Burris turned away at Senate door, but it may not be for long
By David Neiwert Tuesday Jan 06, 2009 11:00am
Roland Burris makes his stand in defiance of Harry Reid today.
MSNBC's Chris Matthews talks it over with a panel including Howard Fineman, Pat Buchanan, CNBC's John Harwood, Brian DuBose of the Moonie Times, and Ann Kornbluth of the WaPo, and it's unanimous: Reid really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
Being a right-winger, DuBose clearly relishes this mess:
No, the conservatives don't have to cause any havoc here. The Democrats are doing a fine job themselves. Pat is right -- Harry Reid has put the Senate in a very precarious legal position, constitutionally. They have no constitutional authority to not allow Burris to take his rightful seat in the Senate. Now, they could expel him for reasons that they come up with if they seat him, that's a much better position to be in. But by barring him from the door they put themselves on a path towards legal suicide with the Supreme Court, if Burris decides to go that route. They have no legal standing to stop a representative of a state -- which is what the Senate is, representatives of states in their entirety -- they have no legal position to stop him from representing that state, as he is duly bound to do, appointed by a governor who is in power. It's -- it's case closed. He is the senator. Period.
Login or Register to post comments.
Well...I gotta give it to Burris...he's got cojones.
what a pathetic majority loser harry reid has turned out to be. if there is any hope for a successful obama administration, the current house and senate leadership must be replaced. immediately.
Why is it that the Dems only take "tough stands" against stuff that isn't really that important and/or makes them look like IDIOTS?
I become less trusting of these guys every single day.
and the Dems are its Court Jesters.
Burris is a lunatic prosecutor Stalin would have loved. He notoriously hounded an innocent man, Orlando Cruz, on a first-degree murder charge long after evidence showed Cruz did not commit the crime. Burris was prepared to murder Cruz in order to protect his precious conviction record, even after assistant prosecutors resigned in protest. He's the nightmare bureaucrat a-hole that regularly torment poor and working folks all over the country. Seat him in the Senate? No, he should be run out of public life for good!
I just read about that in another thread...I don't think he needs to be in public office either.
a massive egomaniac as well.
now he's threatening a FEDERAL lawsuit...this is the LAST fucking thing we need right now...go away Burris...
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topstori...
A massive ego in the US Senate? Say it ain't so!
Or this. Whichever.
yeah, I read up on him and it's completely baffling that people like ChrisM70 say his appointment isn't important.
I meant that it's not as important as some other things. Wiretapping, torture, civil rights, etc - those things are REALLY IMPORTANT. But Reid and the Dems didn't take tough stands against law breaking, but turned chicken.
Now, they want to act all tough in a situation where they probably have no legal leg to stand on. WIll this one vote make that much difference? Will Burris vote with the Republicans? I doubt it.
Burris wasn't the prosecutor on the case, he was the State Attorney General, who was legally bound to pursue the execution which was ordered by a jury. turned out the guilty verdict was incorrect, but Burris had no legal choice but to be the State's representative in the matter. even if he had resigned, someone else would have HAD to do it. even if its Charles Manson, he still gets an attorney, and that attorney legally has to try as hard as they can to represent Charles Manson.
for the "people" than do the Pukes.
It's all party/power/perqs first, and if that happens to lead to some advantage or beneficence to the people, then okay, but it's purely accidental, not to be understood as being in any way what they INTEND to do...
Burris was right to be denied access to the floor because "his credentials" weren't in order. He has to be certified by the Sec of State of Ill. before he's properly credentialed.
The mess remains (luckily for Reid) in Illinois for now.
Why do I get the feeling that Reid and Pelosi are going to be more troublesome for Obama than the Republicans? Harry Reid is useless, really, he must be replaced with someone with a spine.
Republicans could not have gotten away with as much as they did without the help of these two.
A. The Illinois state secretary didn't sign off on the appointment. Now Burris says that is illegal and I don't know if that's true or not but until it is settled, the U.S. Senate can certainly use it as an excuse to not seat him.
and...
