screw his supporters. The world is full of legitimate victims of racism who don't deserve to have these clowns trying to claim it just to bolster their pocketbooks.
January 5, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your right ... this doesn't have to do with race. This has to do with a money saturated Democratic Party in Illinois that has done everything it could to keep a progressive out of the Governor's mansion - and choosing Obama's replacement.
The Dem Speaker of the House, Mike Madigan, would like nothing better than to see his little girl, our current AG Lisa Madigan, becoming the next governor. This would be a lot easier running against Blago than Pat Quinn. Both have done everything they could to prolong Blago's tenure, including Lisa's dragging this in front of the IL SC. All of our AG's actions have been motivated by her maximum face time in front of the national media.
Our state being without complete Senate representation, and with a discredited governor in office, is of a remote secondary concern to them.
January 5, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're confusing Roland Burris with Bobby Rush.
The real problem with Burris is that he has allowed himself to get entangled in the Blagojevich mess as a result of accepting this appointment. Danny Davis was reportedly offered the job first, and turned it down - likely because he wanted no part of what Burris is going through now.
January 5, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your right ... this doesn't have to do with race. This has to do with a money saturated Democratic Party in Illinois that has done everything it could to keep a progressive out of the Governor's mansion - and choosing Obama's replacement.
The Dem Speaker of the House, Mike Madigan, would like nothing better than to see his little girl, our current AG Lisa Madigan, becoming the next governor. This would be a lot easier running against Blago than Pat Quinn. Both have done everything they could to prolong Blago's tenure, including Lisa's dragging this in front of the IL SC. All of our AG's actions have been motivated by her maximum face time in front of the national media.
Our state being without complete Senate representation, and with a discredited governor in office, is of a remote secondary concern to them.
January 5, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're confusing Roland Burris with Bobby Rush.
The real problem with Burris is that he has allowed himself to get entangled in the Blagojevich mess as a result of accepting this appointment. Danny Davis was reportedly offered the job first, and turned it down - likely because he wanted no part of what Burris is going through now.
January 5, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
and you got me on the cheap so that's another plus...
January 5, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Illinois is a sewer, and I say that as a lifelong resident. Burris is the worst kind of party hack. If you lived in Illinois, you know he's played the race card before. As has Rush. It's embarrassing that he will be seated, but seated he will be.
But it will be a national embarrassment for the party when Burris gets the party nomination in '10. The near non-existent Illinois Republican party will be licking their chops to get a hold of him. The name you'll hear is Mark Kirk for the 'Pubs. And he's going to be tough to beat.
Try explaining how you lost a Senate seat in Illinois.
That's my call. Unless 9/11 happens, first-term President's party always have a bad mid-term. Losing the Illinois seat will be Obama's 2010 nightmare.
Unless Oprah backs Burris. Because Oprah really gets out the downstate vote.
January 5, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I poke into the past of this guy Burris, the more I do not like.
http://www.propublica.org/article/in-90s-burris-sought-death-penalty-for-innocent-man-1231#6957
January 5, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Checkmate Blagojevich!!
With the selection of April 7, 2009 as the date for the special election to fill Rahm Emanuel's Congressional seat, Governor Blagojevich has checkmated everyone with respect to his appointment of Roland Burris to fill President-Elect vacated Obama's Senate seat.
If the governor has the right to set the date for the special election then he has the right to appoint Burris. If Illinois Secretary of State White refuses to certify Blagojevich's selection of the April 7 election date he will be derelict in his duty. On the other hand if he certifies the election date but not the Burris appointment, then he will be claiming the power to selectively certify the Governor's proclamations...an untenable position.
Will Democrats refuse to run for Rahm's vacated congressional seat because the date was set by a "tainted" Governor? Off course not!
The entire premise of the Democratic leadership's behavior toward Blagojevich is that he should act guilty. They have suggested that he resign to avoid tainting Illinois state politics or that he should not exercise his gubernatorial powers because he is under a cloud.
Blagojevich has proclaimed his innocence and is acting as an innocent man should. Only the courts have the power to prove him wrong.
President-elect Obama selected Governor Richardson for a cabinet position while he was the subject of an ethics investigation and even now that Richardson has declined, Obama and other leading Democrats have not suggested that Richardson should resign because the people of New Mexico need untainted government.
Meanwhile the "slam dunk" indictment of the governor has proven to be anything but, with Fitzgerald asking for 90 more days to make his case.
As for Senate Majority Leader Reid, he has certainly botched this matter. He sought to influence Blagojevich to not appoint either of two Congressmen or the leader of the Illinois State Senate (all of whom happen to be black) while recommending the appointment of Duckworth (who lost a congressional race) or Madigan who appears less qualified than the people he rejected.
Furthermore, his request to Illinois Secretary of State White not to certify Blagojevich's appointment of Burris is clearly an illegal act of tampering in the process of appointing an Illinois Senator and exposes White to charges of acting under illegal influence from Reid in failing to carry out his duty.
Blagojevich has proven he is a better politician than his opponents when things get down and dirty in the trenches...CHECKMATE.
January 6, 2009 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink