One might wonder if Blago chose Burris specifically to call the Senate on their stance - if they stand by their decision to not seat Blago's choice, then a qualified and clean candidate is denied the opportunity; in which case, the *next* candidate might be someone who is more closely intertwined with Blago.

I'm glad to see someone raise the rule-of-law argument. After 8 years of a President elected -- um, selected -- by an arbitrary misreading of law, we've forgotten that rules matter. Blago does get the presumption of innocence and he is the duly-elected governor of Illinois. If the people's representatives in the statehouse didn't want him making the appointment, they should have gotten off their keisters and pushed impeachment more quickly.

I think that -- with the US Senate already an inbred old-boys-club -- we don't need a precedent that allows them to overturn the lawful functioning of state government. I agree with the poster on an older thread: Blago proved himself brilliant with this move.

It was the original intent of the Framers to have the legislatures of the several states appoint Senators. My suggestion FWIW, is to have the state legislature either endorse Mr. Burris, or come up with their own appointment (and ask the Governor to appoint this person instead). It would seem difficult for the US Senate to reject the will of both the Governor and the legislature of the state (albeit I suspect that if the latter did other than endorse Mr. Burris, the former would not play along).

Yes Steve, I keep waiting to hear the democrats give more compelling reasons for blocking Burris. Hope they know what they are doing because they have yet to demonstrate to me that they do.

Burris seems like a flawed choice so far. Blago is nuts. But that all beside the point.

Blago obviously thinks that the Senate seating his appointee would prove...something, and Obama and the Senate Dems seem to have bought into this frame as well. But it doesn't really prove anything, except maybe "I'll show them by picking someone non-controversial!"

jhm - the Republicans in the state legislature have already made it pretty clear that they disapprove of the selection. I suspect the Dems would rather have a court say they have no choice. The bigger question is why does it take more than 30 minutes to impeach Blago. The taint of any appointment should be reason enough.

From the perspective that allowing this will serve to legitimize Blagojevich, I will be pissed at the Senate democrats for reversing their public statements on this.

But, on the other hand, to let this fucked up mess in Illinois fester and possibly side track much more important actions by the Senate would be more irresponsible.

Burris will serve as a place holder and provide one more vote with the dems. And he will have one more inscription to etch into his memorial.

Fuck it. Let it be. And let the impeachment process continue. The important thing is to get rid of Blagojevich who will soon enough have at least one member up his ass.

my understanding is that there's also an important political calculation in the Democrats' position, namely, that Burris, who's failed several times to win political office in Illinois, will not be able (or even willing) to hold on to the Senate seat in 2010

I still don't know why Burris would WANT to be appointed by the crazy man that is Blago (other than Burris's ego, of course). Even if he's seated, he's tainted.

Blago is clearly a complete nutball. The sooner we get him out, the better. Hell, I'd pitch in to a fund for a special election, if I could.

Reid's position is now that the Senate needs only a majority vote to deny Burris, because Blagojevich is not 'qualified', under the Senate's interpretation of the Constitution.

And you're OKAY with that?

hould the Senate reject Burris?

Larry Craig gets to judge Burris?

Blagojevich is as you say duly-elected. (He says with chagrin, having voted for him.) However it is really an open question whether he is able to properly represent the people of Illinois in this or any other decision at this point. He's isolated and unable to take part in the normal discussions with other elected leadership that would be a natural and valuable part of a decision like this. So whether Burris is an acceptable choice -- on the face of it, he clearly is -- doesn't mean he is a choice that reflects a normal political process as envisioned by state law and the US Constitution. He clearly doesn't.

By analogy, Bush is the duly-elected president until January 20. However no one would accept as politically valid any major decision he might take at this point except obviously necessary and reactive ones, e.g., responding to a direct attack on the US. The normal deliberative and consultative processes we'd expect to underly such a decision simply can't occur at this point given the results of the election and the amount of time he has remaining in office.

By the way, Burris's willingness to participate in such a diminished process isn't exactly a mark in his favor either.

Relegating the repubs to minority status was just the first step toward addressing the many ills of government. Now, the task is to clean our own house from idiots like Reid who took a public stance that sounded impressive but seems to have no standing.

We spent 8 years criticizing those bent laws and precedents and suit their immediate goals. It was the right stance then and it's right now.

It's a sad state of affairs when the Senate majority leader is outmaneuvered by a state governor whose grasp on reality was being questioned just weeks ago.

Will people stop with the "innocent until proven guilty" please. That is for us normal people, who get arrested and then go to trial. We're talking about sitting politicians who have "immunity", who you can't arrest even if you catch them in the act, that need to be impeached, which takes forever, assuming all their collegues have the balls to do it in the first place.

Blagovich has not done what is right, and trying to find a loophole now, because we're sick of hearing about it, is not doing the right thing either. This is not about the senate "disapproving" of the choice, it's about the stink of impropriety and how giving in now will legitimise this sort of behavior. Next it'll be OK to seat felons in the house as long as they are brazen and shameless enough, and come up with some sort of loophole.

Ask yourself this question, Steve: If a Republican were getting this seat, would you be okay with the "rules are rules" viewpoint of your post, or would you be up in arms about how a Republican is getting the seat illegitimately?

The Dems need a face-saving way to climb out of this hole. That was a brilliant move on Blagojevich's part, and the Democrats are left to argue that Burris shouldn't be seated simply because Blagojevich had the temerity to take them up on their dare.

So what if other interested Illinois parties study Burris's qualifications and decide to recommend him to Obama's seat? Say, the Lieutenant Governor, the state Democratic Caucus, etc.? Couldn't the Dems then say "Well, these other folks think it's a good idea, so we'll bow to their will."

Y'know, if there's a little old lady who needs help getting across the street, in the end it doesn't matter if the person helping her is a boy scout or an accused felon.

I see it as a serious breach of separation of powers for representatives of the federal government to be telling a state official how he may or may not do his job as proscribed solely by state law. End of story.

How does anyone know if Burris is clean? (I assume he is but it doesn't matter.)

Choice 1) Burris is a great Senator and completely clean.
Choice 2) Burris paid actual cash and will go to jail for buying the seat from Blago.

At this point there is no way to know if either extreme will take place..

The Senate said they would not seat anyone that Blago picks. Why should they back down now?

A lot of us worked hard and gave money to try to increase the number of Senate seats held by Democrats. If one of the seats that wasn't even in contention is empty when the session starts next Tuesday it would be a shame.

As I understand it, there's an economic crisis that needs urgent action by legislators. Burris should be seated so his Democratic vote may be counted when Republicans are trying to obstruct needed legislation.

If the Blago scandal hadn't become public, what would people think of Burris filling the seat? He'd be considered a good choice. The only thing different now is that Burris is being somewhat foolish accepting the appointment from Blago when he might well have gotten it anyway. Where's the proof that, just because Blago is corrupt and possibly derranged, he can't pick a good senator? Can Blago do any worse than about half the voters in the nation, considering the current make-up of the Senate?
Burris served at the state level for what? 16 years, but hasn't won an election since about '94. He's a caretaker choice. Seat him.

"Next it'll be OK to seat felons in the house as long as they are..."

elected?

I wrote a piece during the Iran-Contra mess, challenging 'conservatives' who argued then (as Cheney has done for 8 years now) that a 'unitary executive' gets to do stuff like sell weapons to Israel to get money to pay for a war that Congress prohibited.

So I asked 'em: what if it was President Jesse Jackson who hocked an aircraft carrier to pay mercenaries to knock off the apartheid government in South Africa -- AFTER a Republican Congress had refused to pay for his war?

If you won't apply it to yourself, it's not a principle you're standing on.

So I argue that it's up to the people of a state (voters, preferably, but in this case, the guy they elected) who they choose to represent 'em. (This was precisely the point in Powell, the Supreme Court precedent here.) It is NOT up to the other 99 Senators (or 434 representatives) to approve or disapprove.

Suppose a few years back, some guy learned (perhaps by representing a client) about Bush's torture policies, and publicly denounced them. Suppose that was a violation of some Federal statute (this happened, folks may recall, over DES encryption some years ago -- the Feds actually published how it worked in the Carter years, then RE-classified it as a secret under Reagan). Suppose that guy is charged, then runs for Congress and gets elected. But he's not convicted yet...

Think it's okay if Congress refuses to seat him, just because a simple majority don't like what he stands for? That's Reid's position.

Suppose he IS convicted, Congress expels him -- and then, because his employers, the voters of his district, re-elect him anyway: you think it's STILL okay for the national government to over-rule representative democracy in a case like that?

Multiply examples as you like -- tax protestors, nullificationists, you name it. What right would the Senate have to reject some Jeanette Rankin type who refuses to pay taxes for weapons of mass destruction?

If they won the election, they get the job: that's the rule, and there ought to be damned few exceptions.

Blagojevich hasn't been convicted of anything: you either believe in the rule of law -- or you don't.

And, then, the conservatives will try to block Franken. What a great way to start the new session.

No problems then. Next it will be OK for Blagovich to nominate a horse for senator. After all, Caligula did it!

And he can run an open auction, so that the good people of Illinois can bid money for their horse to become senator. Because if they all agree, it can't be wrong (lynch mob) can it? There's no impropriety there is there?

The Senate shouldn't reject the appointment --- Burris would run to the courts and force them to accept his appointment. Instead, they should refer it to the Rules Committee and bottle it up there until Illinois can remove Blago and a new Governor can appoint a new Senator to fill the still-vacant seat. What if the new Governor looks at the possible candidates and then appoints Burris and solves the mess that way?

Politically, the Dems have no choice. Sitting idly by while your party does corrupt things is how you become the latest example of GOP '06. The Dems have to oppose corruption, and the way they can do that on the national level is to oppose Burris.

If what they are doing is against the Constitution, then the courts will rule against them. If it is impractical because it makes their majority 57-42 instead of 58-42, then that's a negligible price to pay. If what they are doing is unethical because it takes power away from Blagojevich, then, c'mon people, it's ethical because it takes power away from Blagojevich.

The fact that Burris is qualified is less important. The choice is not between Burris and Palin, it's between Burris and somebody who hopefully will be appointed by Patrick Quinn in a few months. Illinois has more than one person qualified to be a US Senator.

Legally, you are innocent until proven guilty. Morally, you are innocent until you commit a harmful crime. Blagojevich is less innocent than Scooter Libby.

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Blago is still the elected Governor of Illinois. He is being accused of a crime, but no trial has been held and no verdict rendered. Until then, he is still the constitutionally elected Gov. of IL.

Typical Harry Reid. The one time he gets his back up about something it's to diss a guy who is doing his constitutional duty.

Stop calling Blago "brilliant."

"Doing good" to make up for getting caught "doing bad" is a tactic any schoolboy knows.

Politically, the Dems have no choice. Sitting idly by while your party does corrupt things is how you become the latest example of GOP '06. The Dems have to oppose corruption, and the way they can do that on the national level is to oppose Burris.

Precisely. They know they'll seat Burris eventually, but it's politically necessary to publicly push back against Blago now. All part of the dance.

Bottom line is that Blago is still the governor. The legislature didn't act to strip him of his power to appoint the senator in a timely fashion.

All the discussion about tying the matter up until the Lt.Gov. gets a chance to appoint someone is nonsense. The Lt. Gov. won't get that chance. The horse is out of the barn. Closing the door isn't going to put the horse back in the barn.

Burris appears to be well and truly qualified. Yep he is a caretaker senator, so what. Even if he will probably lose in the Democratic primary he is still qualified.

I think we need to find a way to dig our Democratic Senatorial leadership out of the hole they have dug.

I really don't know what to say about this. I see legitimate pros and cons for resisting the appointment.

But I really think the Illinois gang needs to make a decision of course of action and follow-through with it soon--this is just getting insane.

The best interests of the country-- not just Illinois-- should be kept in mind throughout.

The Illinois legislature should have just impeached him the day after he was arrested and been done with it. Now they're preparing for a full-on trial, with subpoenas and everything. Bullshit. Just impeach him, over and done, move on. This isn't criminal procedure. He has no due process right to a full and fair impeachment trial. He's obviously corrupt and the vote is going to be unanimous, or nearly so. So ditch the pageantry.

If Blago had been taped apparently committing any other crime than the one he was, all this talk about the legal prerogatives of a sitting governor would make sense. But when he's taped trying to sell his power of appointment to the senate, then any appointment he makes is automatically beyond the pale. Even if Burris himself is clean, a reasonable person would assume that someone offered Blago a quid pro quo to get him appointed. And we know that the rightwing noise machine will be playing the corruption card for as long as a Blago-appointed senator is in office.

"I blong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." (Will Rogers)

I'm sorry not to be on the side of the 'rule of law' people, but I'm not. NOT fighting the choice of Burris could be a serious wound to Obama's Presidency -- not just nationally, but internationally. (Few observers abroad are going to understand the intricasies and difficulties our federal system involves.) But it is the national consequences that worry me, because the Republicans are studying the response very carefully, hoping to find a 'bit of Clinton' in Obama.

