home

Blago To Annouce His Choice For New Illinois Senator Today

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:16:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via SusanG, Blago is really something:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.

I do not know anything about Burris except he seems willing to stain himself here in this farce. I assume the Senate will not seat him.

Speaking for me only

< Politico Making Things Up Again | The Blago Farce >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Blago To Annouce His Choice For New Illinois Senator Today | 199 comments (199 topical)
    Blago decides to eff with Harry Reid (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    Frankly, knowing what I do about the Majority leader, so would I.

    Agreed. Reid will bluster but (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    do nothing.  Not sure Reid should do anything, actually.  Burris is a former, elected AG of Illinois, a Dem. who has repeatedly run for other state offices but been wiped out in the Dem. primaries.

    Parent
    Blago may have the law on his side (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:22:40 PM EST
    Though honestly, the Senate doesn't like to be told what to do.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:24:06 PM EST
    the Court can issue a ruling but he will enforce it? And in this case of all cases.

    This is pretty ourtrageous from Blago and idiotic from Burris.

    Parent

    It all seems very banana republic to me (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:28:33 PM EST
    Blago is. . .raising.

    Maybe he's upset that he's not getting any headlines.

    Parent

    This is a farce (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    and it has the real ability to interfere with Obama's first hundred days.

    Parent
    "Moon Over Parador" (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:49:44 PM EST
    [link]

    Parent
    Love that movie (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha - great reference (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    Funny funny movie.

    Parent
    Lieberman. (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:25:27 PM EST
    Reid is all bark, no bite.

    Parent
    I know - and when even the people (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:19:49 PM EST
    on Reid's side can't resist effing with him, maybe he is the one that should step aside.

    As regards to Blago, if his position is that he did nothing wrong, then he has to appoint someone, so I don't agree that he is stupid to appoint someone.  If whoever he is picking during this period when he has been under intense scrutiny is unblemished except for the fact of being picked by Blago, he is probably a better selection than would have come from some 'reputable' governors.

    Is Burris stupid to accept the appointment, if it comes?  Is it an insult to be appointed because you have a clean reputation and are otherwise not associated with a crooked governor? I think that is for him to decide - I would not look down on him either way.  It seems to me a case could be made for honest interim representation of the state of Illinois.

    Illinois has had what, nearly a month? to impeach Blago, or make holding office intolerable for him. Apparently the 2nd is impossible, and by not hopping on the 1st immediately, they have left the door open for this.

    Personally I am enjoying the amusing story, since the position of the most junior senator is not a hugely important one - until he decides to run for president in two years.

    Parent

    It seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:26:46 PM EST
    that Illinois law requires Blago to appoint someone.

    When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress, at which time such vacancy shall be filled by election, and the senator so elected shall take office as soon thereafter as he shall receive his certificate of election.
     10 ILCS 5/25‑8

    Do you guys expect Blago to break the law?  ;)

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:29:45 PM EST
    All the more reason to have impeached him immediately. Maybe now the IL SC will be willing to act.

    Parent
    wiretaps (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    and perhaps THIS is why Fitz is willing to release some of the wiretap tapes pre indictment...

    Parent
    Blago does not have to fill (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:24:11 PM EST
    the vacancy.

    Parent
    I mean logically, he does (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST
    in order to make his argument. (It is a ridiculous argument given the tapes, but it is his argument nonetheless.)

    Legally, there are of course many other options.

    Parent

    True, (none / 0) (#116)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    but your opinion of Reid being an invertebrate may be based on his stances with Republicans and Lieberman.  With Democrats, he may become the man of steel.

    Parent
    Hahaha, (none / 0) (#186)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:12:59 PM EST
    The governor stuck his finger right in Harry's eye, didn't he?  

    Now the Senate is between a rock and hard place.  How do they reject a nice, elderly, Black man who has done nothing wrong?  What do they use as an excuse to vote to ban him?  That the Governor might, eventually, be convicted of crime?  

    Unfortunately, I see this dragging on for many months and eventually the Supreme Court over ruling the Senate if they try to block Burris because of something the Governor has been accused of doing.  Just my take.............

    Parent

    I think he gets seated.... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:20:26 PM EST
    Burris is the first man of color to win election in the state of Illinois. He is a Dem and NOT part of the Blago machine, in fact he ran against Blago in 02. He served as the Atty General as well..

    The state DEMS blew it, they should have had a special election or stripped Blago of the right to appoint if possible, no way Reid blocks the first AA to win election and one untainted, no way, Reid doesnt have the chutzpah to do it IMO...

    more here:

    and why did he run in '02 (none / 0) (#90)
    by ryanwc on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:29:34 PM EST
    While his ample ego could have been the reason, no one believed he would win, and many cynics believed he understood that, and stayed in the race to swing it to Blagojevich, since Vallas would have destroyed Blags in the black community, as a popular school administrator who had immensely improved the performance of the predominantly black Chicago Public Schools.

    In the late 80's, the schools were criticized as the shame of the nation, and in the early 90's, the Pres. of the state Senate called them a rathole for state money.  Vallas didn't make CPS into a shining beacon of educational hope, but he did end the corruption and make it merely a big city district with all the normal big city problems.  He laid the groundwork for Arnie Duncan's educational experiments.  Vallas was popular, but scary to the machine, and lost by only 20,000 votes in more than million cast.  Burris was definitely the difference, and Burris was definitely rewarded - he's got major state contracts now.

    Parent

    You think he was a stalking horse for Blago (none / 0) (#92)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    in '02? Heh. I'd buy that.

    Parent
    ahh the stalking horse, gotcha! (none / 0) (#99)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    ahhh like Edwards was eh? LOL!! Man this is a dirty business is politics
    razzle dazzle em baby....

    Parent
    You are so right! (none / 0) (#187)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:14:06 PM EST
    There's no way the democrats in the Senate will block this man.  The Governor outfoxed ol' Harry.  He got him good with this choice.

