home

Blago Asked IL Rep. Danny Davis To Accept Senate Appointment Before Offering It To Burris

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Blago Farce becomes even more farcical:

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.) would like to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the Senate. The appointment was dangled before him last Wednesday. He turned it down. We discussed why when we talked Tuesday night, hours after a defiant Gov. Blagojevich, facing impeachment for, among other charges, trying to sell the Obama seat, tapped former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris for the spot, touching off a racially inflammatory firestorm.

Davis, speaking on the phone from Chicago, said he met with Blagojevich attorney Sam Adam Jr. last Wednesday morning. The two met in Davis' Chicago office. Davis said he was told "the governor would like to appoint me to the vacant spot." After Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9, Davis, who sought the appointment from him when he thought Blagojevich was playing it straight, said he would not take the job if offered.

Good for Danny Davis. Heck, he seems like a good choice for the appointment . . . by Blago's replacement.

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Morning Open Thread | Blagojevich Indictment Delayed >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Blago Asked IL Rep. Danny Davis To Accept Senate Appointment Before Offering It To Burris | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I am not of the school (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    that says Burris is disqualified merely by the fact of having accepted an appointment from Blagojevich.

    I think the Senate should conduct an investigation and, unless they find evidence of some impropriety in connection with THIS appointment, they should ultimately agree to seat Burris.  Heck, bring Patrick Fitzgerald in to testify.

    I am of that school (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:48:05 AM EST
    I will go further - Burris is disqualified in my mind politically precisely because he accepted the appointment.

    He should never be seated voluntarily by the Senate.

    Let him sue.

    Parent

    It's fine (none / 0) (#21)
    by Steve M on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:54:38 AM EST
    We can attend different schools!  I'm just happy our schools are not meeting in a bowl game.

    By the way, Jack Balkin's post on the Senate's legal rights should be read by anyone who thinks that Powell v. McCormack definitively settles the issue.

    Parent

    I was saying last night (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:56:33 AM EST
    that it could be distinguishable. Obviously, Reid's people will have plenty to say.

    Parent
    Lawsuits take time (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:01:50 PM EST
    By the time this is resolved, it will be 2010.

    I do not think Burris will pursue it.

    Parent

    I am of yet another school. (none / 0) (#81)
    by mexboy on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 04:14:20 PM EST
    The school that says you are innocent until proven guilty.

    Blago is still the governor and he hasn't been convicted of any crime, therefore he has the obligation to  perfomr his duties.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I think the guy is corrupt and most likely guilty, but aren't most of you in here lawyers?

     Shouldn't you be advocating for the law?

    Happy New Year everyone.

    Parent

    Whether he goes to jail (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    is for the criminal justice system to determine.

    Whether he is removed from the Governorship and whether his appointment of Burris stands is a political question.

    Parent

    Granted, (none / 0) (#83)
    by mexboy on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    But the only reason it has become political is because his alleged corruption as Governor, for which he has not been convicted.

    Parent
    We NEED the Democratic vote from Illinois!!! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Exeter on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    Its not worth it to me to lose even one vote because of a sanctimonious refusal to seat a Senator from Illinois until this whole mess with Blago is resolved.  

    It would be one thing if Burris was somehow relate to the scandal or unqualified, but neither is true. We're talking about a 1/3 of term here people! Get real!

    We won't lose any votes; (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    blago will be removed by the end of January, quinn names a replacement immediately and the Senate accepts that replacement immediately.

    Parent
    I see two roadblocks to this (none / 0) (#39)
    by Exeter on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:15:19 PM EST
    1. Burris sues and placement of Senator is tied up for several months.
    2. Although unlikely, what if Blago is not removed immediately? What happens if Fitz can't indict? What happens when Blago starts naming names of everyone in the state house in an impeachment trial?  


    Parent
    90 days (none / 0) (#42)
    by jedimom on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    well Fitz filed for a 90 day extension to indict this morning, TChris has posted details above

    soo legal question here, can Fitz turn over partial wiretap tapes to State Senate to help impeach and if so, how can Blago NOT be entitled to ALL the tapes to defend himself??

    I dont see them getting rid of Blago by the end of January if there is no indictment for another 3 months!!

    Parent

    Blago will be entitled (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    to whatever he is entittled to in the criminal process, not in the impeachment process.

    In the impeachment process he is entitled to absolutely nothing.

    Parent

    Yup, Impeachment is political (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:27:21 PM EST
    if a majority of the IL House and 2/3 of the IL Senate vote to impeach and remove Blago because they don't like his hair style, they can.

    Parent
    senate trial (none / 0) (#68)
    by jedimom on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    gotcha, okay so the impeachment goes thru, but that doesnt take him out of office right? impeached by state house but then he needs a trial in the senate and in that process he DOES get full discovery?

    Parent
    He gets whatever the IL Senate (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:08:05 PM EST
    decides to give him.

    Parent
    Maybe, maybe not (none / 0) (#74)
    by Exeter on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    As Jeff Smith points out while the Legislature can and will impeach a vague Illinois constitution will likely result in the impeachment looking more like a criminal trial than a committee hearing, which means the result may take several months.

    Parent
    Due respect (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 02:14:15 PM EST
    Jeff Smith may want it a certain way, but the IL legislature will decide what is given.

    My point stands. Blago is entitled to nothing.

    That the IL legislature may give him something is not germane to my point.

    Parent

    Not the Illinois Legislature, but (none / 0) (#77)
    by Exeter on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    the Illinois Supreme Court?

    Parent
    Hardly (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 02:31:32 PM EST
    No jurisdiction period.

    Parent
    Burris suing (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    will not stop a Quinn named replacement from being seated.

    If Blago is not removed by the end of January, then Illinois deserves what it gets. Obviously Fitz will indict Blago. that simply is not in question.

    Parent

    A suit need not delay a Senator (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    I think, as I read it (and from some precedent eons ago) -- a Senator can be seated while the suit goes forward, and then if the suit wins, the first Senator can be, well, unseated.

    But I also don't think that Burris would sue, from what I see of him (he works for the Chicago office of a firm based in my town, so I found out a bit more).  Of course, others could sue in his stead.

    Parent

    Who could sue on his behalf? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:07:38 PM EST
    I think only he can sue.

    Parent
    If the legislature would just pass (none / 0) (#1)
    by dk on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:24:21 AM EST
    a bill setting a special election (which IMHO, would be the only non-tainted way of choosing a senator at this point), so much of this garbarge could be resolved.  Seriously, what is stopping them from doing this?

    It costs money they do not have (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    Blago should resign or be impeached.

    Burris should not be seated. when Blago is replaced and his successor names a Senate replacement, HE/She should be seated. Indeed, name Danny Davis.

    Let Burris go to court if he wants. 2 years from now, the Supreme Court can decide. By then it will be 2010 and it will be time for new elections.

    Parent

    Democracy is expensive. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by dk on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
     Given all the behind the scenes jockeying that has now been exposed regarding the seat (some of it allegedly illegal, more of it legal but distateful), any appointment seems tainted.

    If the goal is an untainted pick, I don't see an alternative to a special election.

    Parent

    An appointment by Blago's replacement (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    will be completely untainted.

    Sorry, but dmeocracy is expensive is now answer at all.

    Impeach Blago NOW.

    Do not seat Burris.

    Parent

    I think it would be tainted, politically. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by dk on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:43:21 AM EST
    Like it or not, there was a lot of backroom shenanigans going on with regard to the appointment, and most of the top contenders had a role in it (not to mention the Obama team).  

    Even assuming only the actions of Blago and maybe one or two of the contenders (and/or their supporters) are ultimately found to have committed crimes, as is currently alleged, the political fallout over the public airing of all the behind the scenes attempts to trade political favors, bullying, etc. with regard to the appointment will taint the appointment.

    The Ill. legislature had the opportunity to pass the special elections bill before, and they blew it.  My bet is that if they went to Blago now, they could still get him to compromise by rescinding the appointment in return for making sure the pick was made through special election.  Then, if they want to go ahead and impeach him after that, it's their perogative.

    Of course, democracy is expensive is not an answer to all, but it is an answer to this, IMO.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:46:15 AM EST
    you are entitle to your opinion.

    I completely disagree with it.

    Parent

    Too late. Can't unring the Burris (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:43:57 AM EST
    bell.  He's been 'duly appointed.'

    I don't understand your position on this issue, BTD.  What does 'untainted' have to do with anything?  If we're going to stand on ceremony and wait for an untainted pol, we'd better stock up some grub for a long haul.

    And now that Blago and Rush have played the race card, how do you envision the politics playing out if Reid tries to stick with his threat to not seat anyone appointed by Blago?

    Parent

    Of course you can (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:45:51 AM EST
    The Senate will not seat him. He can sue.

    Blago's replacement can name a replacement, preferably some like Davis.

    David gets seated by the Senate.

    Burris can have his lawsuit and if he wins years later, he can sit in the Senate for a few months.

    Parent

    Sometimes justice delayed (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:49:11 AM EST
    is more just, no?

    Parent
    Frankly (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:50:26 AM EST
    I assume if Quinn names someone like Davis, that will be the end of all of this.

    Burris will not pursue this.

    Parent

    But the media, and perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by dk on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:55:46 AM EST
    Patrick Fitzgerald, would, and, in my opinion, wouldn't drop it.

    Hopefully we would find out exactly what conversations Quinn had with potential contenters and others who would influence the choice, and demand a full accounting of what political favors were promised, what political bullying occurred, etc. as part of the decision making process.  Of course, a special election would solve some of those issues.

    Parent

    Quinn is not under investigation (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:03:22 PM EST
    Fitzgerald will not aks a single question of Quinn.

    Parent
    Perhaps not, but (none / 0) (#35)
    by dk on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    many of the possible contenders, as well as those who lobbied for those contenders, are either under investigation and may potentially be indicted, and/or have been captured on tapes being reviewed by Fitzgerald, and/or will be potential witnesses in any legal proceedings.  There's plenty of taint there.

    Parent
    That is a different matter (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:10:06 PM EST
    and will not effect the appointment by Quinn, who motives are not under investigation.

    Parent
    But it will leave Quinn's (none / 0) (#40)
    by dk on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:15:26 PM EST
    appointment politically tainted.  That's the point I'm making, and a point that could be obviated by letting the people decide.

    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    That is your opinion. I find it utterly untenable.

    Parent
    "denied," andgarden. (none / 0) (#20)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:53:28 AM EST


    Parent
    Sometimes justice delayed (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:55:51 AM EST


    Parent
    That should just be "sometimes" (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:56:59 AM EST
    stupid autocomplete!

    Parent
    Bush lawyers would agree... (none / 0) (#54)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM EST
    "sometimes."  See Gitmo.

    Parent
    I get that, although I suspect (none / 0) (#19)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:51:14 AM EST
    the SC might expedite...and of course Burris would sue.  He's 71, it's his last chance, and boy does he ever want it.

    But what about the race issue playing out in DC and in Chicago?

    Parent

    Yes, the race (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by eric on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:02:55 PM EST
    issue is big.  99 white Senators saying no to Burris isn't going to be taken very well.

    Also, I do not care for this precedent of the Senate choosing who it can seat, and to refuse those that it doesn't like, are tainted, or whatever.  Already wacko Republicans are talking about refusing Al Franken (they don't have the votes, of course, but the idea is out there).

    Maybe we should refuse to seat David Vitter?  He admitted to breaking the law repeatedly by visiting a hooker.  That is pretty "tainted".  and it is taint from his own actions, not the Governor of his state.  What about Larry Craig?  He pled guilty to some pretty tainted behavior and he was allowed to stay.  (Soon to be gone, I know).  Suppose Stevens had won reelection?  Would he be seated?

    Parent

    Saying yes to Danny Davis (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:04:04 PM EST
    makes saying no to Burris incredibly easy.

    Parent
    Counter hypo: (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:05:57 PM EST
    Suppose Blago had ACTUALLY sold the seat and then made an appointment, should the Senate then actually not have the authority to refuse to seat the buyer?

    Parent
    that is Balkin's argument (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:09:10 PM EST
    And a sound one imo.

    But the political realities are that Burris would be nuts to pursue it. But hew has proven his insanity already so a lawsuit might be pursued.

    I doubt the SCOTUS will overturn the judgment of the Senate here.

    Parent

    I think that fact (none / 0) (#38)
    by eric on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    scenario goes to discrediting the appointment itself.  The argument would be that it was not a legal appointment, that the appointee was not "duly appointed".

