Roland Burris new Ill senator Breaking

[dawp]

http://www.propublica.org/arti...-for-innocent-man-1231

not sure about this source, but if true, I'm not sure I'd want a Senator from my state that would put a man life on the line for political gain, especially since it appears that he was innocent and set free after Burris lost the election for governor.

 

[K1052]

Apparently Jesse White has refused in writing to certify Burris.

Burris now has filed with the IL Supreme Court to force the Secretary of State to certify him.

Even if he gets past this the Democrats in Congress are going to tie him up in a investigation prior to being seated. An investigation that will happen to last long enough for Blagojevich to be impeached.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: dawp
http://www.propublica.org/arti...-for-innocent-man-1231

not sure about this source, but if true, I'm not sure I'd want a Senator from my state that would put a man life on the line for political gain, especially since it appears that he was innocent and set free after Burris lost the election for governor.

wow. if this is indeed true and burris knew he was innocent but still pressed on, then burris is a piece of garbage and should not be holding any political office.

 

[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.

 

[OrByte]

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.

entertaining POV indeed but entirely miscalculated. The Senate Dems may not legally bar the appointment of Burris, but they stand against him for reasons other than the fact that he is black.

The issue of his race has nothing to do with why the Senate, and presumably the majority of America, is against this man taking that seat. Blagovich royally screwed the pooch, and he needs to be censored in any and every way imaginable until he is out of his position as Governor.

As for Burris, he was DENIED today... teehee!

AP link

Burris seems to behave contradictory to his circumstances. I can't understand how he is handling himself with such hubris after the controversial way he was appointed. If I were him I would have turned the offer down and sought the seat via the next Governor or special election.

strange stuff...

 

[Viper GTS]

I wasn't quite sure whether to feel sorry for Burris or just laugh at him for being such an idiot to try to force his way in and completely blowing what may have been a legitimate shot at it.

Now I'm convinced he's a moron, & he's making an absolute fool of himself. Had he just rejected the appointment he just might have ended up with the seat.

Viper GTS

 

[Jiggz]

Power hunger and corruption at its best! Anyways, Burris was denied the seat he wished for despite looking like an idiot and stupid at the highest degree! It's not a surprise he let himself be pimped by Blago despite the ongoing controversial. How stupid can he be? Illinois politics at its best! Yup Illinois! WOoaahh, I don't even want to think about it!

 

[ProfJohn]

This whole thing sounds like a great idea for a Grishom book

The Appointment

Innocent SAG is appoint to a Senate seat by a corrupt governor. And now the SAG is in a race against time to be seated before his political enemies can get the governor removed.

Add in some sex in a bathroom stall, a couple of call girls, $400,000 in a freezer and a gay congressman who preys on congressional pages and you'd have a blockbuster.

The sad thing is that it is ALL true. No wonder we are so messed up as a country.

 

[daveymark]

now burris is saying he's going to sue to get his seat if he has to... it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion....

 

[Lemon law]

OK Ok, lets all agree, Burris is ( or now was ) not a corrupt individual, and according to the State Constitution of Illinois, under normal circumstances, the sitting Governor of Illinois has the legal right to appoint someone anyone otherwise legally qualified to replace the Senate seat resigned by Obama.

But just as all events can't be anticipated, which is the reason some things in a constitution are left vague, a safety clause was left that the Illinois Sec of State had to certify the appointment.

Because, the very second a very credible law enforcement agency Arrested the Illinois sitting governor for the CRIME OF SELLING THE OBAMA SEAT, its simple common sense that we cannot
consider that Governor as fit for the office or able to appoint.

Sadly, the Illinois legislative impeachment does take time and SHOULD REQUIRE hard evidence, and that is delayed by other legal requirements of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, which is why Federal Prosecutors are taking the extraordinary step of petitioning a Federal Judge for permission to share this evidence with the Illinois legislature bi-partisan committee that will decide if impeachment for Blago should proceed or not. That decision is not made yet.

Meanwhile, I think common sense dictates that the Burris appointment should be stayed and questioned as not legitimate.

And therefore, if Blogo is impeached, and then convicted in the Illinois Senate, he will then no longer be Illinois Governor, and the Lt. Governor will become the New Illinois Governor with the power to appoint
someone to fill the empty Obama seat. And if Blago is not removed from office, the Burris appointment is legal.

But to some extent, Burris, by his own over reaching arrogance, somewhat missed a possible opportunity, and a good compromise. Because if the Illinois current Lt. Governor had written to the Illinois Sec of State, and stated he too would have likewise appoint Burris if he became Governor, the Blogo taint would be lifted off of Burris's shoulders, and he could be seated by the US Senate immediately.

But when Burris tried a power play and cozied up to Blogolevich sleeze, he lost that chance, at least IMHO.

 

[OCGuy]

It sucks to see a legitimate senate candidate screw up his chances of having a distinguished career by accepting such a tainted appointment.

Now if he just plays the race card against the dems, it will be like Xmas all over again. :laugh:

 

[dbk]

Bobby Rush says it's racist. Just broke on FNC.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This whole thing sounds like a great idea for a Grishom book

The Appointment

Innocent SAG is appoint to a Senate seat by a corrupt governor. And now the SAG is in a race against time to be seated before his political enemies can get the governor removed.

Add in some sex in a bathroom stall, a couple of call girls, $400,000 in a freezer and a gay congressman who preys on congressional pages and you'd have a blockbuster.

The sad thing is that it is ALL true. No wonder we are so messed up as a country.

I'd prefer to see Tom Wolfe write it a la Bonfire of the Vanities. The movie adaptation would have to be rated R to be any good, if only because Blago said the "F" word so many times on the phone (if memory serves you can only include it once in a PG-13 movie).

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[nageov3t]

no one was even talking about Burris as a replacement for Obama and there's a reason for it. this guy has never been able to win a major election in IL except down-ticket races like AG. he's lost democratic primaries multiple times. he's already lost an election attempt trying to win this senate seat, as well as unsuccessfully running for governor twice and mayor of chicago.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: dbk
Bobby Rush says it's racist. Just broke on FNC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bobby Rush's previous positions discredit what he is saying now, because he supported a white guy against Obama after Obama beat him in the primaries.

Even though Burris is not not exactly inciteful about the public mood and the Blogojevich taint he gets when he cozies up to Blago, Burris is smart enough to realize the racist argument made by Bobby Rush is empty grandstanding and pandering.

And as the process plays out, and Lt. Governor Quinn may get promoted to Governor, we have no idea if Lt. Governor Quinn will appoint a white, black, hispanic, or whatever candidate.

The real question is why anyone credits the opinion of Bobby Rush with any mantle of credibility, Rush has a coequal right to an opinion, but, IMHO, his reasoning stinks.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: dbk
Bobby Rush says it's racist. Just broke on FNC.

woot! it gets better and better! now its a race issue!

 

[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!

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: K1052
Apparently Jesse White has refused in writing to certify Burris.
-snip-

I believe this is the only thing allowing the Senate to now refuse Burris. Actually, I don't think that they could seat him until he gets it, even if they wanted to.

If the IL court forces White to sign, I suspect Burris will eventually get this seat unless he voluntarily gives it up.

IMO, the courts will likely find the Blago appointment is legal and binding. I don't think it will matter if Blago is later impeached. He was still in office at the time of the appointment and legally justified (if not required) to make a selection. I think the Senate could drag this out, but will unltimately lose. Their only legal recourse will be to hold vote and expell Burris.

The SCOTUS case seems pretty clear to me. It also seems very common sense and good policy.

Fern

 

[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...

 

[Lemon law]

Now if we can just get Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Paris Hilton, the pope, the religious right, Gay Rights activists, Tom Delay, the various flat earth advocates, Mormon multiple marriage advocates, some pedophiles, Bernie Madoff, Ossama Bin Laden, and a few other groups to weigh in on this subject, we can make common sense even harder to achieve.

We have a fine start already, but when we are on a roll, lets murder common sense and common ground.

As Aimster sez, I win. Only the shadow knows.

 

[Jiggz]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
OK Ok, lets all agree, Burris is ( or now was ) not a corrupt individual, and according to the State Constitution of Illinois, under normal circumstances, the sitting Governor of Illinois has the legal right to appoint someone anyone otherwise legally qualified to replace the Senate seat resigned by Obama.

But just as all events can't be anticipated, which is the reason some things in a constitution are left vague, a safety clause was left that the Illinois Sec of State had to certify the appointment.

Because, the very second a very credible law enforcement agency Arrested the Illinois sitting governor for the CRIME OF SELLING THE OBAMA SEAT, its simple common sense that we cannot
consider that Governor as fit for the office or able to appoint.

Sadly, the Illinois legislative impeachment does take time and SHOULD REQUIRE hard evidence, and that is delayed by other legal requirements of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, which is why Federal Prosecutors are taking the extraordinary step of petitioning a Federal Judge for permission to share this evidence with the Illinois legislature bi-partisan committee that will decide if impeachment for Blago should proceed or not. That decision is not made yet.

Meanwhile, I think common sense dictates that the Burris appointment should be stayed and questioned as not legitimate.

And therefore, if Blogo is impeached, and then convicted in the Illinois Senate, he will then no longer be Illinois Governor, and the Lt. Governor will become the New Illinois Governor with the power to appoint
someone to fill the empty Obama seat. And if Blago is not removed from office, the Burris appointment is legal.

But to some extent, Burris, by his own over reaching arrogance, somewhat missed a possible opportunity, and a good compromise. Because if the Illinois current Lt. Governor had written to the Illinois Sec of State, and stated he too would have likewise appoint Burris if he became Governor, the Blogo taint would be lifted off of Burris's shoulders, and he could be seated by the US Senate immediately.

But when Burris tried a power play and cozied up to Blogolevich sleeze, he lost that chance, at least IMHO.

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".

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: K1052
Apparently Jesse White has refused in writing to certify Burris.
-snip-

I believe this is the only thing allowing the Senate to now refuse Burris. Actually, I don't think that they could seat him until he gets it, even if they wanted to.

If the IL court forces White to sign, I suspect Burris will eventually get this seat unless he voluntarily gives it up.

IMO, the courts will likely find the Blago appointment is legal and binding. I don't think it will matter if Blago is later impeached. He was still in office at the time of the appointment and legally justified (if not required) to make a selection. I think the Senate could drag this out, but will unltimately lose. Their only legal recourse will be to hold vote and expell Burris.

The SCOTUS case seems pretty clear to me. It also seems very common sense and good policy.

Fern

You need to read the constitution. It gives the Senate the power to make any decisions regarding the eligibility of who gets to be a Senator.

What I think we have here is an awkward situation where the democrats have some pressures ranging from defending the integrity of the appointment process from someone who badly violated it, to the political pretty to stand up to corrupton in their own party, but faced with a nominess who was the governor's attempt to make a 'clean' nomination, not someone who had bought the seat. They also face the issue of wanting someone who can win the seat in 2010, and the ongoing 'bad press' while the issue is open.

I blame the Illinois legislature for not providing an alternative process.

Faced with that, the Senate leadership *might* reach a compromise where they left him serve 2 years if he doesn't run in 2010. An ugly compromise, but what are the choices?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: K1052
-snip-

-snip-

You need to read the constitution. It gives the Senate the power to make any decisions regarding the eligibility of who gets to be a Senator.
-snip-

Nope. You need to read the SCOTUS case (Powell v McCormack) on the matter. It was cited earlier in this thread.

In part:

Once the Congress had satisfied itself that a candidate member had been presented to it from a Congressional District in accordance with the Congressional District?s State constitution and laws and was also not in conflict with the Congressional qualifications set down in the U.S. constitution, the U.S. Congress had an affirmative constitutional duty to administer the oath to, swear in, and enroll upon the rolls, the candidate member as a Member of Congress.

I.e., if Burris meets the age, citizenship and (state) residency requirements in the US Constitution and the State presents them as a Senator, the US Senate must seat/swear them in.

Thereafter, the Senate can hold a vote to expell them.

If you think about it for a bit you'll understand why Congress can't just refuse seat a state certified representative. It's, in the broader picture, a states' rights issue and a checks & balances issue. For Congressional leadership to be able to refuse a person for any whim could lead to all kinds of skullduggery.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

What a difference a day makes.


Today is now a new ball game, in yesterdays press conference, Burris finally sounded the right note of humility, public ally conceding that there are honest reasons for the State of Illinois and the US Senate to question his validity. And at least, IMHO, he is making his own personal case for the seat rather than relying on the divine right of the Blagojevich appointment.

And that argument has seemingly turned his opponents around, as Reid and Burris met this morning, and now many are now starting to go to bat for Burris.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...on_go_co/senate_burris

And as long as Burris is willing to distance himself from Blago, it may be somewhat of a matter of honor satisfied, those democrats horrified by Blago behavior, are willing to accept Burris as a Senator, if he makes his case to them, rather than relying on the divine right of Blago. That and the fact that Illinois public opinion supports Burris as an honest man, may allow a common sense compromise very possible, and may allow the US Senate to seat Burris in the very near future. Feinstien support for Burris has helped his case and now Obama has likewise put in a endorsement.

Now if Burris makes his personal case to the Illinois Sec of State in the proper way, or Lt. Gov. Quinn states he will appoint Burris if Blago is impeached, all opposition may vanish.