    Parent
    It's the perfect pic (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    Blago didn't get to be governor without political skill.  And with this pic, he shows it.  Congrats to Senator Burris!

    pick (none / 0) (#15)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    that is.

    Parent
    Supposedly, Burris is "clean" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:30:05 PM EST
    he's a former bank examiner, a former state comptroller and state AG.

    All in all, IMHO if it weren't Blago doing the picking, he'd be pretty much a shoo-in no-brainer.  From his law firm bio:

    He is a former politician and statewide officeholder in Illinois. Mr. Burris was appointed by the Governor of Illinois as Director of the Department of Central Management Services from 1973 to 1977. He went on to serve as Comptroller of Illinois from 1983 to 1991, where he was the first African American to be elected to a statewide office in the state of Illinois. Mr. Burris was the Attorney General of Illinois from 1991 to 1995 and became the second African American elected to the office of Attorney General in the United States. He has also served as Vice-Chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1985 to 1989.
    Offering a wealth of experience in financial services, Mr. Burris became the first African-American National Bank Examiner for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for the U.S. Treasury Department. He was the Vice President of Continental Illinois National Bank working in both the Trust Tax Department and Commercial Lending. Mr. Burris has served as President of the National Association of Comptroller and of the National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers. He was also a Trustee of the Financial Accounting Foundation Board and served three years on the Executive Board as a Trustee of the Government Finance Office Association of the United States and Canada.

    A graduate of Southern Illinois and Howard U. Law.  He's 71 or so, which means he's likely seen as a place-holder.

    But Blago IS doing the picking (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Blago is announcing the pick. (none / 0) (#28)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:33:31 PM EST
    WE do not know whether Blago actually picked Burris.

    Given the prior description of Blago (levelled by some of his aides) as "dumber than a box of rocks", I would not be surprised if it wasn't Blago doing the picking all by his lonesome.

    But I'm naturally suspicious.

    Parent

    That's absurd (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST


    Parent
    More absurd than Blago getting caught on tape (none / 0) (#39)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    trying to auction the seat - carrying on those kind of conversations despite knowing that Fitz (of all people) has been investigating him and his administration for literally years?

    More absurd than any of the other aspects of The Saga of Blago the Clown?

    More absurd than Blago saying "go ahead, tape me, I got nothing to hide" not knowing a day later he'd be arrested based on what had already been taped?

    Parent

    It's abvsurd because (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    this is an exercise of Blago's gubernatorial power.

    Hell, I do not care if it was Obama's idea, this is a no go period.

    Blago stains everything he touches now.

    This is a farce.

    Parent

    The Repubs are loving this (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:37:25 PM EST


    As they should (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:38:31 PM EST


    Parent
    You know, I am not a fan of Obama (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:11:20 PM EST
    an understatement I am sure you will agree with.

    But the country does not need this. There are problems stacked up 15 miles deep. We need the parties to be discussing them, the media to be discussing them, but not this.

    Parent

    In my book (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:01:47 PM EST
    this is all a big game of chicken.  The Senate really does not have much of a leg to stand on, but they are hoping to dissuade Blagojevich from actually sending them an appointee.

    I think the key people to watch for a reaction at this point are Pat Quinn and the other Democratic leaders in Illinois.

    Don't you think Obama wants (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:21:38 PM EST
    everything about Blago out of the news as soon as possible?

    Parent
    Of course Obama wants this done (none / 0) (#188)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    But that's not going to happen.  Governor will continue to insist he's innocent.  Burris will be seated in the Senate, or the Supremes will overrule the Senate.  I don't see how we get a quick resolution of this.  Hope I am wrong.

    Parent
    Fitzpatrick asks the Court for (none / 0) (#200)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    90 more days to return an indictment.

    Parent
    I will say this for Blago... (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by ks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    The man has a huge pair.  Whether it works or not, this is a very slick move by him.

    oh ches (none / 0) (#147)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    oh definitely!!

    a tune for Blago

    Parent

    If Blago is going to fight to finish (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:49:52 PM EST
    and wins an impeachment or an indictment then you got to honor his appointment.  So Reid should say we will not seat the appointment until, 1. Blago Resigns and the successor picks a senator or 2. Blago is proven innocent of his charges.
    If innocent then Reid should pick  Burris if he is clean.


    flip side (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:57:55 PM EST
    I agree, I mean if Reid DOES block the appointment by someone who is not even indicted yet, someone who is innocent until PROVEN guilty, then couldnt it set a precedent for GOP to indict GOVs ie Alabama, and then refuse to honor any of their work or appointments? I mean it would be a frakin free for all then..

    The state leg blew it IMO by not pushing thru the special election, I think Burris gets it.

    Parent

    How can Reid do that? (none / 0) (#189)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:36:17 PM EST
    The law doesn't permit him that latitude.  If Reid tried that, Blago would head straight to SCOTUS.

    Parent
    Weird dems (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    A few weeks ago I read that the dems in Illinois were prepared to impeach Blago - but did not want to remove his power to appoint a successor to Obama.

    It seems obvious that they don't care about whom he appoints - as long as he is a democrat.

    And if they have advanced any impeachment proceedings, I haven't heard about them. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

    The stench of corruption is everywhere.

    Let's see what the US Senate does.
    I wouldn't be shocked or surprised if they did nothing.

    Maybe you missed (none / 0) (#131)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:10:22 PM EST
    This story.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#166)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:27:56 PM EST
    I read the story that you linked to.

    This was from December 15.

    They're asking Blago to "do the right thing", or they will proceed with impeachment. Clearly he gave them the middle digit. Are they going to do anything about it?

    Also, this quote from the article: "Even as members for the impeachment committee were being named, it was clear that few here understood precisely how the impeachment process would go forward."

    This is the last I heard about anything.
    December 15.

     

    Parent

    Can they impeach him (none / 0) (#190)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST
    When he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet?  Does the law permit that?  

    Parent
    It is done (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:13:57 PM EST
    "Please don't allow the allegations against me to taint this good and honest man."

    Blago v. Reid.  Who blinks?  

    Bobby Rush to the rescue! (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    Laying down his marker for Burris and making it a race issue...all about AAs in the senate and elsewhere.

    Do I get to say "toldyaso?"

    I'm waiting for Al Sharpton to (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:16:57 PM EST
    chime in.

    Parent
    Heh, And Jesse, Sr. And Carol (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:21:41 PM EST
    Moseley Braun and ...

    Yep.  Blago gets the Illinois AA vote and the Dem Party has to swallow hard and eat dirt because this is now a race issue and therefore, no win.

    Parent

    Rush (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:17:16 PM EST
    oh oh there ya go!!! Bobby RUsh says he prayed that another African American would be appointed he begs not to lynch the appointee..that the SoS was premature, there is NO reason he not be appointed, it is of national importance, there must be an AA in the Senate he says, yep Reid is gonna buckle like a wet paper bag as always, yep.

    Would it be wrong of me to compare (5.00 / 6) (#152)
    by Anne on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    Harry Reid's record of wins with that of the Detroit Lions?  Because, whatever stirring speeches he delivers in the "locker room," he never delivers on the field.

    I don't see this time as being any different, and now that the African -American community is weighing in, I think it's over.

    If the Burris appointment would have been acceptable coming from anyone else, I can't see Reid and the rest of the powder-puff Dems holding the line - the ranks will break and once again Reid will be giving a press conference making excuses for why he caved.

    We've seen this episode so often, I'm sure we could all recite the dialogue.

    Too bad Boston Legal has (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:41:24 PM EST
    played its last episode...now it will be left to SNL to have fun with this high comedy political theatre.

    Bet they get almost as big an audience as Sarah Palin.  Who'll play Blago?  

    Ringo? (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:50:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Nah...maybe Billy Crystal or (none / 0) (#165)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:01:03 PM EST
    Martin Short?

    Parent
    Gotta have the mop top though. (none / 0) (#167)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:34:27 PM EST
    I really doubt Blago would be in such hot water if he didn't have the aweful hairdo.

    Parent
    Wigs are plentiful.... (none / 0) (#168)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:37:58 PM EST
    easiest thing in the world to fake.  The voice?  Hardest...except...hey!  Maybe they'll get Tina to do it!

    Parent
    Or...Rich Little?!? (none / 0) (#169)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:38:39 PM EST


    Parent
    Burris is (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by JThomas on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:53:11 PM EST
    a good pick by a bad man. This sucks. As an Illinois taxpayer, we cannot afford 50 million for a special election. Illinois should have representation and Blago the jerk will not lay down for months now..so..hope that Durbin talks to Reid and makes it clear that Burris is clean and that there is no rule against having an african american in the senate...altho only Illinois seems to realize that fact.

    Burris steps aside in a mere 22 months while the campaign starts in about 15 months for his replacement. He is a an expert in finance and that is not a bad thing right now.

    Blago isn't going anywhere (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 03:22:17 PM EST
    Until he's officially removed from office, he's going to continue to play the role of governor. Being accused doesn't mean guilty until proven innocent.

    After running and hiding ftom everything from Iraq to FISA, I would hope that this isn't the fight Reid decides to go to the mat for. If he does, he'll be handing the seat to the Republican's in 2010. I don't want another Senator Fitzgerald or worse (Oberwiess!) representing me.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:49:57 PM EST
    Burris is qualified and I doubt Senate can do anything about that.  From a legal standpoint, I don't see an opening for the Senate to fail to seat him.  I suppose if it could be proven that burris came to the appointment based on a payoff there may be some wiggle room, but I see none of that.

    I also wonder what is wrong with him that so many are up at arms?  Thus far, I have not read anything negative and he certainly has had a long career of governmental service with private sector experience as well.

    The fact that he is a black man replacing a black man and there are no black members of the Senate makes this awfully difficult.  

    missing the point (none / 0) (#179)
    by txpublicdefender on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:22:56 PM EST
    People aren't up in arms with him because of anything about him, other than maybe his very questionable judgment to accept this appointment.  People are up in arms about a person who was caught on wiretaps talking about how much he could get for the seat appointing someone to the seat.  

    Parent
    I do understand that (none / 0) (#182)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:27:04 PM EST
    Talk is cheap, however.  In the end, this does not appear to be a sold Senate seat and the appointee seems worthy.

    Parent
    Burris (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST
    "I do not know anything about Burris except he seems willing to stain himself here in this farce. I assume the Senate will not seat him."

    One thing we know at this point is that Burris is an African-American. Hello Senate democrats. Go ahead and refuse to seat him.

    Blago is not as dumb as he looks.

    I think he just played (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    the race card.

    Parent
    Now we know a little more... (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    Huffpo, admittedly not a very reliable source, is saying that Burris raised a lot of dough for Blago.

    Amusingly, the article quotes Burris saying this about Blago in 2006 when criticism of the governor began to surface: "I can't see how anyone can say he is not governing," Burris said. "I think he is doing a helluva job."

    You can't make this stuff up.

    Burris

    Parent

    Burris raised money for Blago's (none / 0) (#180)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:28:23 PM EST
    campaign and then received state contracts for his consulting business.  

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#181)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:14:11 PM EST
    Sounds like my kind of Senator.

    Parent
    TPM says the Senate's (none / 0) (#4)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:21:23 PM EST
    ability to not seat someone applies to elections, not appointments....Or, so TPM notes is one line of thinking....

    This whole thing just gets weirder and weirder...

