Blagojevich names Burris to fill Obama Senate seat

[Winehole23]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/30/blagojevich-names-burris-to-fill-obama-seat/
Blagojevich names Burris to fill Obama seat (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/30/blagojevich-names-burris-to-fill-obama-seat/)
Posted: 03:11 PM ET


CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) — Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich named former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris on Tuesday to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate, calling him a "wise and distinguished seniorstatesman" with "unquestioned integrity."


FBI agents arrested Blagojevich on December 9 after federal prosecutors alleged, among other things, that he had tried to "sell" Obama's former Senate seat. Blagojevich denies any wrongdoing.


Burris does not have to be formally approved by the Senate to be appointed by Blagojevich. But the Senate could refuse to seat Burris or seat him and investigate the manner in which he was appointed, and unseat him if they discover any wrongdoing.


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, has threatened not to seat anyone the governor appoints, and has called for the Illinois Democrat to step down.

[Winehole23]

But the Illinois Sec'y of State says he won't certify the paperwork (http://www.wthitv.com/dpp/news/illinois/ill_ap_springfield_white_will_try_to_reject_blago_ pick_200812301415).

[ChumpDumper]

Never going to happen.

[Winehole23]

It's the brazenness I find impressive.

[Wild Cobra]

With politics as corrupt as we already know, why does this matter?

Business as usual in the Demonrat party...

[ChumpDumper]

Why does it not matter?

[Wild Cobra]

Why does it not matter?

Because it is one small problem withing the larger picture. As long as we elect the politicians that work for the rich, banks, unions, etc. we have serious problems.

[ChumpDumper]

So this one will be appointed. It matters.

[SnakeBoy]

It's the brazenness I find impressive.

Agreed. There comes a point where someone should be commended for being an a big enough dick.

[Winehole23]

My Granny called it gumption. Blago's got it in spades. It almost makes him seem old fashioned, but really it isn't.

Politics is the glove; gumption the hand.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

........spades..........
yeah.....not a good word in this day and age.

[Winehole23]

Ever play bridge (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in_spades)?

See also: http://www.answers.com/topic/spades-suit

[Rohirrim]

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20081230/i/r3980549250.jpg?x=400&y=277&q=85&sig=7s6FBHiFuqCgVSB5NMGQQg--

You can't handle the truth!

[I Love Me Some Me]

Legally (constitutionally?), is there anything Burris can do to uphold the appointment?

[Winehole23]

Somebody cares about Burris? How touching.

I don't know. What remedies are available to ostensibly legitimate appointees who get shafted by officialdom? Judges are by and large loath to interfere in political disputes, so -- PFA, right -- I'd say it's pretty likely Burris won't get a sympathetic ruling.

[jack sommerset]

Burris is black. I doubt the senate will block. There are no blacks in senate and they donot want to be called racist. Blagojevich is one slick fucker.

[Winehole23]

Burris is black. I doubt the senate will block. There are no blacks in senate and they donot want to be called racist. Blagojevich is one slick fucker.The Senate's clearly concerned that Blago taints the pick. If they seat Burris without investigation they look dirty. So they have that to worry about, too.

[Trainwreck2100]

its not like he 'll be with the giants for the playoffs this year.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

i can't wait for tomorrow.

[ClingingMars]

the drive-bys are just leaving Burris out to dry. Seriously, what did he do wrong? it's Blago who did the dirty work.

-Mars

[Viva Las Espuelas]

it gets better and better.

Dems consider seating Burris if he promises not to run in 2010 (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/05/dems-consider-seating-burris-if-he-promises-not-to-run-in-2010/)

[ChumpDumper]

the drive-bys are just leaving Burris out to dry. Seriously, what did he do wrong? it's Blago who did the dirty work.

-MarsThe board Republicans are just saying stuff like "drive-bys" because they heard it on the radio.

So you guys want this dude to be seated just to be a football to kick whenever you feel like it? No problem.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

well, they sent his black ass home.

[Winehole23]

well, they sent his black ass home.Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_go_co/senate_burris). Credentials not in order.


That Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson turned away Burris was no surprise; Senate Democrats had warned for weeks that if Burris showed up to be sworn in on Tuesday without the signature of the Illinois secretary of state, he would be turned away. That's just what happened.

[Winehole23]

It always amuses me when self-styled conservatives wave the bloody shirt of racial injustice.

They don't hate PC, just everybody else's. The assimilation of victimological narrative into mainstream conservatism marks its passage into postmodern neoliberalism. Conservatism reappears in zombie form, as a bad parody of Cold War liberalism. Pro big government, pro big business, deficit spending, reckless accumulation of debt, the national security state crusading for democracy and all that.


Your apparent umbrage re: racial injustice is ersatz IMO.


Opportunity to refer to Mr Burris's black ass: classy, for sure, VLE.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

It always amuses me when self-styled conservatives wave the bloody shirt of racial injustice.

They don't hate their PC, just everybody else's. The assimilation of victimological narrative into mainstream conservatism marks its passage into postmodern neoliberalism. Conservatism reappears in zombie form, as a bad parody of Cold War liberalism. Pro big government, pro big business, deficit spending, reckless accumulation of debt, crusading for democracy and all that.


Your apparent umbrage re: racial injustice is ersatz IMO.


Opportunity to refer to Mr Burris's black ass: classy, for sure, VLE.

if he was white i would've said "they sent his white/honkey ass home". i'm an equal opportunity offender, mr hole. you should really read and comprehend your first sentence, mr contradiction.

[Winehole23]

if he was white i would've said "they sent his white/honkey ass home". i'm an equal opportunity offender, mr hole. you should really read and comprehend your first sentence, mr contradiction.Hey, I'm a fan. Insolence rulez. Rock your style, VLE. :domokun

[Viva Las Espuelas]

so this guy didn't have his "credentials in order"? and that's why they didn't let him in? how long did he know this day was coming? ok i'm seeing a current trend. edwards ran for president, yet had an affair. richardson ran for president, yet pulled out of the obamanet 'cause of a federal investigation, now this dunce that didn't "have his credentials in order". maybe carville is right. this is going to be a great 4 years. do as i say, not as i do to everyone of you.

[Winehole23]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/215373/january-05-2009/colbert-and-colmes---roland-burris-appointment

[ClingingMars]

The board Republicans are just saying stuff like "drive-bys" because they heard it on the radio.

So you guys want this dude to be seated just to be a football to kick whenever you feel like it? No problem.

:lmao

no, the term "drive-by" is appropriate because that's what the liberal media does. Hell, they're doing it with Obama now that they don't like his appointment choices.

why would Republicans use him as a "football"? he's a democrat.

-Mars

[Winehole23]

why would Republicans use him as a "football"? he's a democrat.You can find the evidence upstream. Mr. Burris got used as a tackling dummy in the GOP's ongoing war against racism.

[ClingingMars]

You can find the evidence upstream. Mr. Burris got used as a tackling dummy in the GOP's ongoing war against racism.

? i personally don't believe this has anything to do with race...though it is humorous that they are denying an African American, it doesn't mean that that is the reason.

-Mars

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

no, the term "drive-by" is appropriate because that's what the liberal media does. Hell, they're doing it with Obama now that they don't like his appointment choices.Feh, Republican politicians count on the ignorance of their supporters -- and you guys never disappoint.


why would Republicans use him as a "football"? he's a democrat.Case in point.


-MarsCase in point #2.

[SnakeBoy]

My Granny called it gumption. Blago's got it in spades.

The best media summarization of the circus that has been unfolding that I've heard came from Juan Williams who pointed out that Blago has managed to get the US Senate and the President elect dancing on strings like a puppet. Whether it's called brazeness, gumption, or just really big balls, you can't help but be impressed at how Blago has played his hand. In the end though I'm sure Blago will get his in spades, he's pissed off alot of people by winning this round.