    It is different to be picking a choosing because you don't like someone or they are "tainted".

    Parent

    But if the Senate rejects Burris (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    it will likely do so because it believes that the appointment itself is not credible. Can it not use its own standards to determine that?

    Parent
    but why (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jedimom on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    but what justification to say it is not credible if the appointee is not involved in the pending indictments? If the process is not credible then why is it credible for CO or NY which are about to do the same thing?
    Innocent until proven guilty, Blago is not even indicted and per Fitz extension rqst wonr be for at least another 90 days.....

    Parent
    The Senate does not have (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    to presume that Blago is innocent. They can say that any appointment he makes is not credible. In fact, that's just what Reid said in his statement yesterday.

    Parent
    the APPOINTER IS (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:29:29 PM EST
    involed in pending indictments and IS going to be impeached and removed from office.

    Here is a question for you, what if Blago had named himself?

    Parent

    "What if?" Meltdown! (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    Everyone would have gone ballistic!

    He probably considered it but saw the maximum damage could be done to his political enemies by playing the race-card appointment, taking the spotlight off him, temporarily, and raising the stakes.

    I wouldn't play poker with Blago under any circumstances.

    Parent

    My point is (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:10:35 PM EST
    no one would be trying to tell me here that the Supreme Court MUST seat him.

    Which underlies that this is all political.

    Parent

    Well, if THIS isn't political, (none / 0) (#76)
    by oldpro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    I don't know what is!

    As for the Supreme Court, I dunno about 'MUST," but I think they would if they got the case.  It's not as if there is no precedent at all and not as if the Court is not political.  And look how quickly they took, and decided, Bush v Gore.

    Parent

    That's why the IL SoS is buying time (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:55:09 AM EST
    by refusing to certify.

    One suit before the other, Mr. Burris.:D

    Parent

    writ! (none / 0) (#46)
    by jedimom on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    wont Burris and Blago just file a Writ of Mandeamus to compel SoS to certify, and then it will wind up in SCOTUS?

    Since he was not impeached or indicted at the time he made the appt and the appointee is not named in any action related to the pending indictments, then I dont see how they can refuse to seat Burris, this would set a precedent where the Senate could refuse to seat people for political reasons...

    Parent

    the writ is a state matter (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM EST
    I am no expert on Illinois law, but I DO know courts can take as much time as they want.

    Parent
    The Supreme Court (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:02:30 PM EST
    is likely to do nothing at all unless it has to.

    Imo, it will not have to.

    Parent

    The litigation should be fascinating (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:34:02 AM EST
    I expect that eventually Burris would prevail, but it would take a while. . .

    Parent
    Let him prevail (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    in October 2010. he can enjoy the seat for a month or 2 when Congress is in recess, and a new Senator having been elected by the people of Illinois.

    In the meantime, Blago's replacement can name someone like Danny Davis, who can represent Illinois in the Senate. the Senate can recognize him. so much for the foul Bobby Rush, the corrupt Rod Blagojevich and the foolish Roland Burris.

    Blago needs to be impeached immediately.

    Parent

    I was arguing for an expedited impeachment trial (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:39:39 AM EST
    more than a week ago just because I feared that Blago might try something like this.

    He remains in a position to cause serious damage to the state--and apparently the nation.

    Parent

    He'll be out in a few weeks (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    imo.

    Then the Lt. Governor can name someone like Davis.

    Then the Senate can accept Davis and Burris can decide whether he wants to litigate the matter.

    Parent

    Clearly he'll have to be removed through (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    impeachment, because there's no way he's resigning.

    Parent
    By January 15 preferably (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:46:45 AM EST


    Parent
    What about the Powel precedence (none / 0) (#41)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:18:16 PM EST
    Wouldn't that case automatically seat Burris.  I think the SC would act very quickly with this precedence and Burris could ask for an emergency hearing by the SC using the Powell precedence.

    Parent
    The SC ruled as follows in the case (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:22:27 PM EST
    The Court determined in this case that no Congress could exclude a not-yet member (i.e., a candidate member) from being sworn and taking their seat in the House. The Court found that if the Congress went beyond a determination that a candidate member had satisfied the Constitution's qualifications for membership (and had been duly chosen by, and through the laws of their state) it could not (under the Constitution) go further in examining and possibly rejecting a candidate member before administering the oath of office, and seating them.