    Well, first the rules of the Senate, (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:25:15 PM EST
    which say:
    1. The presentation of the credentials of Senators elect or of Senators designate and other questions of privilege shall always be in order, except during the reading and correction of the Journal, while a question of order or a motion to adjourn is pending, or while the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum; and all questions and motions arising or made upon the presentation of such credentials shall be proceeded with until disposed of.

    Of course, if we dig a little deeper, I bet we find that someone has to move to consider the appointment.

    Parent

    He is what he is. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Fabian on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    I expected nothing else.

    In a way, I'm comparing the way this is playing out to Bush versus Congress.  There were no charges against Bush, no threat of impeachment either, but Bush kept daring Congress to stop him.  Iraq?  The budget?  FISA?  How much did Congress actually stand up to Bush?

    Frankly, it sounds like a reasonable. . . (none / 0) (#8)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:25:09 PM EST
    way out.  I assume Burris (he's 71) would come in as a place-holder with no intention of running.  Illinois gets its representation and the selection process is as free of taint as possible under the circumstances.

    Completely unreasonable (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    Blago should resign for crissakes.

    At the least, he should not pick a new Senator.

    Parent

    Well, yes, he should resign. . . (none / 0) (#29)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    I guess (on the whole, I don't believe untried charges leveled by a Bush appointee are grounds for a Democratic governor to resign, but I'll make an exception in this case).

    But given that he isn't resigning, I think a place-holder appointment of someone from outside his circle with nothing to gain or lose is a reasonable way to go.  Otherwise, Illinois is without full representation until the issue is resolved.


    Parent

    There are worse things (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:36:35 PM EST
    than being without representation.

    Parent
    Given that he is not resigning (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:36:39 PM EST
    he should be impeached.

    Parent
    Why would he resign? (none / 0) (#191)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:42:29 PM EST
    Wouldn't that be admitting that he had done something wrong?  He's not about to do that.  

    Parent
    Per Chicago Tribune: (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    Though he is 71, Burris has said that Obama's replacement should be able to win re-election and he has noted that despite a string of primary losses in races ranging from Chicago mayor to governor and U.S. senator, he's never lost to a Republican.



    Parent
    Has he not stated. . . (none / 0) (#67)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    that he will not run?

    Parent
    If he did, I missed it. Of course, (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    I never heard of the guy until today.

    Parent
    71 is kind of young (none / 0) (#162)
    by kenosharick on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:55:02 PM EST
    for the senate. A kid next to the late strom thurmond.

    Parent
    If there is nothing wrong with him I say ok (none / 0) (#9)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM EST
    Just not seating anyone Blago appoints is stupid.  So what if Blago could appoint  Caroline what would Reid do then.

    I think the best policy for the Senate (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    is to absolutely refuse to seat anyone Blago names.

    Parent
    Huge dissing by U.S. Senate of (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:29:16 PM EST
    Illinois legislative dems. though.

    Parent
    How so? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Illinois legislature made a fuss (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:37:04 PM EST
    about legislatively cancelling Blago's power to appoint a succesor to Obama.  But IL leg., which is predominantly Dem., didn't proceed, apparently preferring an appointment by Blago as opposed to a special election, which might have resulted in a Rep. Senator.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    then they deserve to be dissed.

    Parent
    How do you figure? (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:30:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#192)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:46:27 PM EST
    That just drags it out and makes the Senate look bad.  How do they justify not seating a nice, Black, Democrat who has never done anything wrong?  

    The problem is Harry Reid who shot his mouth off saying that they would not seat anyone Blago appointed.  Harry didn't foresee a nice, Black, democrat, being appointed.  Nor did he know the law.  The Senate doesn't get to decide who gets appointed.  They can fuss all the want, but legally, they have NO say.  Ol' Harry should have checked the law first.  

    There's no way that Senate democrats will reject a nice, Black man who has done nothing wrong.  No way.  

    Score 1 for Blago.  0 for Harry and the Senate.

    Parent

    I think seating anyone Blago picks (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:27:20 PM EST
    is stupid.

    Parent
    Even if he was perfectly clean (none / 0) (#19)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:29:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Getting picked by Blago NOW (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:30:11 PM EST
    makes you dirty.

    Parent
    So what if he beats the charges what then. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:38:51 PM EST
    The case looks weak for Fitz.  So let Fitz indict him now. I thought his 30 days were almost up to indict him.  The Lt gov wanted him charged with unfit for duty and that was thrown out.  I think Blago although I do not agree with his politics just might beat this rap.

    Parent
    If he beats the charges (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:40:08 PM EST
    he is a free man.

    What does that have to do with his fitness to be governor?

    Parent

    Then his pick must be honored if he beats it (none / 0) (#54)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:48:01 PM EST
    since he is innocent of the charges that he is corrupt whether he is fit for being a governor.  Bush was unfit to be president but most of legislature was passed and honored.  History will show he was the worst president ever.

    Parent
    Noooo (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    He should resign or be impeached NOW.

    Parent
    Neither of those things is going (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:49:47 PM EST
    to happen now.  You can hold your breath until you turn blue, and Blago still won't resign.  It will months to impeach him.  

    What's your plan B?  

    Me thinks you will have to accept that Blago won this round.  The Senate has no basis for rejecting Burris.  No legal way to do it.  

    Blago 1, Harry and the Senate, 0.  

    Parent

    I thought your were innocent until proven guilty (none / 0) (#68)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:57:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Is it possible Blago skates? (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:40:45 PM EST
    Perhaps there was no overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy....at least regarding the Senate seat....It was all talk, just talk.

    And the Illinois Legislature gets bamboozled and fails to impeach and remove from office....Heh,  the Obama report shows Blago did nothing wrong and never asked for a quid pro quo....

    Is the unthinkable really going to happen?

    Parent

    I do not care if he "skates" (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    He will not be picking the next Senator from Illinois.

    Parent
    Hopefully not (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:13:28 PM EST


    Parent
    Why not? (none / 0) (#194)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    He's already appointed him.  

    Parent
    Via the Politico (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    Reid sez Nuh-uh.

    So Burris is going (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:45:43 PM EST
    to show up at the Senate, with papers in hand, and Harry is going to do what exactly?  He and the other 98 white Senators are going to kick him out of the chamber?

    I doubt it.

    Parent

    You think that is how it works? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    Talk about a farce in the making.

    Parent
    Senate security is very good (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:47:11 PM EST
    He's not going to make it into the chamber. But I don't think he'll really come to Washington.

    Parent
    Burris will show.... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    if he shows at the presser I bet he goes to DC to take the seat...

    ironic that HE seems the best on paper but was not in contention until this, a sad state of how these appointments are filled that only via corruption did someone who should have been considered actually get a shot, jeebus...


    Parent

    Are you certain he wasn't in contention (none / 0) (#183)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:59:59 PM EST
    before now?

    I read a long article a couple of weeks ago that said Blago was originally planning to appoint the person who he thought would be his strongest opponent in the next run for governor before this "selling" the seat accusation hit the headlines.

    Maybe he was the candidate most likely all along.


    Parent

    It seems very clear (none / 0) (#184)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:04:58 PM EST
    that Lisa Madigan would be Blagojevich's toughest potential opponent, in any scenario.

    Parent
    Ahhhhh (none / 0) (#185)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    then, she must be the one who was referred to in the article. Thanks.

    Parent
    In case it is (none / 0) (#63)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:52:36 PM EST
    not obvious, I was being facetious.  But the point is valid.  If the appointment is made, and Burris wants to push the issue, it could be ugly.

    Parent
    It will be ugly (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:54:02 PM EST
    What other purpose is there to today's press conference? Clearly Burris is going to act the fool on this.

    Parent
    Harry Reid (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:49:00 PM EST
    saying something isn't going to happen tends to be a sign that it will happen.  Against his will of course while he takes the high road.  

    Burris will be seated.  There's nothing wrong with him except that he was appointed by Blago.  He'll be seated.  Enough Dems will decide that fighting over it will be a "distraction" and they will seat him.

    Parent

    If he is seated (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:51:55 PM EST
    then it will be the ultimate proof that Reid has a spine of strawberry jam.

    But like I said, I'd eff with him too, given his history.

    Parent

    All Democratic Senators signed a letter (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    saying they will not accept a Blago pick.

    Burris will NOT be the next Senator from Illinois.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#65)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:54:44 PM EST
    Go back and read that sternly worded letter.  They didn't say that.  Really.  Go back and read it.  They say that any appointment by Blago would "raise serious questions" and would force them to use their constitutional power to "determine whether" such a person should be seated.

    You are the expert on sternly worded letters.  I am surprised you did not immediately see this.

    I say he will be seated.  

    Parent

    He won't be seated (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:58:16 PM EST
    We can revisit this on January 6.

    Parent
    I am with you (none / 0) (#66)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    it will be Senator Burris.

    Parent
    agree (none / 0) (#117)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:51:45 PM EST
    also agree, Harry Reid doesn't have it in him to stand and fight, have NEVER seen him stand and fight, I was sooo hoping for him to step down as leader.....

    Parent
    Specifically (none / 0) (#71)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    the letter reads,
    Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.

    LINK

    Parent

    Of course (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:43:53 PM EST
    No options here.

    Blago can not pick anyone period.

    Parent

    Any other reaction would have (none / 0) (#46)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:45:21 PM EST
    shocked me. (BTW, this bit of theater can work out well for Reid.)

    Parent
    Would that Reid had said (none / 0) (#57)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    "Burris is unacceptable because Blago picked him."  rather than "Burris is unacceptable."

    You oughta see some of the trolls who've popped up at Politico.

    In the meantime, Blago needs a patron saint, so I found him one:  Christina the Astonishing (patron saint of insanity, mental disorders and psychiatrists). Used to throw herself into furnaces and come out unburnt and stuff like that.

    Parent

    True enough (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:51:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Why, wasn't it just today (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:45:10 PM EST
    Politico was being derided here?  

    Parent
    What's your point? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:47:12 PM EST
    They are quoting Manley.

    Parent
    I get kind of dizzy trying to (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    follow blogger etiquette.

    Parent
    And what does Obama say? (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:45:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Nothing, I hope (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:45:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Has PEOB made a statement yet? (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:45:55 PM EST


    Looks like a creative defense from (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:50:55 PM EST
    Blago's legalpolitical advisors, countering "selling the senate seat" charge with a fact to the contrary.

    Not that that would help him much given the breadth of the investigation.

    He's toast and should resign.

    Why would he resign, given the IL (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 12:58:18 PM EST
    legislature couldn't muster enough support to begin impeachment proceedings?

    Parent
    I think you are mistaken (none / 0) (#74)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:02:56 PM EST
    The state House actually voted unanimously to begin impeachment proceedings.

    Parent
    Slowly, slowly. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:12:52 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    Right... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    but basically what they are doing is structuring the impeachment proceeding so that it won't butt up against the ongoing criminal matter.  It's actually an effort aimed at ensuring the impeachment can happen sooner rather than later.

    Parent
    I think the Senate can remove him (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:17:41 PM EST
    without hearing any evidence at all. They could do a show trial in a matter of hours.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#85)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:21:49 PM EST
    but it's clear they care about giving the appearance of a fair proceeding.  Just because there's no external check on their power doesn't mean they want to go crazy.

    Parent
    I think letting Blago remain in power (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:28:55 PM EST
    to appoint a Senator is crazier. They passed the buck.

    Parent
    Shrug (none / 0) (#102)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    so they're supposed to say what?  "He might commit a corrupt act, quick, get rid of him right this second"?  Particularly when the Senate has already said they wouldn't accept a Blagojevich appointment, I can't imagine why they'd want to put all appearance of propriety aside just to get rid of him right this second.

