home

The "Sins" of Rod Blagojevich

Stanley Fish writes an elegant column in the NYTimes about the Blago/Burris affair. I disagree with it but it raises some interesting questions. Fish cites Augustine's works denouncing the Donatists to support his view that Burris should be seated by the Senate (which seem certain to happen now, the Senate is not engaged in this intellectual exercise - political calculation, wrongheaded in my view, leading it to abandon the principle stated in the December 2008 letter from Senate Democrats to Blagojevich.) More . . .

Fish's citation to Augustine is interesting but ignores the important distinction in the Blagojevich case. A commenter reminds what others seem to forget:

The problem with this argument is that Blagojevich’s Senate appointment is not tainted for some crime Blagovevich committed years ago. Nor is it tainted because he is an embezzler or a drunkard or a liar. It is tainted because he was caught trying to sell the Senate seat.

Of course Augustine's writings on the Donatists became more problematic when he he endorsed the use of state violence against the Donatists and all "heretics." There is, not surprisingly, much earthly concern in Augustine's reasoning here. Less heavenly concerns. But I always found Augustine to have a lot more concern for earthly things than appeared seemly for a religion that proclaimed itself to be rendering on to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Casesar's.

On the non-"moral" front, Fish also fails to consider the legal powers of the Senate pursuant to Article 1, Section 5. Fish writes:

The legitimacy of an appointment can be either a procedural or a moral matter. If it is a procedural matter, authority is conferred by the right credentials, and that’s that. If it is a moral matter – only the good can be truly authoritative (this was John Milton’s position) – authority is always precarious, and the structures of government and law are always in danger of being dissolved.

The (perhaps paradoxical) truth is that while governing has or should have a moral purpose — to safeguard and advance the health and prosperity of the polity — it is not a moral practice. That is, one engages in it not by applying moral principles but by applying legal principles. Senator Reid and his colleagues in the Democratic party seem finally to have figured that out, which is why, in the absence of any more bombshell revelations, Roland Burris will be seated as the junior senator from Illinois.

Pretty words indeed. But the legal principles contained in Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution are precisely what is in dispute. There is a credible (indeed, I believe correct) legal argument that the Senate can refuse to seat Burris because of the "sins" of Rod Blagojevich. It appears to require applying a "moral" principle - to me an uncontroversial one - Governors who try to sell a Senate seat should not be allowed to exercise the power of appointment to that seat. The legality of application of this moral principle derives from Article 1, Section 5 which grants the Senate the power (indeed the responsibility) to be "the Judge of the Elections [and] Returns of its own Members."

Can the Senate exercise this power by refusing to seat an appointment by a Governor who is credibly accused of trying to sell the seat? My view is that if the Senate can not, then under what circumstances can the Senate refuse to seat? Why have Article 1, Section 5 at all?

Of course there is another question - which is SHOULD the Senate exercise this power IN THIS CASE. I think they should. I have not really seen an argument addressing why they should not. I do not believe Fish made one that addresses the facts of this case.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Open Thread | St. Kitts Brings Back The Noose >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    The donatists believed not only that all priests should be "pure," but that the parishioners should be too, which would make for a very small church.

    I agree that Blago is a sleaze, but right now, he's only accused of being a sleaze.  Does the accusation of being a sleaze mean that he is not "pure" enough to make a legal and constitutional appointment?

    Hmm (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 10:49:28 AM EST
    re you comparing Blago's attempt to sell a Senate seat with the actions of the Christians who capitulated to Diocletian's persecutions?

    Parent
    Blago would have made a poor donatist (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    The donatists were actually quite moral, and courageous too.  But Augustine was right to say that limiting the church only to the "morally pure" would be to establish a criterion that was blatantly opposed by Jesus and Paul.

    Where Augustine was wrong was in encouraging Caesar to confiscate donatist lands and force them into the orthodox church.  That's religious fascism, pure and simple.

    My point is that Blago has only been accused of a crime, not found guilty of one, and not (quite) impeached (yet).  Until he is, he retains his constitutional authority.

    Parent

    If a man is suspected of cheating (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    on his first wife but is faithful to his second, is his second marriage tainted by the suspicions (only) of his previous behavior?

    Legalities aside, seems to me the morality of not seating Burris hangs on an awfully thin thread that veers pretty close to guilt by association.

    The "original sin" in this whole situation, seems to me, is the practice of allowing governors to appoint people to vacant seats and then treating those people as incumbents who are allowed to run in the next election to keep the seat.

    Given this whole mess, I'm beginning to think it would have been better if Fitzgerald had waited until Blago had actually made the appointment before busting him, rather than pulling the plug before he did.  If that had been the case, there would have been no question of seating the person.  As it is, the ambiguities are just too huge, and Blago has played on them like a virtuoso.

    The problem with your argument (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:10:01 AM EST
    is that you view the suspicion as directed at Burris, when it is directed at Blago.

    In any event, this is an academic exercise.

    And as such, I ask you, when would you think it legal for the Senate to refuse to seat a qualified and legally appointed Senator-designate?

    Parent

    What?!!! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:33:50 AM EST
    The problem with your argument is that you view the suspicion as directed at Burris, when it is directed at Blago.

    But yet you are the one running around here daily saying that in no way should Burris be seated!!!

    So given that you are the one putting the suspicion on Burris. You are the one wanting to punish an innocent man. Aren't you?

    Parent

    When they can get ... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:40:33 AM EST
    away with it politically.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    Good response.

    Because it is nothing but politics with those here who are running around with Burris' head in their hands. It certainly has nothing to do with anything having to do with the law.

    Parent

    Well, no (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:36:16 PM EST
    The suspicion is on Blago, but it's also on Burris by extension, otherwise this makes no sense.  You can't have pay to play with only one person.

    If Burris is beyond suspicion and the appointment was made both legally and cleanly, as it appears to have been, then I honestly don't see legitimate grounds for blocking it, however distasteful it might be.  There are a lot of distasteful things in both politics and the law.

    If Blago had appointed someone before the pay-to-play stuff was revealed and he was charged with it by the US attorney, then absolutely the appointee, though perhaps legal, should not be seated.

    I don't think there's an easy and clear answer on this, so one comes down on one side or another after threading the needle pretty minutely.

    Parent

    Analogies and other things (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:57:26 PM EST
    My husband and I have been going round on this--in a joshing whats-new-in-power-politics(?) way. While I understand what may have motivated Fitzgerald to move fairly quickly, it may have been too quickly given Blago's counterpunch. My husband first mentioned "taint" to which I respond "taint-schmaint...and what about basic US principles eschewing guilt-by-association etc etc." More seriously, tho, I think it has always been more important to let the complaint process against Blagojevich play out in a proper, legal way. (It will eventually, in any event.) The only thing interesting about the original Senate harumphing of the "we will never" variety is the divertimenti it provided. Nor did it ever make sense to escalate this sideshow into a federal/state conflict about the power of Governors vis-a-vis the power of the Senate (especially with this Supreme Court.) Despite what one might opine about the motivation of Sen. Feinstein when she alluded to potential future dilemmas in that regard, I agree with her. Ultimately, the Illinois voters will get to decide in 2010. Right now, it seems as if some simply cannot move off their original "no way" positions because it is always hard to move off that kind of original moral statement. From a pragmatic standpoint, we have or will have several less qualified ("qualified" being used here in terms of past demonstrated civic service and position) Senators that Burris appears to be.

    Parent
    Fitzgerald is smart and cautious and (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    didn't want his case hanging on how the courts interpretion "elections, and returns . . ."

    Parent
    Fitzgerald's case has nothing to do with (none / 0) (#39)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    "elections, and returns . . ." nor Burris or any other appointee. So that is never - would have never - been in play. In short it is not part of Fitz's case.

    Fitzgerald's case has to do with Blago's being accused of 'attempting' to sell the appointment to the highest bidder. It starts and ends right there.

    Parent

    The question posed was: why didn't (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:26:00 PM EST
    wait until the Governor actually did the deed instead of just talking about it.  

    Parent
    Why didn't he wait? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    As I explained there was no need to. the appointment has noting to do with Fitz's case. Nothing. Is that so hard to understand?

    Parent
    It's easy to understand that you are (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    being willfully obtuse. The  appointment and the charges against Blago are very closely linked, as you well know.

    Parent
    No they are not (none / 0) (#123)
    by Pepe on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    You don't understand the laws at all and all your posts in theis thread prove that.

    If Burris would have given Blago money for the appointment then they would be linked to the charges against Blago. Burris didn't do that.

    Try using some common sense. If you don't understand the laws common sense is always a good substitute. Another clue for you is  asking this: Is Fitz going after Burris in connection to Blago? No. Pay attention.

    Parent

    Same question I have been asking. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Saul on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    See below my post

    Does Fitz have a strong case.

    Parent

    Good points made (none / 0) (#26)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:42:40 AM EST
    In my estimation it appears that Fitzgerald didn't expect people to drag an innocent man, Burris or anyone else, across the coals. Fitzgerald being Fitzgerald is well aware of the laws granted a sitting governor. Which is why the timing of his actions had nothing to do with interfering with those laws.

    Fitzgerald, unlike others, respects the laws and recognizes that Blago is not guilty until proven so and that it is Blago facing prosecution in Fitzgerald's case - not anyone else. Not Burris, not any of Blago's staff, not anyone ever associated with him.

    There were some comments in this thread about Augustine being a shallow thinker. I suggest those who made those comments look inward because they are the same people finding Burris guilty of something that the law has not even accused him of.

    Parent

    Does Fitz have a strong case? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Saul on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:24:44 AM EST
    I am not for Blago but how strong is the case by Fitz on Blago from a legal point.  If an act like Blago is being accused of doing was based just on his recorded words but the qui quo pro was never really completed is that equal to as if he had actually done it?

    So if a person says to another one

    Hey I think I'll rob a bank today
    but he never does is him saying that equal to doing it or is it even a crime at all?

    In the case of Blago, he says

    You know everyone is calling me to be considered for the Obama vacancy.
    You know I have pot of gold here I probably could make money if I sold it to the highest bidder. What am I bid?