I'm going to remind you of a similar problem that Bill Clinton faced with allowing gays to serve. He'd promised this in the campaign -- and they very fact that he was willing ti campaign on such a controversy inspired a lot of us.

But then he was elected, tried to impliment it, and met opposition. "We are going to need all the political capital we've got, let's not waste it on a battle on this 'minor' an issue to start our term. We'll work out a compromise that can pass, and later, once we're in control, we can finish the job we promised to do."

So he came up with DADT, and we may not remember, but there were a lot of articles that took the same position. "Best we can do. Don't fight here. Fix it later." Only it didn't work that way.

DADT -- and the lessons Republicans learned from it -- wrecked the Clinton presidency, and is the reason why I can't see historians as ever crediting Clinton with being more than 'just on the good side of mediocre.'

Not because insulting gays in itself was a disaster -- politically speaking. They still had no place to turn, with Pat Buchanan's 'call to arms' echoing in Republican ears.

But it signaled to Republicans that Clinton did not like a fight, did not like to risk that political capitol, even if the result was breaking a promise he had made. "Rather than fight us, he'll start by 'meeting us half way' just to get negotiations started. Then in negotiations he'll give up a half of whatever's left just to get a bill passed. THEN we'll crucify him for the 25% that's left, and remind everybody what his 'real' position was, and claim that only we saved the country from that."

And a lot followed from that, including "Harry and Louise" and other Clintonian defeats, the loss of Congress, and the willingness to tie up the country with the Impeachment farce. (I could even argue that this made a lot of us less willing to support Al Gore whole-heartedly and paved the way for Florida 2000 and eight years of Bush.)

Obama can't afford to fall into that trap. (True, he has much more support than Clinton had, and the Republicans are in disarray, but that's all the more reason not to give them hope.) I'd rather see him fight this, with the Democrats behind him, and lose, than for him to back down on the first strong domestic challenge he faces.

(And Blago has made this a direct personal challenge to Obama by having Bobby Rush -- the only person ever to defeat Obama in an election -- as a featured player at his news conference, playing the race card for all it's worth.)

Are the Republicans going to stand and cheer Obama for following 'the rule of law? Like hell they will. They'll start by saying that Obama might have talked a good game against corruption, but he backed down when it was a matter of appointing a BLAAAACK!!! Senator. Then they'll accuse Obama of being involved in the selection, and bring up all the unsupported stories about contacts betweem Obama and Blagojevich.

No, this is a fight Obama HAS to make, edven if he loses. I opened with Will Rogers, I'll close with Lincoln. (George McClellan was a GREAT drillmaster, and the troops under his command were usually perfectly prepared -- but McClellan was somewhat reluctant to risk his handiwork by actually sending them iinto battle.) Lincoln famously commented "If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time."

Replace 'the army' with 'political capital' and Obama has to be Lincoln, not McClellan this time.

Excuse me! "..and there may be a permanent cloud over his office." That cloud will be the question of what changed Burris's mind about Blago from 2 weeks ago. Has anybody asked him? I'd sure like to know. I think he and Parks see an opportunity to take advantage of the situation. Is there a quid-pro-quo there? People are gonna ask.

I'm surprised to see so many people saying Burris is unconnected to Blagojevich's scandal -- he accepted what he knew to be a tainted appointment from the man, that makes him connected. Three weeks ago he was saying Blagojevich should resign, and now he's appearing at this crazy press conference as if nothing else is going on? That is suspect enough given the circumstances. Get Quinn or the legislature on the record endorsing the pick, at least.

I noted all this, plus questioned White's legal powers, etc., and Democratic stupidity, yesterday, as well as wondering what Bobby Rush was getting from Blago for his efforts.

A Republican U.S. Attorney jumps the gun on announcing an investigation of a sitting Democratic Governor for corruption charges (which he may now not be able to prosecute) and we are supposed to simply accept that everyone associated to the Governor is now tainted?

Blagojevich has been very clever, basically picking an ally (it seems) of the congressman who defeated Obama in a primary as the Governor's pick to take Obama's senate seat.

Frankly, I thought it would be more amusing if he had picked Jack Ryan (Jerri Lynn Ryan [7 of 9] 's ex-husband) who was going to be Obama's Republican opponent for the senate seat. Now THAT would be sticking it in the eye of the Democratic party and Reid et al. Not to mention rounding out the Republican Sex Pervert protfolio with a mensroom crawling homosexual (Craig), a whoremonger (Vitter) and a sex-club afficiardo (Ryan).