    Parent
    I say the precedence is on point (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:25:35 PM EST
    and Burris could sue and ask for a emergency hearing

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    I imagine the Senate's lawyers will say different and the need for an emergency hearing will be vitiated if Blago's replacement names someone else accepted by the Senate.

    It's not like burris won an election.

    Parent

    Winning an election is irrevelant (none / 0) (#58)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:32:54 PM EST
    The precedence set is not arguing whether the denial was by election or appointment.  The precedence if very clear of what the Senate can do or not do in the election or the appointment of a Senator.

    Parent
    Read (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:34:45 PM EST
    Balkin and Tushnet on this. It's not so clear cut.

    Parent
    The more reason for an emergency hearing then (none / 0) (#60)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:37:56 PM EST
    by Burris.  Go straight to the top and get it settled so as not to drag out the litigation.

    Parent
    That's not how it works (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:45:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I understand the SC can order him to be seated (none / 0) (#63)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:56:32 PM EST
     in a very short time from Burris first court request to be seated. From another blog I saw this.

    Since there is no question that Burris has been legitimately appointed
    to the seat, and there is no question of his qualifications (age, citizen),
    according to the Supreme Court it would seem that he must be seated.

    Once he is seated, the Senate can expel him by a 2/3rds vote.

    Will he be seated?  My guess is that the likeliest path is that the Senate
    will refuse to seat him, Burris will appeal as quickly as possible to
    the courts, which will have to rule that he must be seated.  At some
    point, if the Senate continues to refuse, the Supreme Court will order
    him seated.

    At that point would he be expelled?  It seems extremely unlikely.
    After all, the Democrats could use the vote, the Supreme Court ordered
    him seated, he is apparently a very respected figure, and his only 'crime' was being appointed by someone everyone hates.

    The Democrats will get their Senator while having 'bravely' refused to
    seat such a 'tainted' person, doing so only after being so ordered by
    the highest court in the land.



    Parent
    Saul, (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    by quoting that post, you're essentially asserting as decided fact precisely what's at issue.

    Parent
    I think this case is now just a legal case (none / 0) (#72)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:09:53 PM EST
    No matter what one thinks of Blgo and what he did, and about Burris for accepting.  By doing this Blago has put this case to be argued strictly on the parameters of legality.  The only argument now has become an legal argument of whether Burris can be seated.  IMO its no longer a moral argument of what Blago should or should not have done or what Burris should have done.   Burris is going to view it in those very strict parameters.  I deserve to be seated.  If you do not seat me them show me legally why I cannot be seated.  It just one or the other.  Don't get me wrong I do not like Blago but he threw a legal monkey wrench into the picture.  I think he's crazy like a fox.

    Parent
    That blog post is simply wrong (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:09:08 PM EST


    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:44:59 PM EST
    winning an election is incredibly relevant, both legally and politically.

    Parent
    Just got to say it. The word is (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 03:10:03 PM EST
    "precedent."  

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#80)
    by Saul on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 03:44:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    Even if the precedent is on point, and it is not, someone still has to sue and lawyers get to make arguments.

    Parent
    Danny Davis's statement re the (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:57:21 PM EST
    criminal complaint against the Governor:

    link

    Slate legal analysis of Senate's right not to seat (none / 0) (#84)
    by txpublicdefender on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 05:54:46 PM EST
    Slate has a good legal analysis, that very clearly distinguishes the Powell decision here.

    I think the Senate has the right to keep him out.
     

    some are comparing (none / 0) (#85)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 06:21:13 PM EST
    Burris and Lieberman...

    I don't get this.  Lieberman may not be a loyal Democrat but I don't see how Reid would be able to expel him from the Senate.  What precedent is there for that?

    And if the comparison is between seating Burris and keeping Lieberman in the caucus, I do not see how that is at all apt.

     

    It isn't (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 06:36:12 PM EST


    Parent
    I understand fighting Lieberman (none / 0) (#87)
    by lilburro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 07:10:09 PM EST
    but this new attack hurts the blogs credibility.

    Parent
    Blago Asked IL Rep. Danny Davis To Accept Senate Appointment Before Offering It To Burris | 87 comments (87 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment