Roland Burris new Ill senator Breaking

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...ette.senate/index.html

Thought this was a pretty entertaining alternative opinion on the process.

Senate Democrats probably don't have a leg to stand on. They don't have the legal authority to bar Roland Burris. And as a bunch of white men presiding over a body that -- as Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois, bluntly pointed out this week in defense of Burris -- doesn't have a single African-American member, nor do they have the moral authority to do so.

The powers-that-be in the Democratic Party are trapped by their own hollow rhetoric about inclusion and opportunity. And it's great fun to watch.

Reuben Navarette is unfortunately a complete moron, and a reliable right wing hack. Unfortunately I am exposed to his stupidity more often than most as he's part of the San Diego UT's editorial board. He's the same guy that in the space of a single article on Richardson's appointment to Commerce contradicted his own opinion at least twice... and the article wasn't that long.

A lot of legal analysis says that the Senate most likely DOES have the ability to keep Burris out, if nothing else at least long enough for the Lt. Governor to make a competing appointment that they can accept instead. As for moral authority, our good friend Reuben is just descending into ridiculous hackery. Wanting to include black people doesn't mean that you have to include any black person who happens to show up, and we all know that.

I have read him over the last couple of years. I dont know where you think he comes off as a right wing hack. Most of the time his articles were race baiting jabs republicans. At least the ones I read.

That said the legality of it is an interesting issue. http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./395/486/

Case looks rather similar and determined provided the candidate is elected or appointed according to the constitution the senate cant exclude members from being seated.

I think it will be moot anyways once the Illinois Supreme court demands the secretary of state to certify him. The democrats in congress are stuck between a rock and a hard place on this guy and will seat him once certified.

But it would make for an interesting case imo.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Totally agree! There is a reason why such appointment by the Gov has to be certified by the State Secretary, it's called "Check & Balance".

no, that's merely a rubber stamp and the state secretary has no true power, burris can get the seat with or without the state secretary's signature.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Totally agree! There is a reason why such appointment by the Gov has to be certified by the State Secretary, it's called "Check & Balance".

no, that's merely a rubber stamp and the state secretary has no true power, burris can get the seat with or without the state secretary's signature.

Maybe, maybe not.

Looks to me that IL law says the IL Secretary must counter-sign. Therefore without his signature appears the US Senate can refuse to seat him under the US Constitution.

No, I think Burris must follow the path he's on - getting a Writ of Mondamus (sp?) to force the IL Sec. to sign.

To proceed otherwise, because his is an appointment rendering the IL Sec signature a simple formality, would likely entail many Constutitional challenges/problems.

Fern

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Jiggz

Totally agree! There is a reason why such appointment by the Gov has to be certified by the State Secretary, it's called "Check & Balance".

no, that's merely a rubber stamp and the state secretary has no true power, burris can get the seat with or without the state secretary's signature.

Maybe, maybe not.

Looks to me that IL law says the IL Secretary must counter-sign. Therefore without his signature appears the US Senate can refuse to seat him under the US Constitution.

No, I think Burris must follow the path he's on - getting a Writ of Mondamus (sp?) to force the IL Sec. to sign.

To proceed otherwise, because his is an appointment rendering the IL Sec signature a simple formality, would likely entail many Constutitional challenges/problems.

Fern

letting a secratary of state have that much power is a stupid president to set. should the sec. of state be able to basically veto anything the govener does? i think he should be seated with or without the signature.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone
And to think this all might have been avoided if Jack Ryan hadn't tried to get his ultra-sexy wife Jeri to have public sex with strangers in Paris. What a world!

lol my God...

Hey at least is wasn't man on man sex. Thats a first for the republicans in like 12 years.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

This is bullshit that the Illinois dems are willing to compromise on ANY appointment made by Blowjobavic. I really hoped Obama would have more integrity than that.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
This is bullshit that the Illinois dems are willing to compromise on ANY appointment made by Blowjobavic. I really hoped Obama would have more integrity than that.

Obviously, he doesn't. This whole Blago/Burris issue is disgusting and revolting. If Burris had any integrity he would not have accepted Blago's appointment in the first place. He would have waited until the investigation was over.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

I suppose so. My only problem with Burris is that he's enough of a slimeball to be Blago's pawn. Other than that, I think he's a good guy. Accepting the position has just tainted his character in my book. Now, Burris is not someone that can be trusted.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
I suppose so. My only problem with Burris is that he's enough of a slimeball to be Blago's pawn. Other than that, I think he's a good guy. Accepting the position has just tainted his character in my book. Now, Burris is not someone that can be trusted.

A good guy would not keep an innocent man on death row...so he apparently was tainted even before that.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Well fine then he's a total slimeball. Either way he's just annoying me now. Both him and Roland Martin on CNN.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: herm0016

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

letting a secratary of state have that much power is a stupid president to set. should the sec. of state be able to basically veto anything the govener does? i think he should be seated with or without the signature.

I'd say first that's a state issue, not one for the US Senate. The US Constitution gives the states the power to rule over their elections (of course, 'checks & balances' says they can't do something like prohibit women from voting).

But as it's a state issue, state rules will be followed. I.e., the IL Sec doesn't really have the power to refuse the signature under these circumstances (at least that's my understanding because it was an appointment and not a contested election). So, the proper course would seem to be filing an IL case forcing the IL Sec to sign the document (Writ of Mondamus). I think Burris has done that already, and filed yesterday to have that case accelerated.

(BTW: IIRC something similar happened at the federal level very early in the US history. The SCOTUS derived much of thier power in that (Writ of Mondamus) case. IIRC an outgoing Prez decided to sign a bunch of appointments on the ve of his replacement and the Sec refused etc. SCOTUS made him sign too)

I enjoy these type situations. They really help demonstrate the 'nuts & bolts' of our system of government and the Constitution.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
This is bullshit that the Illinois dems are willing to compromise on ANY appointment made by Blowjobavic. I really hoped Obama would have more integrity than that.

What more can Obama do?

He's come out publicly against the appointment etc.

Even if Obama were President, he'd be in the Exec branch and, AFAIK, have no power over the Legislative branch.

The whole situation is distgusting, and Blago out-manoevered Reid and the IL Dems. But once we get past the emotion we realize thier probably only 2 options: (1) Follow the law and seat Burris when the IL Sec signs, or (2) drag our feet, refuse, have it go to the courts etc. The latter will still likely result in Burris as Senator.

I think at this point Reid and the others who spoke so bravely are just looking for a way out that saves face.

Fern

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ElMonoDelMar
This is bullshit that the Illinois dems are willing to compromise on ANY appointment made by Blowjobavic. I really hoped Obama would have more integrity than that.

What more can Obama do?

He's come out publicly against the appointment etc.

CNN reported that Obama is warming to the idea of Burris as his replacement. He should publicly say that he does not support Burris until the courts force White to sign the certificate and there is no other way to keep him from office. At that point he can begin to play nice with him.

It's just disappointing to hear all of the tough talk from Obama and Reid about how Burris shouldn't be seated then after one meeting they roll over to save face.

ETA: How can anyone take seriously an appointment made by a guy out on bail? It may come down to where the senate has to legally recognize Burris, but he should still be the laughing stock of the entire government.