B. http://www.slate.com/id/2207754/ An article on why the senate CAN block Burris legally.
Bottom line, its not about not having a legal leg, its about not having an ethical spine.
Legal precedent was already set in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), Reid really does not have a legal leg to stand on blocking Burris and if it goes to any court, this case will be the first legal briefing set in front of the judge.
If this goes to court, Reid will lose and face embarrassment
it will be very quick and painful for the Dems. dear god they coulnd't stand up to torture or Iraq, but for this they'll go to the mat. why? Reid got outfoxed, then mouthed off, and is more concerned about making it look like he didn't mouth off than he ever was about unjustified war, or torture, etc.
The Democratic spine is used only on trivialities, and Burns isn't the only Democratic loose cannon. If the Democratic leadership makes him angry enough but lose, what's to stop him from pulling a Lieberman and voting with the Republicans most of the time? What's that about a Democratic majority....
In Powell v. McCormack the issue hinged on the fact that Powell WAS legally appointed despite that he had some other controversy besmirching his name in the eyes of the senate. In this case it would be extremely arguable that given the circumstances of Burris' appointment Powell v. McCormack may not apply. In Burris' case the controversy IS his being appointed. Big difference.
Of course I don't mean to say that Reid could definitely keep Burris out, yet he does have standing under the senate's rules to do so as per the constitution.
But the Slate article is wrong. Because Blago is still not indited, not impeached and still legally the Gov, his appointment is as legal and Constitutional as if it was an election. Slate is speculating about "will of the people" and missing the other parts of that case.
As I said, I don't know that Reid could win a case, but he does have a case to make. The constitutional provision that allows the Senate to not seat someone isn't based on anyone being indicted, tried or convicted. The Senate need not rely on any courts findings to find Burris unacceptable.
The Illinois Secretary of State is refusing to sign and issue the certificate of appointment.
The courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the Illinois Secretary of State for the certificate of appointment.
See. Marbury v. Madison.
If Mr. Burris cannot produce the certificate of appointment then the Senate cannot legally seat Mr. Burris.
the local air america host said that reid didnt want an african american in the seat...and wanted tammy duckworth because she is a white woman
uh...duckworth is asian
sometimes libs are just as stupid as wingnuts
That is pretty damn stupid, lol!
in the Senator's Guide to Racial Equivalencies and Substitutions, it makes sense.
that is very stupid. *shakes head*
Iraq War veteran who lost two legs in a helicopter crash, head of vetran's affairs in Illinois, minority woman, progressive, etc. This manufactured race issue is bullshit....and just the distraction the race carding Blagojevich wants.
I agree, that statement is very foolish. The commentator needs to remember not to become the enemy we supposedly despise.
And on Burris---he has nothing to lose. His political career is DOA having lost the last 4 elections he was in. This is his hail mary pass to salvage something of the wreckage. If the repubs run Mark Kirk or someone similarly qualified against him in 2010 he will be in for a hell of a battle---that Reid wants to avoid.
It's not a real dispute that is going to cause any lasting problems. By doing this Reid gives himself and the Dems cover. They can say they didn't go along with Blago, that they tried to do the honorable thing and that is all they need.
They also don't want to seat Burris without Franken because it changes the number needed to override a filibuster and they want both Senators there.
Understandably, theyjust can't "go along" with Blago. BFD. This will all blow over soon and be a distant memory.
And in the meantime the GOP villagers will have a fun time with this ridiculous soap opera while their obsolete and obstructionist party crumbles to dust. Gee, I wonder why? Misplaced priorities perhaps?
>> They also don't want to seat Burris without Franken because it changes the number needed to override a filibuster and they want both Senators there.
