I think you're wrong, Steve, about what the senate Dems said. My memory is that their letter to Blago said they would consider whether to reject anyone appointed by Blago. They did not commit to a rejection.

It's hard to see how Reid and gang are going to reject this guy. They've got a 71-year-old African-American with a spotless reputation, who already said he was interested in just serving the remainder of Obama's term. If he isn't accepted, the Senate becomes a black-free zone.

My guess is that they'll extract a promise from him that he won't run again, accept him and be done with it.

The text of the letter is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/reid-blagojevich-must-go_n_149974.html

The key passage: "... we would be forced to ... determine whether such a person should be seated."

No doubt they will do exactly what they said, i.e., "determine whether [Burris] should be seated." And they will likely determine that he should be seated.

Let's get this story straight, so we don't have two weeks of boobs in the national press asking whether the Senate Dems are going to keep their word or not.

They could try to reject him, but if Burris fought it, he'd ultimately win. Using Powell v. McCormick, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) as authority, Burris would argue that he holds a legally valid (on its face) appointment to the Senate to fill the Obama vacancy; he's at least 30 years old; he's been a US citizen for at least nine years; and he is a resident of Illinois. Once he meets these qualifications, the Senate must seat him.

From Rich Miller's Capitol Fax Blog (his Capitol Fax is probably the best source for information on Illinois politics):

* 12:11 pm - A quick check of campaign finance records shows Burris’ consulting company has contributed about $11K to Blagojevich’s campaign fund. The consulting company has benefitted from a bunch of state contracts since then, many of which doing PR work on behalf of IDOT minority contracting efforts.

"Blagojevich privately credits Burris with playing a major role in the governor’s 2002 Democratic primary win. Burris took the African-American vote away from Paul Vallas, who was always quite popular in the black community. Blagojevich finished behind Burris and Vallas in Chicago (he barely won his own congressional district), so Burris’ spoiler role was crucial to Blagojevich’s win."

Plus from Harry Reid Burriss is "unacceptable"

http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/12/30/this-just-in-179/

What does it say about Burris that he is accepting this appointment from such an arrogant corrupt ass?

Not much.

DJ is right, IMO--under Powell vs. McCormick the Senate could not, it seems to me, refuse to seat Burris. They could, I believe, expel him, right after he is sworn in if they want (and if they can muster a two-thirds vote), but doing so without clear grounds (which I think would have to be more than what David reports has been dredged up) would be quite dicey.

If he's qualified and "squeaky clean" as reported, why would they NOT seat him? I think they should breathe a sigh of relief that this whole scandal forced B-Rod to appoint someone qualified.

Cal Gal's right on this. If Burris is qualified, move on.

If they can't refuse to seat Burris, expelling him because they don't like his "patron" may be a bit dicey.

Of course, leave it to Reid et al to roll over to the GOP on everything under the sun, then stand up over this "on principle".

Steve for more details about the relationship between Blago and Burris, I suggest you go to Rich Miller's Capital Fax Blog. Here is a quote from his post on the relationship:

A quick check of campaign finance records shows Burris’ consulting company has contributed about $11K to Blagojevich’s campaign fund. The consulting company has benefitted from a bunch of state contracts since then, many of which doing PR work on behalf of IDOT minority contracting efforts.

Blagojevich privately credits Burris with playing a major role in the governor’s 2002 Democratic primary win. Burris took the African-American vote away from Paul Vallas, who was always quite popular in the black community. Blagojevich finished behind Burris and Vallas in Chicago (he barely won his own congressional district), so Burris’ spoiler role was crucial to Blagojevich’s win.

DJ has it right -- the Senate lacks the power to block Burris from becoming a member. It's a valid appointment, and he's constitutionally eligible; end of story. The Senate could expel him after he's seated -- but why would they? Burris hasn't done anything to deserve that, and it's an ineffective and useless way of striking out at Blagojevich. The people of Illinois deserve to have two senators. Roland Burris is a fine choice. Get over it.

Once he meets these qualifications, the Senate must seat him. -DJ

The Senate itself is Constitutionally the final arbiter of who is seated, and there is legal precedent for not seating either appointed and duly elected individuals.

Constitution, Article 1, Section 5.

Powell v McCormack is relevant precedent for the House, not the Senate, and clearly those two bodies are governed by disparate rules.