[Winehole23]

Can the Senate nix Burris? (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0111edit2jan11,0,3604424.story)

January 11, 2009 Those of us who enjoy legal thrillers sometimes get ahead of the plot: We think we know what a court will rule. Witness the conventional wisdom in Illinois and elsewhere that the U.S. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/government/national-government/united-states-ORGOV0000001.topic) Senate is legally obliged to seat Roland Burris (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/crime-law-justice/justice-rights/roland-burris-PEPLT000007550.topic) as the junior senator from Illinois. Hey, the governor appointed him.

That kind of thinking also had a nation of would-be Judge Judys convinced that the Illinois Supreme Court (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/crime-law-justice/justice-system/illinois-supreme-court-ORGOV000036.topic) would tell Secretary of State Jesse White (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/jesse-white-PEPLT007438.topic) to certify the appointment. On Friday, the court said no way.

Amateur exercises in Judging Without a Long Robe can be perilous. Which raises this question: By what grounds might members of the U.S. Senate now reject the Burris appointment—and prevail in the courts?

This case might turn on both criminal and constitutional law. We asked Ronald Safer, a former Justice Department prosecutor who now heads a big Chicago firm, to hypothetically take the Senate as his client. Safer's hunch is that Burris' fate will be decided in the political realm—the world of race, races, political parties, press conferences, presidential agendas and other concerns. But, setting aside whatever he thinks about Rod Blagojevich (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/politics/government/rod-blagojevich-PEPLT007479.topic) or his attempt to appoint Burris, Safer did help us draft three arguments the Senate could advance in court:




• The U.S. Constitution lets Congress set the rules for who is "qualified" to stay in their Congressional seats. But can Congress stop people from taking those seats in the first place? In the 1960s, Adam Clayton (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/entertainment/adam-clayton-PECLB001014.topic) Powell was refused a seat in Congress when he was re-elected; a congressional committee said he used his post to steal federal funds.

The U.S. Supreme Court countered that Congress could not fail to seat a duly elected representative. But Powell had been chosen by voters in New York: Congress couldn't thwart the will of the electorate.

Burris' path to Washington, by contrast, started not with an election, but with an appointment by a governor who's out of jail on bail. The Senate could say the two cases are crucially different: Where's the potentially wronged electorate of Illinois? Here, the voters had no voice whatsoever. A federal court might agree that Powell isn't a precedent—and start from scratch.

• The governor who chose Burris is charged with federal felonies in a complaint and, yes, he's still the governor. But the Senate could argue that the key charge in this discussion isn't just any felony, for example, violating campaign finance laws or stealing money. The complaint accuses the governor of a fraudulent scheme to sell the very Senate seat to which he's trying to appoint Burris.

The Senate could claim that the question of Burris' "qualifications," as that term is used in the Constitution, isn't only about him: It's also about who appointed him, and under what circumstances.

• Turn now to something criminal lawyers call "lulling." In certain schemes, it's a clever element of the ongoing fraud: The perpetrator tries to lull, or reassure, the victim that nothing is wrong. That is, lulling hides the crime by establishing an atmosphere of calm. The perp hopes the victim doesn't notice that his wallet has been lightened.

In Fitzgerald's complaint against Blagojevich, the victim is the public. You. Allegedly you've been deprived of the honest services you elected this governor to provide. (Let's not forget the presumption of innocence; the governor has not yet been indicted, let alone convicted.)

Creative Senate lawyers could allege that the governor's appointment of Burris was lulling: the concealment of a crime. By this light, choosing Burris was an attempt to tell the public that everything is okey-dokey: "I have appointed a non-controversial, qualified person who didn't even have to slip me an envelope under the table. I never intended to sell this appointment—and I didn't."

The Senate's argument essentially would be that choosing a new senator was integral to the alleged crime—not some unrelated event that just happened to come later: The public was being lulled into thinking there was no crime at all. That argument would cast Burris as an unwitting victim, the Senate could say—but certainly not as a senator.

Burris' attorneys would answer that the governor was in a no-win situation: Even if he appoints someone qualified and does so for nothing in return, his actions are labeled criminal. To which the Senate could retort: If the governor really did try to sell that "golden" seat, who put him in a no-win situation?

If U.S. senators make one or more of these arguments, will a federal court agree?

Hmm. We'd like to see them try.