    Besides, as far as I know, no one in the Illinois Senate has even heard the wiretaps yet, or seen any other evidence.  What the heck are you proposing they base their actions on?  "We saw the Fitzgerald press conference and it looked really bad"?

    Parent

    I would have seriously considered (none / 0) (#109)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    doing just that. Impeachment is a political process, not a real trial .

    Parent
    So, these pols aren't pols? (none / 0) (#87)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:25:40 PM EST


    Parent
    'Should,' not 'would.' (none / 0) (#77)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:06:25 PM EST
    Of course he wouldn't resign.  He'll hang on to the bitter end, evidently.

    Parent
    Now the spotlight will move off Blago (none / 0) (#82)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:18:42 PM EST
    and a whole new drama created among Democrats...in Illinois, in the US Senate and perhaps nationwide.

    And like my favorite movies, this drama will run in black and white.

    Oh, goody.  Sigh...

    Hmm (none / 0) (#94)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:32:34 PM EST
    IL SoS is apparently refusing to certify the appointment. I'm not sure if that's necessary, though.

    Interesting info re Burris's (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:41:51 PM EST
    consulting firm's contributions to Blago's campaign and subsequent state contracts to sd. consulting firm.

    Also, not clear if IL Secretary of State sd. he wouldn't certify anyone appointed by Blago or just Burris.  Might be a prior statement.

    Parent

    No, oc (none / 0) (#108)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    It looks like the Illinois SoS came out right after Blago and said "I won't certify it."  Not a pre-existing statement, but rather a responding one.

    Parent
    You read it differently than I do. (none / 0) (#112)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM EST
    Secretary of State's spokesperson couldn't be reached for comment.

    Parent
    Note: Jesse White, the IL (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:54:19 PM EST
    Secretary of State, is African-American.

    Parent
    betcha he changes his tune... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    Bobby Rush says White was premature and there is no reason not to certify.....

    Parent
    Apparently, the Illinois Secretary of State (none / 0) (#101)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:43:03 PM EST
    is required to certify the appointment, else it cannot go forward.

    From the blog you cite:

    12:59 pm - Secretary of State Jesse White's office says they will not certify the appointment. Certification is required to be seated in the Senate.

    I am assuming this is a state-law requirement similar to the certification that a Secretary of State would provide that "Joe Smith has won the election for congresscritter in the Fourth District."  That is something the respective houses of Congress would require (comes under "presentation of credentials", I think) before allowing a putative member to take the oath and be seated.

    If there's anyone who's an Illinois attorney and familiar with this provision of law, now would be a good time to speak up.

    Also, further down that same blog, it notes the Burris was both a key spoiler who facilitated Blago's election in 2002 (by splitting the black vote, apparently), has donated to Blago's campaigns in the past, and has received work from Illinois.  Smells like pay-to-play, but might not be.  Hard to say.

    Parent

    Here's an interesting question (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:46:57 PM EST
    Exactly what form does the certificate of appointment have to take?

    The state of IL says one thing, and the Senate Rules suggest a similar thing but I think the Senate gets to decide. Suppose Blago faxes one over to the Secretary of the Senate sans SoS certification?

    Parent

    You'd have to look in the Senate Rules (none / 0) (#126)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    but I am going to assume that the normal path of communication is:

    1.  Governor signs "appointment" document, then sends it to
    2.  Secretary of State, who Certifies it to be a true document and puts a nice big raised seal on it (maybe even with a ribbon*), and then
    3.  Sends it to the Clerk of the respective house of Congress, who
    4.  Then puts recognizing the credentials of the new member from Illinois on the agenda.

    Then someone moves the admission, the new member takes the oath (or a previously-taken oath is recognized) and (probably) the new member gets a nice certificate from the congress - with its raised seal on it.

    -

    *  For the lawyers in the crowd, think of the certified records of weather conditions which you get from the US government for use in that fall-on-snow-and-ice case.  Because they're certified with a raised seal, the Rules of Evidence allow them to be admitted into evidence (even though they are hearsay) without a declarant coming in to attest to their accuracy or anything.  Or think of the exemplified (raised seal) judgments you get when you sue someone from out of state and then have to get that judgment domesticated in their home state so you can execute on their property there.  

    Same thing here.  There's a form and procedure that has to be followed so that only true documents executed by the proper authorities and within the scope of their authority are the ones presented.

    If the SoS says "I won't certify it", then the appointment won't move, unless Blago or Burris (or both) go and get a court order requiring the SoS to do so.  Whether the SoS' act of certifying is a ministerial (easier to get that court order) or discretionary (harder to get that court order) act is a question of Illinois state law.  And, of course, then there would be appeals and stays if Blago or Burris would go to court.

    Parent

    My feeling is that (none / 0) (#127)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:08:15 PM EST
    the Senate doesn't have to care about IL law. So, if Blago sends over a no-frills cert of appointment, what do they do? Presumably a Senator makes a point of order that the cert is not in order, and that would be subject to unlimited debate. Heck, they could do that even if the SoS certifies.

    Parent
    If Blago sends over a no-frills certificate (none / 0) (#136)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    of appointment, the Senate will reject it.  It will have to comply with the proper forms, content and certification (by the Illinois SoS) else it's a nice piece of fishwrap as far as the US Senate will be concerned.

    Otherwise, you and I could be printing up our own Certificates of Appointment and demanding to be seated in the Senate.

    It's another form of checks and balances.

    Parent

    When I say "the Senate will reject it" (none / 0) (#140)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:18:16 PM EST
    I mean it likely won't even get on the agenda, b/c the clerical staff (in the Secretary of the Senate's office) will not let it pass.

    Won't get to the floor.

    Parent

    Well, they could just as easily reject (none / 0) (#142)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:20:55 PM EST
    a "proper" certificate of appointment.