Also From Rich Miller's Capitol Fax Blog - courtesy of David (1:34)

The State Sec of State is also on record as saying he will not sign off on Blago's appointment. That would be needed, even before the US Senate weighs in. That said, the SoS statement was not made today, so we don't know whether an "acceptable" choice would change his mind.

But my hunch is that pause won't last long. Senators told Blagojevich, in writing and in no uncertain terms, that his choice wouldn't be seated.

No, they didn't. They stated that they would be obligated to decide whether any appointee should be seated. As others have pointed out above, the Constitutional boundaries of such a determination are narrowly constrained, and assuming that there is no legitimate dispute over whether the appointment is legal or whether Burris meets the Constitutional qualifications for the Senate, the Senate can't refuse to seat him.

(Note that because performing an official act in exchange for money is itself an illegal act, if Blagojevich had appointed someone who there was evidence had offered something for the job, the "decide to whether they should be seated" threat could have teeth -- it was not purely hollow posturing. But it can't be extended to rejecting a lawfully appointed Senator, because the Senate's Constitutional power doesn't extend that far.)

It could expel him after seating him, but no one has even hinted at an expulsion, and that would take a 2/3 votes rather than a simple majority.

The last fucking thing we need here in Illinois is to have the Senate legitimize anything Blagojevich does. It would only cause him to dig in his heels even more and prolong our agony. If Reid and Durbin accept this I can guarantee you that Illinois will have two Republican senators come the next senatorial elections.

Shit, Reid has the backbone of a chocolate eclair, to quote TR about William McKinley. He will do nothing re an expulsion. And, CM and others are right; Burris cannot be blocked, just expelled after he is in.

"Burris should say no", you and like-minded are absolutely wrong. It is silly for Burris or anyone else to despise him just because Blago is the one who picked him. That is a silly ad hominem tainting fallacy applied to an innocent victim. If Burris is a good choice (per se!) then let him have it.

And Steve, gently put: please research what you write more carefully, like about Dems in IL committing to rejecting any Blago appointment when all they said was, they could reject if they wanted to. (But BTW, is there a sneaky source of misquoting out there, that wanted bloggers to pick up the wrong idea to embarrass them and/or IL Dems later?)

Harry Reid should stand down. Roland Burris is a gift and he should treat him as such. Blago's taint does not extend to Roland, which is the only thing that matters here.

Constitution, Article 1, Section 5.

Powell v McCormack is relevant precedent for the House, not the Senate, and clearly those two bodies are governed by disparate rules.

Powell v. McCormack is a ruling on the extent of the power created by the provision of Art. I, Sec. 5 that "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members", which applies equally to the House and Senate.

The rules of each House are disparate, of course, but those rules are not relevant in assessing the Constitutional reach of their powers stemming from the provision of Art. I, Sec. 5 at issue here.

Various pundits and politicians of the US and other countries are calling on Obama to speak out against the killing of citizens in Gaza. But Obama, like Bush, is on vacation. Meanwhile the US is replenishing Israel's bomb inventory. There are plent of fish remaining to be killed in Gaza.

Here's a nice photo of Obama showing the love in Israel.

http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/

But Obama, like Bush, is on vacation.

But Obama, unlike Bush, is not the president.

Oops, in correcting SB I seem to have gotten it wrong myself too: the Dems said, they would have to consider in the light of their constitutional responsibilities, etc., not as they wanted to do! Thanks as so often to cmdicely for articulately straightening out the muck for us less taut fighters (no sarcasm.) Hey, run for office girl (did I get gender right from memory, sorry if not since maybe I confuse you with also very helpful and maybe chick PTate in Minn - BTW where did that one go?)

But I stand by my argument that it isn't fair, a silly "cut off your nose to spite your face" indulgence, to take out disgust of Blago on his pick just *for being* Blago's pick - only suitability matters.

Obama should stay far away from this one.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I still think Burris should say no, because saying yes is colluding with a crazy, corrupt man and it DOES make a difference--it lends Blago undeserving credence.

Indeed, this (credence) is what Blago is shrewdly and arrogantly seeking.

