Doesn't a SoS certify elections rather than appointments? Just sayin.

Burris just got caught having lied under oath about not contacting any of Blago's people about the appointment. Turns out he did.

That, and the fact that the majority of people in Illinois don't want him to be seated, seems like more than enough of an excuse to keep this scumbag out of the Senate.

SoSs certify a lot of things, as I understand. They're like the highest notary public in the land.

Secretaries of State should be empowered to have an effective veto power over a governor's appointment authority?

At first I thought "well, the governor has the constitutional right to appoint a temporary replacement Senator - probably the SoS certification was adopted as a procedural step so as to be sure the governor's appointment letter was authentic, and now it's being inflated into an unconstitutional veto ability."

But actually looking at the 17th Amendment, it says "the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." So the governor doesn't have the constitutional right to make the appointment; the legislature could deny him this right if it wanted (why haven't they? likely it's in the state constitution), or demand to approve the appointment, or any other hurdle. If this is the case, the requirement for SoS certification would be valid.

..the majority of people in Illinois don't want him to be seated... -jeebus

I'm inclined to agree with that assertion, but technically we haven't been asked.

To answer Steve's closing question, no Secretaries of State should not veto power over a Governor's appointments.

Are Burris' legal options done, or can he appeal to a higher court?

Technically, the 17th Amendment permits the state legislatures to empower the state Governors to make temporary appointments in lieu of elections.

It therefore would appear that, if the process established by the Illinois state legislature includes effectively empowering the Secretary of State to veto an appointment by failing to certify it, well, that's the legislature's business.

I think you are misinterpreting what the decision said.

Under the Secretary of State Act, the Secretary's sole responsibility was to register the appointment (15 ILCS 305/5(2) (West 2006)), which he did. No further action is required by the Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor's appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under Illinois law.

In other words the appointment is valid without the SoS participation. I can't imagine Reid challenging that nuance.

I'm inclined to agree with that assertion, but technically we haven't been asked.

A poll just came out. The numbers are something like 55-35 against Burris.

As Danp said, the thrust of the AP article I read was that the appointment is valid, with or without the Secretary of State's signature. So seating Burris is a question of preserving Senate tradition.

SRS

the thrust of the AP article I read was that the appointment is valid

And actually, my quote was from the court itself. I wouldn't trust AP's opinion. :)

Hahahahahaahaaahaha!

The Senate is its own club. They can set the rules.

Burris should crawl back up Blago's impeached little leg and keep sucking. He has no "right" to the seat.

Yeah, I saw that poll, jeebus. That's why I said we technically haven't been asked. Polling is great for trends, but the one time opinion of a few hundred people is no substitute for an election.

With only one data point, it's hard to say how accurate that is.

The problem with a poll like that is it doesn't really take into consideration the alternatives. Are the 'against' respondents okay with no Senator? Are they pulling for an alternative? Would a specific alternative push the results in another direction?

That, and the fact that the majority of people in Illinois don't want him to be seated, seems like more than enough of an excuse to keep this scumbag out of the Senate.

This is a screw-up, but largely because the "majority of the people of Illinois" were idiot enough to re-elect a manifestly corrupt governor. Why should they get a do-over?

We've had eight years of official lawlessness. Could we please start to value the rules?

either White changes his mind, Reid changes his mind, Burris changes his mind

Golly, how will that turn out? Reid has already gone wobbly.

As Danp pointed out, the Illinois Court essentially said the senate is wrong. The 17th amendment leaves it up to the state legislature to determine how temporary appointments are made, and the legislature never required the secretary of state to do anything other than register the appointment (which he did). So as far as Illinois is concerned Burris has been validly appointed. The senate is trying to make up rules it has no constitutional authority to make by requiring a signature.

The court also noted, though, that the whole issue is also silly in the following sense. If Burris, or Reid, or anyone wants a copy of the appointment with a state seal and the secretary of state's signature they just need to request an official copy of the appointment. It's an official public record and the secretary of state is required to provide certified copies of any such record for a nominal fee to anyone who asks.

