Bill Clinton served as president during an impeachment trial - yet he continued to make appointments and sign legislation.  

Fitz & co. have had 30 days to pull it together. Now they are asking for an extension.  Maybe they just don't have the stuff to convict.  Maybe he'll walk.

Frankly, I think that unless some misconduct or corruption can be attached to Burris, the Democrats are making a mistake -- playing into Republican hands -- that will mostly just help to keep the controversy alive and in the headlines.

Just seat the guy and get on with much more pressing and important business.

Is this Lieberman Derangement Syndrome?  Comparing Lieberman keeping his Senate seat - in the words of The Christian Progressive Liberal - with Burris' seating being accepted is pretty deranged if you ask me.  

txpublicdefender's link to the Slate legal analysis was a good one I thought.  At least easy to understand.

Because he is still, officially, the governor, Blagojevich has the power to appoint Barack Obama's replacement. Illinois officials have tried to take away such authority by passing legislation that would allow the seat to be decided by a special election. But Blagojevich could make the appointment before the bill becomes law. That said, the United States Senate has the power to reject his appointment - something that Reid threatened in his letter. The fact that 49 other Democratic colleagues, including Vice President-elect Joseph Biden and Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton, have signed this letter suggest that they are serious about pushing back against any 11th-hour Blagojevich move.

...

Here is the complete letter.

"Dear Governor Blagojevich:

We write to insist that you step down as Governor of Illinois and under no circumstance make an appointment to fill the vacant Illinois Senate seat. In light of your arrest yesterday on alleged federal corruption charges related to that Senate seat, any appointment by you would raise serious questions.

It is within the authority of the Illinois legislature to remove your power to make this appointment by providing for a special election. But a decision by you to resign or to step aside under Article V of the Illinois Constitution would be the most expeditious way for a new Senator to be chosen and seated in a manner that would earn the confidence of the people of Illinois and all Americans. We consider it imperative that a new senator be seated as soon as possible so that Illinois is fully represented in the Senate as the important work of the 111th Congress moves forward.

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.

We do not prejudge the outcome of the criminal charges against you or question your constitutional right to contest those charges. But for the good of the Senate and our nation, we implore you refrain from making an appointment to the Senate."

Regardless of the legal merits, if the Senate quietly seats Burris, the spotlight effectively returns to Chicago, and the Dems can attempt to keep the Blago case a local disaster.

If they refuse to seat (with all the photo ops of a black man being sent away from an all-white Senate), and this gets protracted, the Blago mess goes national.

Blago's got everyone by the short and curlies. If Burris is seated quietly, you acknowledge Blago's continued authority.  If you resist, then Blago will fulfill his promise to take others down with him.  Can't help but believe that the former course is wiser -- given the technicalities of the whole thing anyway, and also given that indictments, impeachment, and jail are still in the tea leaves. Nothing is a fact till after it happens. In any case, moving the fistfight to the Senate will underscore again and again that this is the cesspool the president-elect arose from, and raise questions about whether he really is the lotus rising pure from the mire.

With all the thousands of hours of tapes, I can't help but believe a number of other Chicago pols are in danger of having their careers tarnished or trashed.

And, there was a good discussion in one of the open threads the other day about the interplay of state and federal law - which came down to the Illinois Secretary of State having a key gatekeeper role in signing and executing - or not - the appointment.

But, on to Joementum.  If I'm Obama (and even more if I'm not), seating Joe is not the issue.  Keeping him on is.  I can see a need for a new Ambassador to Israel coming in, oh, about 3 weeks.  And, last I heard, there's bit of a problem going on in that part of the world right now, where someone well-acquainted with the principals (like Holy Joe) would be a better fit to the job than someone who isn't so screwed in.

Of course, everyone knows that a prime test of patriotism is saying "yes" when your president asks you to serve.

And then, in the context of filling Joe's seat, Harry Reid can tell Governor Rell that the Senate won't seat anyone not named Ned Lamont.

"Senate officials tell Politico that if presented with the appointment, they are likely to give the Rules Committee 90 days to determine the propriety of the appointment by looking into such issues as whether Blagojevich received anything in return for it.

"A motion to refer credentials to the committee has the effect of delaying seating," a Senate Democratic aide said. "The motion is debatable and amendable."

Another official explained: "That buys us 90 days."

That should be enough so the senators won't have to act to prevent Burris from joining the chamber. Blagojevich's defiance inflamed Illinois legislators, speeding up the impeachment process.

"He will not be governor by Valentine's Day," the official said.

Section V
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Amendment 17
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such 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.

By inverse order:
   If the legislature of a state can "empower" the executive to make appointments, can the legislators also "dis-empower" by some process other than impeachment?

   If two-thirds of the US Senate can expel a member, can 99 be sworn in & then 66 of them "pre-emptively expel" a not-yet-member?  Or swear in 100 & then 67 of them expel the tainted Illinois member?

Burris was appointed by a Governor who is under suspicion [arrested, subject of a pending criminal complaint] misuse of his office as to the Senate seat to which he appointed Burris.

But, SCOTUS opinion rejects respondents' argument for broad interpretation of the Constitutional provision at issue.  And SCOTUS concludes the matter is not a "political question" depriving the Court of jurisdiction.  

Why such confidence the Powell decision is inapplicable to Blago/Burris appointment?

I'm not sure what kind of control the Senate has over the former -- that remains to be seen, but I haven't seen anything compelling that makes me think they can legally exclude him.

While I, as an African American woman, think Burris is an incredible opportunist, you can bet the idea of not seating him in the US Senate is not playing well in Black America.

America is not in a post-racial (or post-partisan) phase yet - no matter how we may wish it to be so.

Burris has been appointed to the seat.  It really is a done deal and all the rest will just be drama; get some popcorn and watch the movie.

It is, to my thinking, much like the Coleman-Franken race.  Franken has won; Coleman wants to muddy the waters in the hopes that time (or some other miracle) will allow him to retain his seat.

But since I haven't seen it much, I feel compelled to point out that missed in many discussions about the Burris appointment is the fact that the Senate is probably unable to prevent him from being seated as a matter of constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 (and 8-0 among justices deciding on the merits) in Powell v. McCormack that "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution." It is possible to distinguish the cases -- the fact that Burris is appointed obviously mitigates the problems with Congress interfering with the integrity of elections that Douglas discusses in his concurrence. Still, the bottom line of Warren's majority opinion is unequivocal and directly on point; if Burris were to litigate an exclusion a lower court would almost certainly rule in his favor, and I doubt that the Supreme Court would overrule. The Senate could expel him after seating with a 2/3 majority, but (absent strong evidence that Burris obtained the appointment illegitimately) this seems unlikely. Reid's remedy is likely to be to prevent him from joining the Democratic caucus.

Setting aside all the statements Reid has made thus far...what would be the point of excluding Burris, presuming he is seated, from the Dem caucus?  If Burris IS seated, he should caucus with the Dems.

I personally think the Senate is within its rights to refuse to seat Burris.  I find the Slate analysis L(h/t txpublicdefender) convincing.

But the politics of this is beginning to wear me out.  

How about this - Quinn pledges to appoint Burris after Blago is impeached.  

I still think she is wrong:

Obviously, people differ on the correct interpretations of the law and constitution on this issue. It's not like there are a lot of precedents. But when it comes to things like this, I always look to the underlying principles, which it seems to me are obvious: when it comes to removing duly elected representatives from office, we should proceed very, very carefully and try not to make new law whenever possible. The last thing you want to do is give politicians more tools with which to usurp the democratic process. Even though this applies to an appointment there is no reason to allow the senate a new "right" to reject members, for any reason.