    Parent
    One would have to look in detail (none / 0) (#151)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:30:14 PM EST
    at the Senate Rules - they may say the Secretary may not reject a properly executed and certified appointment - I dunno.

    But as to those who say the Senate does not have to give cognizance to Illinois law - think again.  The 17th Amendment says they do:

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That 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.

    This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

    So, it all comes back to Illinois law.

    Parent

    Well then at the very least we're (none / 0) (#154)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    going to have a delay: the SoS won't certify, probably until he's forced to be a court.

    Parent
    Right. If the Illinois SoS (none / 0) (#160)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:52:34 PM EST
    refuses to certify, then either Blago, Burris or both will have to go to court and get a court order to compel the SoS to act.  Which then can be strung out through appeals and motions for reconsideration and so on and so forth while the Illinois legislature gets their collective thumbs out and the motion judge in Fitz' case decides whether to allow Fitz to turn over the tapes of Blago wheelin' and dealin'.

    My suspicion is that Fitz' motion to disclose the tapes to the Illinois House for their impeachment inquiry is what triggered Blago to act contrary to what his lawyer said (i.e., that he wouldn't appoint anyone to the Senate seat).

    Loose Cannon Blago.  He might have said "F*ck" more times than Caroline Schlossberg said "um" and "you know" combined.

    I'd have loved to have been in the loop on the phone calls leading up to this, particularly since there surely are tapes being made of everything Blago says and does.

    Parent

    Correct (none / 0) (#196)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:57:56 PM EST
    The Senate has no legal way to not seat Burris.  The governor is still the governor.  He's been convicted of nothing.  He has the legal right to fill the Senate seat.  

    Harry could refuse to count Burris as a democrat, refuse to let him caucas with them, but what would that do?  Other than make democrats look like they were rejecting a nice, Black guy who has done nothing wrong?  

    Parent

    There is nothing to 'go to the floor' (none / 0) (#195)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:54:44 PM EST
    They don't vote on it.  They have no legal right to reject it.  

    Parent
    Marbury v. Madison (none / 0) (#128)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    As I recall, Marbury got his appointment.

    Parent
    I was thinking of that, actually (none / 0) (#130)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:10:14 PM EST
    This whole thing could be rather fascinating as it plays out.

    Parent
    Marbury was federal (none / 0) (#133)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:14:19 PM EST
    because his job was in D.C. (local D.C. government), and this is not.

    Marbury is inapposite.

    Also, the Secretary of State in Marbury was the US Secretary of State.  

    The only relevant SoS in this matter is the Illinois SoS, because the appointment of replacement Senators (procedurally) is a matter of state law.  The only federal requirements that need be met are age, residence and citizenship - as set forth in the Constitution.  But the Illinois SoS has to certify they are met and that the Illinois governor did the procedure for the appointment in accordance with Illinois law.

    The US SoS has nothing to do with this procedure.

    Parent

    Looking again (none / 0) (#157)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    I see that Marbury didn't get his appointment.  Not because he wasn't entitled, but because Marshall said the SC lacked jurisdiction.

    I guess that explains my lackluster grade in Con Law.

    Parent

    Judicial Review (none / 0) (#155)
    by atlanta lawyer on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    Law school is receeding into the recesses of my memory, but I recall the holding of Marbury v. Madison to be that while Marbury had a right to the appointment he had no legal remedy b/c the statute giving SCOTUS original jurisdiction over mandamus actions against the executive branch exceeded their Art. III powers, and therefore, they couldn't issue the mandamus to make Madison appoint him. Did Marbury later get the appointment through some other way?

    Parent
    You are (none / 0) (#158)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    right, I just looked it up.  Marbury didn't get the appointment.

    Parent
    BTW, esoterica: (none / 0) (#129)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    the House has a Clerk and the Senate has a Secretary.

    Parent
    Full Statement from Reid (none / 0) (#97)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:36:02 PM EST
    here:

    It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris's ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.

    "Next week we will start one of the most important debates of the year - outlining an economic recovery plan to create jobs and invest in America. And in the coming weeks, we will be working to protect homeowners and consumers, make America more energy independent, strengthen our national security, and improve health care and educational opportunities. There is much work to do and a lot at stake. It is thus critical that Illinois and every other state have two seated Senators without delay.

    "We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat.
    "Unfair! Unfair!" Good grief. (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:45:32 PM EST
    Blago has trumped their ace and whether he goes down or not, is willing to take the Democratic establishment with him if he can.  Meanwhile, he can make major trouble...reelection trouble in Illinois for any Democrat who doesn't support Burris.

    Are reporters surrounding Dick Durbin's house and office?  He'll be on the hot seat on this one and he'll need those 1.2M AA votes in Chicago.

    Blago knows how to play hardball.  He's always looked to me like a thug with street-fighter instincts...an "Oh, yeah?" kinda guy who can't/won't back down.

    Parent

    these times call for representation... (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:55:51 PM EST
    who wants to place a bet that Burris tells the press 'in these incredibly trying times Illinois MUST have IMMEDIATE representation, and that HE Burris with his experience on the economic side as comptroller etc is ready to serve the people while the legislature in the state and the Justice Dept work out the other messes...'

    I imagine he will say the people of Illinois MUST BE SERVED NOW!

    How does Reid overcome that?

    Parent

    "So sue me" (none / 0) (#122)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:57:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Reid's statement as to Blago (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:58:14 PM EST
    appointing Burris seems to factor in the urgency question and leave Reid room to back down, which he will.

    Parent
    The Democrat caucus (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:03:58 PM EST
    Won't seat him?!!!  That's just plain laughable.  As if the Harry Reid caucus gets to decide who is in the Senate.  Good grief, the man is a moron.  

    Is he really saying that he won't let Burris sit with the other democrats at lunch?  That Burris won't be part of the ''in'' crowd in the Senate?  That they won't let him play with them in the back rooms?  That Burris can't be on any of their fun committees or help decorate for the big parties?   Sheeze.  

    Can we seat Burris and get rid of Reid?  

    Parent

    Why is Burris unfit to serve? (none / 0) (#103)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:43:58 PM EST


    Parent
    He's not...except by (none / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:48:45 PM EST
    guilt by association.

    Parent
    That's much better, Harry. (none / 0) (#104)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    Not that it will send the pillowcase-and-sheet-wearing trolls back under their rocks, whence they came when Politico put out the one-liner that "Burris was unacceptable".

    But it makes clear the unacceptability is solely a function of Blago doing the appointing, and that Blago using Burris like this is really unfair to Burris.

    Parent

    No. Burris sought the appointment. (none / 0) (#107)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:47:16 PM EST
    So now it IS about him.

    Parent
    Harry, Harry (none / 0) (#115)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:50:18 PM EST
    Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.

    When did he say that?  The letter from the Dems said, ". . .we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated."  That's a little different.

    I really don't care for his tone, either.  Who is he to say what the interests of the "people of Illinois" are?  I understand that they probably don't want this, but since when does Harry speak for them?

    Parent

    There was a brief window (none / 0) (#111)
    by dk on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:49:05 PM EST
    where the legislature could have passed a veto-proof bill to create a special election.  That was really the only possibility for making this whole thing anything other than a circus, but they backed down from doing it.  

    Questionable (none / 0) (#118)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:52:21 PM EST
    The legislative session was about to expire, so they didn't have enough time left to override a veto. (Blago would have been allowed to sit on the bill for a certain period of time).

    Parent
    I don't recall that. (none / 0) (#120)
    by dk on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 01:54:51 PM EST
    Perhaps you are right that it would have been impossible to get through, but I don't remember reading anything to that effect.

    Parent
    Blago said he supported (none / 0) (#146)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    the legislation...

    Parent
    Really? Well, he also said (none / 0) (#148)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:27:27 PM EST
    through his lawyer that he wouldn't make an appointment.

    Parent
    Don't listen to the lawyers! (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    That was a feint...a head fake...

    Parent
    OMG, Bobby Rush (none / 0) (#134)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    "I urge you not to lynch the appointee"

    Jesus H. Christ.

    Does the "H" stand for Hussein? (none / 0) (#139)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:17:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Not funny (none / 0) (#144)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:22:57 PM EST


    Parent
    C'mon, andgarden...lighten up. (none / 0) (#149)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    It's funny.

    Maybe it'll be funnier tonight after 11 on the late shows...

    Parent

    Blagojevich is a troublemaker, (none / 0) (#145)
    by KeysDan on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:23:13 PM EST
    and Burris is imprudent.  Each, in his own and different way may be acting out on his embitterment toward the Illinois Democratic party. A lot of bad judgment on display here.   However, the entire handling of this case has been troubling, starting with which way to proceed, in the public's interest, in dealing with a corrupt high officer holder, such as governor or even a president. Which comes first?  Is it more important to get a criminal conviction or to limit public damage by removing that individual from office as enabled by the constitutional means of impeachment. In Blago's case, the criminal complaint did not seem ripe for speedy disposition, but was used, apparently, to prevent the gubernatorial  action of a  corrupt senatorial appointment.  The genesis of the impeachment proceedings is the criminal complaint, but the prosecutor will not yet permit interviewing of witnesses nor provide other information that may undermine the case. In my opinion, the removal from office, through impeachment, is paramount to the interest of the people.  If, a criminal conviction can also be obtained, all the better.

    completely agree (none / 0) (#164)
    by txpublicdefender on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 03:32:56 PM EST
    I completely agree with you.  I think Fitzgerald has been wrong to recommend against allowing the witnesses in the case to be deposed by the impeachment panel.  I don't like the idea of Blagojevich skating if he has committed crimes, but the idea that the criminal investigation should trump the impeachment inquiry is ridiculous.  The people of the state need to be protected from the corrupt acts of this man, and the only way to do that is to remove him from office.  

    What's a better result?  Blago serving out the full remainder of his term, all while under the cloud of the indictment, and then, ultimately going to prison for a few years; or Blago leaving office immediately and never being convicted?

    Fitzgerald knew he was risking the criminal case by making the arrest when he did.  He needs to now take the next step.  Cut a deal with Blago to withdraw the Burris nomination and resign and enter a deferred prosecution agreement where he won't be convicted of anything as long as he keeps his nose clean for a few years.

    Parent

    Fitzgerald wants his air time too. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:07:49 PM EST
    He loves his own drama.  

    Parent
    Blago used this for his defense (none / 0) (#150)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    just in case.  As they said on CNN he could be crazy like a fox.

    Oh, wait...we need a lawyer (none / 0) (#170)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:41:25 PM EST
    to answer this:

    Didn't we already settle what the Senate could or couldn't do about seating a member in the late 60s' Adam Clayton Powell case?

    (I'm off to a 3 o'clock meeting but I'll be back and googling that one unless someone beats me to it).

    That case (none / 0) (#175)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:55:41 PM EST
    was a little different because Powell had actually been elected to his seat.  The SC said that the Congress could not refuse to seat him because he was duly elected and that they could not create qualification beyond those in the Constitution.

    The current case is a little different because it is an appointment and it is in the Senate.  However, it does sound favorable to Burris.

    Parent

    I wonder if there's some wiggle room (none / 0) (#177)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:09:36 PM EST
    in "duly appointed." I don't think this is open and shut.

    Parent
    How was he not duly appointed? (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:13:50 PM EST
    Blago is following the law.  

    Unfortunately, race is also a factor.  Race is too important to democrats for them to reject a Black man.  That will not happen.  Blago's won this round.  The man is a master politician.  :(  

    Parent

    Blago To Annouce His Choice For New Illinois Senator Today | 199 comments (199 topical)