Just off the top of my head, Burris probably has a decent argument based on the state Supreme Court's dicta that his credentials are in order under state law, notwithstanding the lack of certification, and the Senate therefore lacks a justification for refusing to seat him. Whether Reid would accept that, or whether the matter could be litigated in federal court in D.C., are interesting questions.

Secretaries of State should be empowered to have an effective veto power over a governor's appointment authority?

No, that's not what the court is saying.

The court is saying that the state law requires the Secretary of State to register the selection, not to issue a certification.

The court is not saying that the appointment is invalid without the certification, just that there is nothing in state law requiring the Secretary of State to certify the appointment.

The problem has been from the beginning that the U.S. Senate is pretending that an appointment that is valid under state law is invalid so as to avoid seating a validly-appointed Senator.

Are Burris' legal options done, or can he appeal to a higher court?

He could challenge the refusal to seat him in federal court; it is a pretty likely he would eventually prevail unless the Supreme Court decided to reverse existing precedent. The problem he faces is that resolution through the federal courts would very likely take longer than the remainder of the term he has been appointed to serve. There is very little basis to believe that what the Senate is doing is within its legal power, its just that it pretty clearly is taking advantage of the fact that it is practically impossible to compel them to restrain themselves to their Constitutional powers.

I've written here and elsewhere that this bone-headed refusal to seat Burris is wrong and damaging to the Democratic Party.

But I'm sort of glad the Supreme Court of Illinois didn't require the SOS to sign the stupid certification and dropped this right back where it belongs, in Harry Reid's lap (with the backup lap of Dick Durbin).

That's because I hope THIS is the impetus that makes the Dem Senators realize, FINALLY, that Harry Reid is one of the worst majority leaders in Democratic history. Pick someone else. Someone with 1) better political judgement; and 2) the cojones to make the friggin' ReThugs actually FILIBUSTER instead of just caving in to them.

I tend to think the federal district court in D.C. would move Burris's case to the top of the docket under the circumstances. In fact he could move for a preliminary injunction forcing the Senate to seat him on the basis that he would be irreparably harmed by any further delay. On the other hand courts tend to disfavor granting injunctions that alter the status quo so that would be a tough motion to win.

Before 2000, I also would have thought the Supreme Court would have denied cert on this kind of issue as a "political issue," or as one within the purview of the state Supreme Court.

Since Bush v. Gore, I'm not so sure. On the other hand, they can distinguish anything they want on any grounds they want, so ...

jeebus,

In other polls the numbers have been something like 67-28 against Bush for many months. But he is still President.

JRD - If the Minnesota election gets dragged out and Pawlenty appoints Coleman to hold the seat until all his appeals are completed, do you think the Senate could refuse to seat him based on Art I Sec V?

In other polls the numbers have been something like 67-28 against Bush for many months. But he is still President.

It doesn't matter what the people of Illinois want. The only question is, was the appointment lawful?

I agree that the results of opinion polls are not, in themselves, enough to deny Burris the seat. If the appointment was legally kosher but just unpopular, they would have to seat him. That's why I said that Burris's lie, PLUS the fact that most Illinoisans oppose him, justifies the Senate in trying to keep him out. If the majority wanted him IN, I would say that Reid et al would not be justified in trying to keep him out, even though they might have a legal case.

The fact that the appointment was arguably illegitimate, on top of the fact that keeping Burris out would not amount to thwarting the desires of the people of Illinois: these things, IMO, justify Reid's attempts to block the appointment.

Yeah, I saw that poll, jeebus. That's why I said we technically haven't been asked. Polling is great for trends, but the one time opinion of a few hundred people is no substitute for an election.

Well, if you just don't accept the legitimacy of polling, I don't know what to tell you. I think time has shown that polls are pretty damn accurate. Especially when they indicate a lopsided electorate, like this one does; it is extremely, extremely unlikely that the majority of Illinoisans actually support Burris, but this poll just happened to find a sample of a few hundred people that were biased the other way.

Look on the bright side: it will probably be 2010 before all of the litigation is finished and then the people of Illinois can elect whomever they want as Senator.
I expect much the same outcome in Minnesota.

Talk about punting. It would obviously be absurd to give the Secretary a veto on the Governor's selection. But at the same time, what standing does a state Supreme Court have to determine the rules for a federal governing body?