Powell v. McCormack is a ruling on the extent of the power created by the provision of Art. I, Sec. 5 that "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members", which applies equally to the House and Senate. -cmdicely

Save that the Senate, unlike the House, has a slightly different definition for 'elections' due to the 17th amendment, and that is most certainly where Reid would make his stand (I mean, if Reid had the guts to ever make a stand against anything).

Oh well, I'm certainly no legal scholar, I just have read several places that this is in no way settled. Seems like there are two sides, and should they refuse, it would be a court battle destined for the SCOTUS.

Too bad they won't do anything. I would like to see a conclusion to this academic discussion, but they'll most likely seat him with little more than symbolic chest pounding.

But first, another potential lawsuit. The Illinois Secretary of State must certify the document of appointment (it might be called a warrant; I don't know) of the particular person to the seat. He has stated that he will not do so (the Sec. of State is Jesse White, who happens to be African-American). And there's your lawsuit, as Blagojevich might sue White to order him to perform what he would call a "ministerial" function (something that he would have no discretion in doing).

Interesting times, these are...

It sounds like Burris is a good choice. Unfortunately, the process has been tainted. I hope the Senate sticks to its convictions, that Blagojevich cannot make an appropriate appointment at this time, and that seat must be filled either by another governor or another process.

Ladies and gentleman of America what is going on is normal politics to choose a Senator.

All kinds of deals are made, have been, are, and will be made even after this Blagojevich stuff is over.

Please the electorates that can not perceive this must have Brains like a box of rocks. Face it they all make deals all the time. With Blagojevich, he just gets caught with allegation of wrong doing by Patrick Fitzgerald who has yet to prosecute with what looks like perfect timing to disrupt Democratic momentum. Fitzgerald is none other than a shark of the Republican Party. And this is his duty.

For me, Fitzgerald probably screwed this whole thing up likely because they all say it may go to the Supreme Court. If anything, the Supreme Courts already throw out condemning Blagojevich, the media makes our laws look like the Wild West Dodge City. Across the spectrum it is obvious the Media wants Blagojevich out more than delivering do process with in the legislation. For me to see the law play out is more important. With dignity Fitzgerald should move forward and it puzzles me why it has not happened it all looks political and timed to do so.

Fitzgerald has totally made this into a disrespectful media circus.

Here, the media so complicit to Bush and Company have no recourse but to grandstand and sensationalize every move Blagojevich makes. If you can see it and perceive it, for me its clear, the mainstream media is loosing the dynamics in the control they usually feel they have. An operation with persuasion in government direction and electorate persuasion has been going on for some time now. This is a real legacy of Bush and Company.

Kilzoy had a very interesting article that indirectly ties into this whole thing. It has to do with advertising. Just think if the ad revenues decrease the Media giants have to resort to extreme means. That could very well be circle the wagons and try to protect what they have or face extinction which for me is not soon enough or is around the corner. One thing to notice is the proliferation of “Judge� shows and the proliferation lawyers or Journalist with law backgrounds. Joe scar and the Judge on Fox news to name a few are slime balls.

For me Blagojevich or be it Bush and Company some day they both should see do process. Please Bush is way over due to be indicted, the list is too long.

Steve B. -- in the presser, Burris backed off saying he would just be a two-year placeholder Senator.

Oh, and what "consideration" did Bobby Rush get for running PR flak? Is Jesse Jr. kicking himself for not getting tapped for that role? Can Jesse White really block the appointment?

These and more are all good questions.

Save that the Senate, unlike the House, has a slightly different definition for 'elections' due to the 17th amendment, and that is most certainly where Reid would make his stand (I mean, if Reid had the guts to ever make a stand against anything).

It doesn't matter, whether or not its an election isn't the issue, what the Senate can judge about an election is the issue. All it can judge is whether the candidate is legally chosen, and whether or not they are Constitutionally qualified. That's it. And there's not even a hint that there is any dispute in Burris's case on either of those points. There's not even a shadow of a basis for exclusion, nor a remotely colorable case that the Senate has the authority to exclude Burris.

Indeed, more than a few people have suggested that Blagojevich wanted to find the one person voters in Illinois would approve of, and the one person senators in D.C. would consider actually seating, and Burris was the only name that fit the bill.
We're not that barren. Burris was chosen because of his black skin and the visible discomfort of people like Ted Kennedy when accused of a "high tech lynching of a black man."