That's not a bad thing. But it is leading to some immense reaching to make connections to things that are not really connected to the issues raised by the Blago situation, like Lieberman and Franken, Miers and Rove, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Alito, the Military Commissions Act, etc. Those were all failures where the Senate failed to act as they might have, but so what? The Dem Caucus is acting now, and their actions are proper. Fighting them now because they failed to act properly in the past is not very rational or goal-focused. It's more about working out emotions over past hypocrisy and disappointment from Dems. Thus silly parallelisms like Bower's "So, Senate Democrats will take aggressive action to deny a Democrat from being seated, but not take aggressive action to seat a Democrat." Um, they should do that if the circumstances in each case are different and call for them to do that.

What they  need to be convinced of is that the actions being taken by  Dems now are the best expression of the rule of law, and that fighting them on it is counterproductive. It would have been easier if Dems had actually done the clearly right thing in IL and called a special election (though it would have been a politically stupid thing because they might well have lost the seat), and if Reid hadn't called on the IL SoS to do something legally questionable (refuse to certify the appointment). But that doesn't mean that not seating Burris is just more of the same corruption. It might be second best to a special election, but it's better than seating a product of a tainted process.

It's been obvious for weeks that Franken would not have a certified election result until after January 6.

He will be around the Senate, I'm sure, if only as a special guest (I'll bet the Senate Rules allow something like that).  Cormyn is going to try his darndest to gum things up b/c the Rethugs are more interested in making Obama fail than they are in helping the country get out of this rut.  The Rethugs are being kind of like the kid in kindergarten who has the flu - in their case, it's the failure bug - and is hell-bent on spreading it to everyone else.

What everyone needs to recognize is that, in the absence of precedent (and as I understand it Senate precedents are a bit sparse on this issue) or in the presence of a majority, the Rethugs will not have much of a leg to stand on.  They can carp and whine, make a lot of noise, and try to obstruct, but they will lose.  The key is to make it so they lose in a public manner where it is clear they lost.

In short (and oversimplifying a bit), in the Senate, the Rule of Law is 51 votes.  The Dems have that, Cormyn knows it and knows there's nothing he can do about it.

If nothing else, this will give the next generation's McCain something to bithc about in his ghostwritten autobiography, just like this generation's McCain complains that all the nastiness on Capitol Hill descended from the 1984 or 1985 hearings in which the Democrats seated a representative who won a closely contested election in Indiana.  Conveniently, McSame does not mention all of then-backbencher Newt Gingrich's howling-angry speeches delivered to an empty chamber but communicated to proto-wingnuts everywhere via CSPAN in those early and mid-80s days, for having debased the currency of comity on Capitol Hill.

Frankly, one of Tip O'Neill's biggest mistakes was not shutting off that avenue for Gingrich to poison the well.  Gingrich made no such mistake when he took over as Speaker - and he cut off the means he'd used to ascend.  No more midnight speeches on CSPAN.

But, every authoritarian myth needs a starting point where the authoritarians are victimized by their enemy.  If they can't find one, they'll make it up.  That's what Rethuglicans do best.

But trying to seat Franken without a certification of election from the State of Minnesota would be disregarding the rule of law.

Franken is on a different track.  They're counting the ballots and contesting them, but I don't hear anyone saying the election is rigged.  They are faithfully following the process.  Without the certificate, there are no returns, right?  The process is not completed.

But then I read something so completely misinformed -

Trapper John

"Moreover -- not that it's all that relevant to the question of whether Burris ought to be seated -- Burris has not been at all implicated or tainted by the Blago investigation, has no more of a history of ties with Blago than does Barack Obama, and is likely to serve for just two years as a placeholder. Finally, refusal to seat Burris will deny Illinois full Senate representation for months, as it's now clear that Blago isn't resigning anytime soon, and the Illinois ledge doesn't appear ready to move on a special election bill.

In other words, there's not much of a legal argument to avoid seating Burris, and not a lot in the way of ethical grounds, either. Sure, Blago sucks, but Burris isn't Blago, a Blagoite, or even mentioned in the Fitzgerald documents. It's not as if Blago had appointed Jesse Jackson Jr., or even Valerie Jarrett. Burris isn't just completely untainted by the investigation -- he's untouched, unmentioned. And as the Senate Dems waste valuable political capital by engaging in the sideshow of forcibly barring Burris from the chamber, the first days of the new Democratic majority will be spent not on the people's vital business, but on an unnecessary circus. One that seems likely end up with egg on the faces of the Democratic leaders.

As always, terrific priority setting from the Senate leadership.  Bodes really well for the next Congressional agenda."

I guess Trapper John missed the memo that Blago is getting impeached.  The people of Illinois are not going to be denied representation for months -I agree with those who say Quinn will appoint someone sometime this month.  And the Senate will choose that duly certified person over Burris.  Which they can do.  

I really hope, for his own sake, that Burris has better lawyers than his advocates on the blogs.

And the wonderful thing is this - Trapper John ends by saying that law isn't important, it's now about ethics and politics:

UPDATE: To be clear, I'm aware that there are astute folks out there who have developed arguments by which the Senate could attempt to exclude Burris.  But no one thinks that those arguments are guaranteed to prevail, and any attempt to exclude Burris will undoubtedly result in interminable litigation -- which means that the sound and fury of the Burris circus is likely to continue to inhibit the ability of the leadership to push a substantive agenda for weeks to come. The question isn't really whether the Senate can try to exclude Burris -- it's whether they should. And the ethical and political merits argue in favor of putting the thing to rest by just seating the duly appointed Senator from Illinois.

All this, in a post that begins with a John Cole quote, "We are a nation of rules, after all."