Burris Was Always "Just A Liability"
Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds linked to some Republicans and Republican journalists who lack a basic understanding of the Senate 3/5 rules for cloture (and for legislation raising the deficit). The gist of the Republican argument is that Democrats needed 60 votes to pass the stimulus and that is why Roland Burris was accepted in the Senate. This is how Reynolds puts it later:
Dems Abandon Burris. Hey, the stimulus passed, so now he’s just a liability.
Actually Burris was always "just a liability." As has been pointed out here, this claim of a 60 vote requirement (also made by Burris supporters when arguing for seating him) is false. What is needed is 3/5 of the number of Senators seated. Kagro at Congress Matters explains:
If Burris hadn't been in the Senate, there would have been 98 sitting Senators. The threshold for waiving budget points of order and for invoking cloture -- both of which came to votes during the stimulus debate -- isn't actually set at 60 votes. It's 3/5 of the number of Senators chosen and sworn. Three-fifths of 98 is 59.
Without Burris in the Senate, nothing changes in terms of the voting. Fifty-seven Democrats plus Snowe, Collins and Specter gets the job done. In fact, 56 Democrats -- excluding Senator Kennedy, who's been ill and didn't vote on passage of the conference report -- plus the three Republicans does the trick.
Kass has that wrong, and everyone who's citing him -- Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, for instance -- has it wrong, too.
Roland Burris has done nothing positive for Democrats or Illinois as a Senator. He has been a constant embarrassment. He always was nothing but a liability. The sooner he leaves, the better.
Speaking for me only
| < Missouri's Josh Kezer Released After 17 Years | Broder's Last Stand > |