"I'm hesitant, but I'll concede there's a reasonable argument here"

Yes, you are hesitant. Obama wants the appointment blocked. Obama who has opinions about auto and financial industry bailouts. Obama who now, as the Israelis kill little girls the age of his daughters, has nothing to say because we can have only one President at a time.

This behavior by Obama and the Democrat Senators id simply more Democrat spinelessness. they are afraid of what the Republicans might say. That's why we have a democrat supported invasion of Iraq, the Patriot Act, Military Commissions act, FISA-Telecom immunity and so on. I voted for Obama but I don't have the great hopes expressed on this fan club blog for an Obama administration.

Folks shouldn't confuse the political theater with the factual and legal situation here -- after all, the approach shortstop advocates is precisely the way Bush and Cheney governed: it's ALL about the manipulation of perception.

She may want Obama to govern that way -- but I don't.

The time to stand on principle is when you need to, not just when you like the result. I'd rather see a President-elect who cares more about REALLY upholding the law than manipulating public opinion so he's merely PERCEIVED to be.

Blagojevich is the governor. He appointed Burris. That limits the Senate's options --

1) They can say one thing (that he's unacceptable), and then meekly accept him. Yeah, that'll help change the way politics works in America.

2) They can back up their big talk (echoed by Obama), and actually try to unConstitutionally exclude Burris.

How would this happen? He shows up, but Biden refuses to swear him in. So Burris sues, and the first judge to look at it will most likely cite SCOTUS in Powell: impasse.

The Senate could fold, but they don't have to -- they have their own precedent in the White example from the 20s.

So to back up "cannot accept" the first act of the Obama administration will be to support the legislative branch's defiance of the judiciary.

Yeah, that's a good idea. Way to sell the idea that nobody is above the law.

3) They can delay, and hope that Burris will go away, that Blagojevich will resign or be forced from office, so Quinn can appoint a new Senator -- possibly Burris himself.

How long is that gonna take? Blagojevich can stay in office for a year or more, while Burris will have all kinds of opportunities (and supporters like Bobby Rush) to remind people that the FIRST FRIGGING THING our new President did was to defy the Constitution... cuz he didn't like his home state governor.

And what happens if the Senate gets lucky, and Blagojevich is gone by the spring, but Burris is NOT the new appointee? What if Burris sues -- and wins, that he was already the properly-authorized US Senator, so the new executive has no authority to make an appointment to a seat that wasn't vacant?

You guys really want the US Senate to pick and choose which governors are legit?

Face it, folks: that'll make Obama look MORE like Blagojevich, not less. But, hey, maybe Jarrett still wants the job, and we all know how smart shortstop is about public perception....

Still, it's revealing: some folks (like prup and shortstop) figure their low opinion of the public is more important than the rule of law, while others (like reino) figure the rule of law doesn't matter at all: 'if it takes power away from Blagojevich....', what's not to like?

Folks shouldn't confuse the political theater with the factual and legal situation here -- after all, the approach shortstop advocates is precisely the way Bush and Cheney governed: it's ALL about the manipulation of perception.

She may want Obama to govern that way -- but I don't.

This is as far as I got, theAmericanist, and that's really pretty good for one of your posts. After all, doubtful is the only one to make it all the way through one in...well, anytime, really.

What utter crap you do spew. When we stood on principle on torture, you wrote reams sneering to us that we had to look at the political, not the factual or legal, side of things, huffing that we were complete neophytes in understanding what "the people" think, scoffing at our supposed pretensions to nobility. That's just one of many, many examples in which you desperately argued for your superior political acumen in spite of your abysmal record on these things.

Look, you don't have a reputation for standing on principle, but for condescending without cred to others who do. You grab whatever position you think will benefit you at the moment, and you argue it hysterically, melodramatically and with the single goal of self-aggrandizement. (As an aside, your little homilies suck, too--there are more talented storytellers in preschool or the drunk tank.) That, and your exceptionally obvious emotional illness (which doesn't seem to have improved during your "vacation"), are your sole defining characteristics here. And reading a full paragraph of yours (with a bonus self-dramatizing sentence) is the last unearned compliment I'll be paying you, me lad, so you can save yourself the comically ironic moaning about ad hominems and unfair attacks.

Shortstop presumes a bit.

What changed the public debate about torture over the past two or three years is the weight of testimony from actual interrogators, who pointed out that in their experience, it didn't work.

Torture had been illegal and wrong before they spoke up. It was illegal and wrong after they spoke up.

But it was the accumulating evidence that it also doesn't work, which shifted public perception. (Or more precisely, created sufficient space for Congressman and Senators to stand on the evidence and argue about principle.)

If as you say someone had noted that here some time back, shortstop, perhaps you should have paid a bit more attention to factual observations about what moves public opinion, than to insults? You seem to confuse standing on principle with being ineffective.

'Course, that would explain why Shortstop seems to be doubling down on her idea that our President elect and the Senate should defy the law and the Constitution, in order to be PERCEIVED to be effectively against corruption.

Even she concedes that this approach by Obama and Reid will wind up with Burris in the Senate... although I note she doesn't consider the several ways in which even this benign view of a PR ploy can get fucked up, e.g., if the Senate delays Burris, Blagojevich resigns, and Quinn appoints someone closer to Obama, like Jarrett.

Draw your own conclusions.

I agree that the Senate should seat Burris and I predicted a while back that Blago would appoint someone undoubtedly qualified to make the Senate Dems look stupid. Point to Blago.

Also, just want to point out that the statement "It's worth pointing out though, that Blago's still an innocent man" is not legally correct. The law states not that someone is innocent until proven guilty, it state that someone is PRESUMED innocent until proved guilty.

The presumption determines the burden of proof. Just sayin' Even after being found "not guilty," it's not true in American jursiprudence that someone is technically innocent. I think the British system actually allows for a finding of innocent, but ours does not. See Simpson, O.J.

Any Democrat who stood up to applaud CONVICTED felon Ted Stevens has no standing to refuse to seat Burris.

Sheesh.

BTW, come 2010 Burris will be judged on his record in the Senate, not who appointed him, or the people of Illinois are dim, dum, dun.

"He has no due process right to a full and fair impeachment trial. "

Um, I think that's wrong. I think that as it is a governmental action, it is subject to due process.

Of course it would all depend on what the SCOTUS ruled, but lord knows they stretched due process pretty wide in Bush v. Gore, and you know the same 5 would just love to stick it to the Dems in Blago v. the Illinois legislature.

I doubt it will come to that, the same 5 sticking it to Democrats. (For one thing, it's not the same 5.)

The most likely scenario is that the Senate will exclude Burris by refusing to swear him in as a Senator. (Though I still wonder what Senator Byrd thinks, as the senior member of the club: he could preclude all of this by just handing the guy a bible and raising his hand.)

Burris then sues. The first Federal judge either decides that the Frank Smith precedent prevails, so the Senate CAN exclude a lawful Senator, or the judge decides the SCOTUS precedent in Powell prevails.

If they decide for the Smith precedent, yeah: Burris could appeal, and the SCOTUS would probably take the case. But I don't think upholding the 40 year old Powell case over the 82 year old, unadjudicated parallel in Smith would be 5-4.

Look for 9-0.

And if the first judge found for Burris, using Powell as a precedent, I doubt the Senate would even appeal: this would be the chance for them to cave.

BUT -- the real risk is that the Senate might defy a Federal court that found for Burris, based on Powell. They might refuse to seat Burris, despite a court order -- and (with all due respect to the vast experience and knowledge demonstrated by shortstop), I dunno as this plays out well for Reid, Obama, the Senate or Democrats in general.

And is selling a Senate seat really different from what they are all doing? How many in Congress haven't been bought by the Israel lobby into shedding American blood for Israel's wars? Don't congress critters support illegal migration because they have been corrupted by business contributions? 'Tisn't as though Blago was fishing for anything more than big campaign contributions like they all do, though he was perhaps more explicit, and wiretapped.

Um, I think that's wrong. I think that as it is a governmental action, it is subject to due process.

I don't know that it has ever been tested before a court, but it is highly doubtful that the Constitution's due process protections apply to impeachment proceedings. If the constitution (state or federal) gives the legislature the power to remove the executive upon a 2/3 vote or whatever it is, that essentially means that they can impeach the executive for any reason at all, as long as 2/3 of them agree on it. There doesn't have to be criminal wrongdoing, and there is no penalty attached, so the normal due process interests are not present.

Furthermore, this has non-justiciable political question written all over it. See Nixon v. United States. The courts are almost certainly not going to get into the business of overseeing the procedures of an impeachment process that they too are subject to.

(A caveat to all of this is that it is always possible that Illinois law is wacky. But assuming it works basically the same way as the federal separation of powers does, the Illinois legislature could take a vote tomorrow to impeach/remove Blago based on what they already now and there's not a damn thing he can do about it.)

FREE Unlimited Streaming TV Shows, Movies, Music (over 6 million digital tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, Books, and College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) http://www.InternetSurfShack.com

The Democrat's position on this is proof that one should not rush in to demonstrate moral superiority until there is more evidence at hand than a few unproven assertions about something, no matter how bad the assertions look.

As of yesterday, Mitch McConnell has pledged to filibuster the Obama economic relief plan. This is going to happen in 21-22 days or less. So the Democrats are going to need every last one of the 59 seats they have won, and then one Republican they can peel off, if they are to have any chance of getting things fixed.

Yes, the Republicans are shameless enough that they will scream and yell and try to make the point of how awful it is that Burris was appointed by this "tainted" governor (something they know a lot about). They are going to do things to make Obama "illegitimate" that will make the worst things they ever did to Clinton look like Sunday School pranks.

This is also why they are screaming and yelling already about seating Franken. They know they have 41 votes. They have to deny as many votes to our side as they can, so that they can keep their "strays" from straying. If it really is 59-41, and the Democrats make them look like the obstructionist scum they are, there is a good chance that at least one of three or four - Snowe, Collins, Spector, McCain - would consider where things will be at in 2010 if they are tarred with that brush, and the filibuster would be broken. If we have to get 2 or 3 of these guys, that is a thousand times harder.

Politics ain't beanbag, as former President Clinton commented earlier this year, and it's a fact that 2+2 still equals 4. Arithmetic matters here, and people are going to have to decide just how important it is to get things moving in the right direction.

Me? After putting up with 40 years of these fascist motherfuckers, I will go along with anything that turns them into "Good Republicans" - the ones pushing up daisies. Letting an asshole appoint a good man, who will give us the vote we need where it counts, is a small price to pay.

Seat him. The last thing I want is a precedent setting, snit-based decision (like say, Terri Schiavo) where by a duly appointed senator is rejected for political reasons.

Come on kids, not only is this wrong on its suface, but can't you see just how much fun it will be when the Repugs take this and run with it. And you know they will.

The Democrats should refuse to swear Burris in and they can justify that move by initiating their own investigation into Burris' appointment by Blagoyevich.
There's no need to rush the investigation either, what with everything else that's going on (the economy, etc.). Unless Reid is going to go back on the position that he's held for the past two years concerning "filibusters", having one less Democratic vote won't make any difference.

That would overturn a LOT of precedent.

There have been many elections, e.g., Landrieu's in... 96?, where there was some question about the voting, including fraud.

What the Senate has done in all cases but one that I'm aware of, is to swear the Senator in, and then conduct the investigation while that Senator is voting, getting committee assignments, etc. The idea was that if anything fatal turned up, they could be expelled.

Typically (as should have happened in Gore v Bush), what winds up happening is that the state's decision (e.g., Louisiana's electing Landrieu) prevails.

You guys REALLY need to start thinking your arguments through. God help us if Obama's strategizing is this shallow. If a simple majority of Senators can overturn an election (as Reid is essentially arguing), we will have seen their Gore v Bush and raised them a whole lot of chips.

The most direct precedent for this one goes back more than fourscore years, when another Illinois Senator was elected in November 1926, with a ton of money. The incumbent he defeated died after the election, but with some months left in his term, so the governor understandably appointed the guy who had just gotten the most votes to the seat.

The Senate rejected the guy twice -- first as an appointed Senator, then as an elected one.

LOL -- and if there was a futures market for studying an old political story, THAT would have been a good one to buy last Friday.

The focus on Burris is completely off-target. He was the final selection of what was a completely corrupt and probably criminal process to find a replacement.

The notion that the beneficiary of this completely corrupt and probably criminal process would ever get seated in the Senate is a non-starter.

What's more, it's not going to happen. Blago's about to be impeached. Once that happens, Burris's chief promulgator will be off the stage. Once that happens, his standing will fizzle away to nothing.

Just remember: time is against this appointment. The closer we get to that impeachment, the less likely it's going to look.