As much as no one wants to deal with this, the game plan seems the same - run out the clock before Blago's selection is seated. Even money has the case moving to the US Supreme Court, with an outside chance of Burris bowing out.

"JRD - If the Minnesota election gets dragged out and Pawlenty appoints Coleman to hold the seat until all his appeals are completed, do you think the Senate could refuse to seat him based on Art I Sec V?"

Again off the top of my head, well yeah, since the governor probably lacks authority to make an appointment in that situation. But I don't see much of an analogy to the Burris case.

But actually looking at the 17th Amendment, it says "the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

Could the legislature decrease the time frame for a temporary appointment, and apply it retroactively so Burriss has to run in a special election this spring?
The way I see it, there isn't much legal justification for not seating Burriss at this point, but he's clearly a shameless opportunist and may have lied under oath about his contacts with the Governor. He seems to want the title just to satisfy his enormous ego, and I'd prefer to see him in the Senate for as short a time as possible. I thought Bobby Rush's statements throughout this ordeal to be particularly disgusting as well. If there was ever an example of someone playing the race card, this is it.
Refusing to seat a Senator appointed by a corrupt governor is not the same as church burnings and lynchings, and insulting to the people who actually died in those incidents.

Look on the bright side: it will probably be 2010 before all of the litigation is finished and then the people of Illinois can elect whomever they want as Senator.
I expect much the same outcome in Minnesota.

I don't know why you would expect that in Minnesota, it's not remotely the same situation. They just had an election for a full six year term. After an election and a valid recount, Al Franken had the most votes. The only thing stopping Franken is a lawsuit from Coleman which should be resolved fairly soon--long before 2010. At any rate, there won't be another election in Minnesota to settle it, because it's up to the court at this point.

Blagojevich is now speaking on MSNBC and it's really sad. I sure hope the media recognizes this as such.

He's clearly in an ACTIVE MANIC STAGE, replete with rapid and pressured speech, tangential thoughts, flight of ideas. And his reasoning (about why he is being impeached makes no sense) It is psychotic.

Manic with Psychotic thinking. Spurred on even more by the vote to Impeach him.

Intelligence or good intentions (about health care or whatever) or good memory of what he has done are not the issue. Indeed, many Manic and Psychotic folks are brilliant at changing the subject.

Yes, of course he is delusional. Kevin Tibbles (spelling?) whom Nora O'Donnel is interviewing now) is wrong to say Blago isn't.

Tibbles clearly doesn't know what delusional means or looks like.

Maybe it's time for a little education to all those who proclaim they know who is and isn't delusional.

This is one result of conservative's clunky and byzantine idea (yeah, supported by the USC but look at the practical problems) of letting States decide so much individually about elections, representation, etc.

As much as no one wants to deal with this, the game plan seems the same - run out the clock before Blago's selection is seated.

I agree that this seems to be the game plan, but I can't for the life of me understand why. There's no clock! Of course, the senate term will expire in 2011, but there's no way this thing is going on that long.

It seems like some people expect the Dems to run out the clock until Blago gets booted. But I don't see how this helps anything. The day after Blago is gone, Burris will still have exactly the same status. Whatever you think of the legality of his appointment, it's a done deal. It doesn't go away just because Blago does.

I have said this before, but here goes. The only thing that really matters here is the legality of the appointment. Everything else is Hyperbole. Everything. Ask yourself--was Blago the legally elected gov. of Illinois and, therefore, was the official with the power to appoint a replacement? Was he (Blago) convicted of a crime at the time of the appointment? Is there any credible evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Blago or Burris in relation to THIS appointment? The answers to these questions are YES, NO and NO.

Whether or not people like the appointment is irrelevant. Whether or not a person with higher ethics would have made the appointment under these circumstances is irrelevant. Whether or not Harry Reid or the rest of the Senators like burris is irrelevant. Whether or not seating Burris is politically expedient is irrelevant.

Sorry, I don't like it, but as far as I can tell this was a legal appointment and thus the Senate should seat Burris.

Again, why not seat Burriss, and the state legislature calls for a special election in the spring?
Or, just to get creative, limit the duration of temporary appointments to six months, after which the sitting governor has to re-appoint the Senator or appoint someone else. This would have to happen until the election in 2010.

But I don't see much of an analogy to the Burris case. JRD

The analogy is that Minnesota law does not allow final certification until after challenges have been completed. And the Gov does have the power to fill an empty seat. There has, in fact, been discussion of "leaving" Coleman in his seat until the challenges are done.

I would argue that the Burris case would be a bad case to challenge the scope of Art I Sec V, which would be Reid's only rationale for challenging Burris (the Senate will be the judge of elections and returns), but the Minnesota case would be, since it rejects Minnesota state law, which allows an obvious conflict of interest.

Sorry, I don't like it, but as far as I can tell this was a legal appointment and thus the Senate should seat Burris.

I agree, that's why I'm wondering if the solution might be for the legislature to pass a new law shortening the term of a temporary appointment, apply it retroactively, and force Burriss to run for election in the spring.

Allan Snyder whote: "Again, why not seat Burriss, and the state legislature calls for a special election in the spring? Or, just to get creative, limit the duration of temporary appointments to six months, after which the sitting governor has to re-appoint the Senator or appoint someone else. This would have to happen until the election in 2010."

I'm not sure about your first proposal. Once a seated, then he is the junior senator for Illinois. Can the state hold a special election to replace a sitting senator that has done nothing to violate the terms of his office?

Regarding the second idea, again, I am not sure. Can the legislature change the terms of an appointment already in progress? I just don't know.

I still go back to my previous post. The appointment appears to be legal. Let it stand. Seat him. In 2010 the people will be able to decide if they wish to keep Burris or elect someone else.

All this hyperventilating is a pointless waste of energy. The rule of law should stand if we believe is a nation of laws. If we want a country ruled by our wims then start a revolution...otherwise, the appointment was legal and should stand. Period.

Well, if you just don't accept the legitimacy of polling, I don't know what to tell you. -jeebus

I accept the legitimacy of polling; it is entirely the basis of my resistance to citing one poll as indelible fact.

I don't know what kind of bias the pollster has inherently. I don't know how they're weighting their sample, and what they're weighting it against, the Illinois population as a whole or potential voters in a potential special election or the 2010 election?

I think this kind of poll comes at it from both ways. You have people who don't want Burris because he's a Democrat. You have people who don't want him because he's not their Democrat. You have people that don't want him because Blagojevich appointed him, of which I am one.

But if he were on a ballot against a Republican, you can be damn sure I'm casting my vote for him.

As I said from the outset, I'm inclined to agree that the majority of Illinoisans say they don't want Burris, but we still haven't actually been asked, and if we were, I wonder if things might be different.

For those profering arguments as to the fact that it is lawful and legitimate to seat Burris, a question. Tell me how your arguments would be different if Blago and Burris had gone on camera and Burris had handed Blago the money for the seat there and then, smiled for the camera, said "I'm happy to buy the Senate seat for Illinois", and immediately headed for Congress?

The impropriety of the situation is glaring, and the senate members, unanimously, have decided that to allow the (now impeached, for reasons relating to choosing a senator,) Governor's choice to seat would tarnish the reputation of the Senate.

Given the situation, it is only fair for the Senate to question whether any choice by this Governor is legitimate. And wait on a decision from Illinois that wasn't made by the Governor.

doubtful,

Your point is well taken by me, at least. It is an interesting mental excercise to ponder how things might be different if the poeple got to vote on the replacement, but the fact remains that it is only a mental excecise and not relevant to the actual situation. The Burris appointment, while less than ideal, appears to be legal. I still say, let the appointment stand unless credible evidence exists that some illegal conduct took place between Blago and Burris related to this appointment. In two years the people get to make up their minds.

royalblue_tom

I see your point, but disagree. There is no such evidence to suggest that Burris paid for the appointment. Yes, there is evidence that seems to implecate Blago in his earlier efforts, but that was then. At the time of the Burris appointment, Blago had not bee convicted of any wrongdoing and was still the legally elected governor.

We don't have to like Blago or approve of his choice to appoint Burris under these circumstances, but unless someone has credible evidence that illegal activity took place in THIS appointment, then, like it or not, it is legal.

We can't set aside the law when it is inconvenient. We had too much of that under George W. Bush.

For those profering arguments as to the fact that it is lawful and legitimate to seat Burris, a question. Tell me how your arguments would be different if Blago and Burris had gone on camera and Burris had handed Blago the money for the seat there and then, smiled for the camera, said "I'm happy to buy the Senate seat for Illinois", and immediately headed for Congress?

Completely irrelevant. No one in the Senate has alleged that there is evidence of any illegal act in the appointment. Were there any such allegation, then the question would be of evidence.

There is no question that the Senate has every right to refuse to seat an Governor's appointee member the act by which that prospective member was appointed was an unlawful giving of official favor in exchange for something of value. No one, certainly not Harry Reid, has offered that as the reason for blocking Burris or provided any reason to believe that that is the case.

Given the situation, it is only fair for the Senate to question whether any choice by this Governor is legitimate.

It might be legitimate for them to do so; whether it would be or not is irrelevant because they are not doing so.

Sorry, I don't like it, but as far as I can tell this was a legal appointment and thus the Senate should seat Burris.

But as far as you can tell is not necessarily the whole picture. Legal scholars are basically split on the question, which suggests that it is not nearly as cut and dry as you seem to believe. Even if you happen to be an expert on constitutional law, there are other experts who disagree, and it's anyone's guess as to how the Supreme Court would rule on this issue, which is really the only thing that matters.

Another scenario is that the IL Senate removes Blago and the Lt. Governor nominates Burris - which the Sec. State certifies.

In other words, SCOT-IL told Reid: "It's your problem."

No one in the Senate has alleged that there is evidence of any illegal act in the appointment.

Yes, they have. They have made it clear that their reasoning is that there is enough to determine that Blagovich is likely to have attempted to sell the "seat" to someone, which they feel is likely to be shown to be illegal, so they are not going to seat anyone (please remember you said no one has "alleged"). How they go about actually doing this is a different matter - they are mostly all lawyers and politicians after all.

Tell me how your arguments would be different if Blago and Burris had gone on camera and Burris had handed Blago the money for the seat there and then, smiled for the camera, said "I'm happy to buy the Senate seat for Illinois", and immediately headed for Congress?

Public corruption is grounds for expulsion from the Senate. He would be seated as a member, there would be a vote and he would be gone. Though they might want to expel him after Blago is dealt with.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Expulsion_Censure.htm

Point is, there is a delineated due process that exists and should be followed.

Also, ex post facto laws are forbidden. Any attempts to limit a term after the member is chosen or elected for that term would not fly.

...their reasoning is that there is enough to determine that Blagovich is likely to have attempted to sell the "seat" to someone...

...their reasoning is that there is enough to determine that Blagovich is *likely* to have attempted to sell the "seat" to someone....

Due process
Rule of Law

"The competing scenarios I presented, however, remain the same: either White changes his mind, Reid changes his mind, Burris changes his mind, or this remains unresolved for a while."

I don't think it's that simple. If the Court's reading of the law is that the law doesn't require Secretary of State certification to be valid, then what that means is that, without any doubt, this is a legal appointment under Illinois law. So for Reid to maintain his present line he, essentially, has to argue that Senate tradition trumps Illinois election law, and the Constitution by extension (since the Constitution gives state legislatures authority to set election law in the states). That seems like a pretty dubious argument, to say the least, and I think what the Court really did today was force, in a de facto sense, the Senate to seat Burris.

Put me in the camp of the Senate: The Secretary of State should certify that appointments are lawful. This is impossible in that the current governor was indicted for selling this appointment. It is a rare instance where the Secretary of State has a technical veto--the governor is exercising authority for which he is under criminal indictment. It is the same as delaying an inheritance for someone who murdered the parties who let him or her the estate. This is actually an important matter I would like to see clarified once and for all in the highest court: can a governmental executive indicted for selling appointments continue to exercise that authority without restraint once charges are publicly levied? The answer should be no, and the process to try the accused and remedy the situation should become the highest priority of the state or federal courts in question.

The Congressional Democrats could be a Monty Python sketch.