Being that there are 98 Senators currently, it doesn't matter if Burris is there or not, Reid still needs the same number of non-Democratic votes for cloture. At 98 Senators 59 are needed for cloture, they have 55 Democrats and would need 4 votes from Republicans and Independents. At 99 Senators 60 are needed for cloture, they would have 56 Democrats and would still need 4 votes from Republicans and Independents. So it really doesn't matter if either Burris or Franken are there or not. It only changes when both Burris (or another Democrat) and Franken are there, because then only 3 votes from Republicans and Independents would be needed for cloture.
All of these people are worthless, and their desire to have things their way no matter what is what will eventually bring this country down. Doesn't anyone realize that when we raise issues such as this one we are allowing our Constitution to be chipped away and demolished bit by precious bit?
It astounds me that we have survived 8 years of a bully president who for all intents and purposes is nothing more than a puppet for a very large criminal enterprise, and now ... we are content standing by whilst the spineless, feckless likes of Harry Reid take the law into their own hands and make the democratic party look as incompetant as the Bushies.
While Bush was absolutely terrorizing this country and decimating our system of checks and balances, we democrats stood idly by and let Reid and Pelosi implement the great cover-up for Bush. We endured an impeachment for a damn blowjob, and then stood by and let these scum suckers within our own party refuse to do their duty and begin impeachment proceedings for war crimes, crimes against humanity, domestic terrorizing of the American people, and treasonous activity and intent relative to our own Constitution ... and now we are having a discussion about THIS!
Unfreakingbelieveable, unfreakingforgiveable!
In other news: "Today" caves to right wing extemism and hate. Mann Coulter rebooked.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/05/ann-...
Weak!!!
I wonder...if I started spoutin hateful rhetoric against conservatives...calling for violence against them...if I'd get airtime...
whether or not the Senate can refuse to seat Burris. Still, my view is that it can via Article I Sec. 5, par. 1: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members ..." There is substantial case law interpreting this clause, and there is some good discussion of this over at Balkinization. Among other luminaries, Lawrence Tribe argues that the Senate may refuse to seat Burris.
Bottom line here is that DuBose is objectively full of crap.
Doesn't matter. Blogo is still Gov and can appoint him. If he's a nutjob, the Senate can censure him. The voters can then decide in 2010 if they want to keep him. End of story. Total Dem embarrassment solved - although Reid still comes out looking like a clownish idiot.
Reid still comes out looking like a clownish idiot".
He didn't have to prove it to me.
b.
i.
ngo.
all this (justifiable) fretting over his history and potential motives is all beside the point.
as long as the dem leadership continues the keystone cops routine, expect these flubs to continue one right after the other.
i think ChrisM70 (Tue, 01/06/2009 - 11:10) is right: why is it that when it comes to refusing to bailout crooks, protecting habeas corpus, prosecuting bush war crimes, etc., etc., etc. the dem leadership rolls over like lame turtles?
what this burris kerfuffle says to me: the dem leadership is willing to put their ass on the line when it comes to protecting the dem brand name, and their own elevated positions. yet, when it comes to civil rights, laws/justice, the constitution, etc. the dem leadership is pathetically weak and pliant.
You nailed it! Or, as Shakespeare might say, MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.
Reid and Pelosi must be removed from public office.
the long and short of it...
Protecting their asses..and reaming ours.
Fuckin politicians...I'm gettin sick of all of them greedy bastards.
The Secretary of State's roll is to Certify that the Governor Selected Burras for the Senate Seat. That is his JOB! White is to certify election results; not judge whether the person elected is otherwise qualified for the job. That stands true here as well.
Sec. White is not fulfilling his Duty under Illinois Law.
Burras should Sue Jesse White!
I don't Care how White feels about Blago personally he is failing in his duty.
But as long as White isn't doing his job, Reid does have a reason to exclude Burris.
And if Reid doesn't want to seat him, that's what he should use as cover. But once White signs the paperwork, Reid really doesn't have a leg to stand on.
John Amato, I was about to comment on the Yoo/Bolton OPED. I have to wonder why these guys care about the constitution, now all of a sudden.
Seems that some threads aren't quite ready yet, so they yank them back out...
Either that...or we're both hallucinatin...again.
I realize that Blago is tainted, that's a given. Even if he comes out of this without a conviction, he's tainted at this moment in time. And any potential candidate that was discussed on any of the wiretapped tapes would be tainted as well, fairly or unfairly to the candidate.
What I'd like to know is, was Burris ever talked about on any of the tapes? If he wasn't, it doesn't clean all the smell off of this appointment, but to me would make it less offensive.
..is such a fool. And, he's as crooked as they come.
It's in the job description.
Et Tu Lieberman?
Silly me!
Et Tu Lieberman?
Silly me!
Legally, Roland Burris cannot be seated as a US Senator.
While Gov. Blagojevich has the legal authority to make the appointment, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse refused to certify the appointment based on the fact Blagojevich is the subject of a Federal indictment and will probably be impeached before the end of the month.
Without the cert, Burris can't be put on the payroll.
That sounds pretty cut and dried...but I've heard so many different opinions on this...don't know who to believe.
Burris is beginning to remind me of the fabled race baiter, Clarence Thomas...working the system, intimidating white folks with guilt, flaming black people into thinking they "owe the brother"...total bullshit.
They go to school to learn how to do this.
But as I understand the rules of engagement, unless Blago is impeached and the Illinois Lt. Governor ascends to Governor and upholds the Burris appointment, thus opening the door for the Secretary of State to certify the appointment, the US Senate has no legal standing to seat him.
You are wrong about this the only reason the SOS didnt sign off on this was Reid called him and asked him not to,Blago Made the appointment while he was the legal Governor of Ill He has not been impeached and he as not been indicted or found guilty of a crime.There is nothing in the constitution that says Reid has any right to intude in State policy so in fact what he did was the exact same thing they accused Blago of.As for Jesse White at this point his job is not to determine who holds the office or if he is qulified his job is to sign off on the facts as they are A legal sitting Governor did his constitutional duty and filled a vacant Senate seat at this point both Reid and White are breaking the law and going against there duties that they both took oaths to which was to uphold the constitution.
A spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (D) confirmed to Election Central that White knows he does not truly have the authority to stop the appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate, but he withheld his signature from it earlier today in order to make a statement.
"His feeling is we studied the constitution of Illinois, we looked at the statutes, and there was nothing there that said he had to sign the paperwork," said David Druker, White's press secretary.
"We don't believe he has the authority to hold up the appointment or veto it, to put it that way," Druker added. "How the U.S. Senate views the action, that would be for the U.S. Senate to determine."
make a statement?
i wonder if this was his own decision of if he was pressured to refuse to sign the certification.
again, like it or not, i don't see anything other than politics as a reason to stop the burris appointment.
although, it provides a TREMENDOUS distraction from the israeli war crimes, which no US politician wants to acknowledge.
If Burris was the bane of every GOP'ers existence...the Gooper's would be fightin his appt. tooth and fuckin nail.
It was correct to block him. I don't care how squeaky clean Burris is, the fact remains he was appointed by a Governor of questionable character who has been subject of an on-going investigation for three years...now going on four and also has been arrested and will most likely be impeached in the very near future. Just the fact that Burris is being so persistent on this matter makes suspicious of his motives. Does he truly want to serve the People of Illinois or does it have more to do with his own personal gain and recognition? Being a citizen of Illinois, I like many others, have a special distrust for any elected official that has ties to Blagojevich in any way, shape or form.
Old Roland is in quiet a hurry to close the deal.
"They have no legal standing to stop a representative of a state -- which is what the Senate is, representatives of states in their entirety -- they have no legal position to stop him from representing that state, as he is duly bound to do, appointed by a governor who is in power."
Legal Standing??I was sure George and Dick and Davey and Scooter and Karl and the rest of the gang had killed off the whole question of "legality"for good.Who knew?
he is black, the only black in the senate if seated, so you must let him in, this is his argument. quotas can't be the way we legislate. No to Burris, and no to Kennedy. sadly, the only other criteria are seniority and pay to play, pay to play that we don't know about. sad sad sad.
that is not his argument. so, really, why make shit up?
Some of Burris' supporters have bemoaned the fact that Democrats would stand in the way of the Senate gaining its only black member. Burris himself downplayed the issue of race, telling reporters: "I cannot control my supporters. I have never in my life, in all my years of being elected to office, thought anything about race."
playing the race card is unfortunate, being blamed for playing the race card when you haven't is even more so.
This all makes me think of that fun, classic from the 1960's sung by the Sensations with Yvonne Baker as the lead singer. It's worth a listen as you read this thread. Get some fun out of life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br10qPMq1Vk
Burris isn't certified and G-Rod will be impeached at the end of the week. Burris will have to put on his grave marker he almost made it to the Senate Seat. Burris knows he was appointed by a crook but only has his own interest at heart not the people of Illinois. G-Rod wanted him aa a bargaining tool and Burris wanted a legacy knowing he would never get elected by the people of Illinois. Others who were honest turned down G-Rod's offer. At 71 years old this is as good as it gets for Burris even if it means selling his soul to the Devil.
Assuming Blago is impeached this week as you say, and assuming a speedy trial (impossible by Illinois standards), and assuming a subsequent appointment by Blago's replacement, that still leaves Burris and his attorneys the powerful argument that the Burris appointment was legal. I know many of us may have become accustomed to ignoring those pesky laws and constitutions, especially during eight years of Bush.
Certainly this whole thing could have been handled better by all involved. But the rule of law should always prevail, especially when it's inconvenient (and even ugly) to do so.
The dems in Illinois deliberately left intact Blago's ability to appoint a successor to Obama.
So Blago appointed Burris, who had done him more than a few favors.
Whenever I have read anything about Burris, they have all said that he is well qualified.
To illustrate this point, they go on to say that he is the first black person to win state wide office in Illinois.
That's where they leave off. All of them - the Times, The WashPo, the lot.
If he has any other qualifications, they do not deem to mention them.
So it is now a race issue. The Senate refusing to seat a black man.
What a country.
I understand the reluctance of the Senate to accept Burris - but am flabbergasted that Reid accepted Lieberman with open arms and allowed him to keep all his prestigous chairmanships!
Who is the worse of the 2? Burris or Lieberman? The Senate door should have been firmly shut in the face of Joe!
As for Pelosi - when she declared "impeachment (of Bush) is OFF the table - that is when I declared she is completely useless!
How long do you think the Republicans will take before beginning impeachment proceedings against Obama??? I predict January 21 2009!
If any of us were on the fence about Burris, your post may have just changed that. At least for me it did. Reminding me about Lieberman's homecoming party hosted by the Democratic leadership did the trick.
If the Democrats don't seat Burris immediately, then we really have only two parties in this country: Republican and Republican-lite.
He'll be allowed in through the back door.
The Senate turned Burris away.
This may be the best thing that ever happened to Burris.
After all, isn't consorting with spineless, gutless criminals a felony?
Let's see now....
As far as I know Burris isn't hiding any money in his freezer...
He hasn't been caught wearing diapers with a hooker...
He hasn't been caught doing a "soft shoe" in an airport bathroom...
And he never voted to continue to fund a war while his better half was a military contractor....
Considering the previous, I can understand why they don't want him there.
I have friends and Family that live in ILL., they are spread out From Aurora Ill., to down state. They all tell me that BURRIS is just as CORRUPT as Blagojeivh but none has looked at BURRIS closely enough. That brings us to the point of who is seeing that BURRIS is seated in the SENATE. It is the CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA and the BIG HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANYS., anytime that A NEW HELTH CARE law comes up all they have to derail it CCM has to is BRING OUT A BURRIS CROUPTION charge and that will take all of the wind out of the HEALTH CARE BILL. Wake up people.
Login or Register to post comments.