    The actual transfer of any money never happens but Blago is caught saying this on the phone by Fitz
    Blago then says

    Hey that was just political bravado you guys just took me to serious.

    The part that baffles me on the Fitz investigation is why did Fitz feel compel to go on TV and announce the allege charges on Blago. To me that was an interruption of a completion of a crime. He interrupted the transfer of the pay for play that would have cinched it as crime.  Why?
    To me it takes two to tango in a quid pro quo crime.
    If Fitz's rationale was to prevent Blago from appointing a replacement for the Obama vacancy from  what we know now it sure was a weak argument.

    Seems to me that if Fitz knew this pay for play was actually going down then why did he not let it play out so in that way he would have caught both of the dancers completing this allege quid quo pro into a full proof crime.

    Has his defense attorney argued this very point?
    I don't know but to me  there are a bunch of unanswered questions.


    Blagojevich's lawyer told the IL House (none / 0) (#93)
    by wurman on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:06:58 PM EST
    that all the governor did was talk to some people about doing some things.

    Funny that.  Talking to people about doing some things that are illegal is called "conspiracy."

    So the defense hoist on its own petard.

    The guv & people were discussing illegal stuff.

    duh!

    Parent

    Talking plus, at a minimum, one (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:30:58 PM EST
    overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

    Parent
    Which? I missed that in the comments. (none / 0) (#129)
    by wurman on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    What overt act did he comment upon?  I can't find the YouTube now.

    Parent
    Um, we haven't seen (none / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:45:43 PM EST
    the evidence.  We have no idea what Fitz has.  His office has also reportedly been inundated since the Blago arrest by people in and around Illinois politics with stories to tell.

    Fitz is a pretty careful guy.  It strains credulity to think he doesn't have some pretty compelling stuff on Blago, not just tapes of the guy blustering and blathering to his aides, although whether he's got it specifically on the matter of the Senate appointment in particular, who knows.  He chose to highlight that in the press conference because it's the most sensational and because it seems to have deeply offended him.

    I think he made the arrest early because he hoped to forestall just what's occurred anyway, Blago making an appointment that would be tainted, fairly or not.  Blago outsmarted him-- and the rest of us.

    Parent

    But did he not compromise his case (none / 0) (#117)
    by Saul on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 03:12:54 PM EST
     by not letting the allege crime to come to normal completion?  Don't you have to have two parties to have a true quid pro quo case?  A payor and a payee.

    On evidence we at least do know that according to his news conference the evidence shows he has Blago on tapes saying he could sell the Obama vacancy to the highest bidder.  But you also have to  assume from what Fitz said at that news conference that he surely does not have a  actual payor  which IMO is necessary for a fool proof quid quo pro.  The fact that he asked for a 90 day extension makes me believe that his case is weak and I think Blago and his attorney know that.

    Parent

    It may be weak (none / 0) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 09:08:13 PM EST
    but we don't know that yet.  The 90-day extension may very well have been because of the desire to investigate all the stuff that immediately started coming in over the transom after the charges were made.

    I don't know what's in Fitzpatrick's head, but I can imagine several legitimate scenarios and motivations for him to do what he did.

    It's important to remember that the Senate seat stuff is only one part of a series of such games by Blago, and may not be the most important one in the end.  I can imagine possibly Blago wasn't getting anywhere at all in his attempt to sell the seat -- so far as we know, that's the case anyway -- and Fitz pulled the plug to try to prevent an appointment of somebody innocent of wheeling and dealing who would be forever tainted by Blago's failed games even though he/she hadn't played along.

    Suppose Blago had given up trying to get something for the appointment and named Jesse Jr. out of spite or something.  When Fitz finally brought the charges sometime after and those tapes became public, Jesse Jr.'s career and reputation would have been pretty much irretrievably ruined, and apparently unjustly so.  He's somewhat tainted by it as it is, and it's pretty clear he wasn't going along with Blago's extortion.

    My guess is that if Fitz thought Blago was getting somebody to really play ball with him on the Senate seat, he would have waited and gotten both of them.  As it is, he's got him on a raft of other stuff, and maybe on the attempt to sell the Senate appointment, if not the actual act.

    Parent

    Who knows and you can't rule it out (none / 0) (#121)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 09:18:13 AM EST
    but it could very well be that Fitz knew for sure that an Obama operative was going to deliver the pay for play to Blago, but Fitz wanted to protect Obama. Maybe it was JJ Jr I have no idea.  Why would he want to protect Obama?  Maybe Fitz said to himself this:

    Wow our first AA president not yet inaugurated but it looks like the beginning of his presdency  will be tainted with this corruption coming from his own state, his own governor, and corruption that concerns  his own Senate vacancy and possibly  involving  some of his own people.

    Of course one would say  Fitz would not do that. Fitz a corrupt prosecutor no way.  We do not know what is in Fitz head and maybe this all sounds over the top but in a political world you never know what people will do.

    Maybe Fitz is worried about his job with Obama.
    So Fitz sends Obama a wink and nod.

    I don't know just my 2 cents.

    Parent

    Don't buy it (none / 0) (#122)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:00:46 AM EST
    Not with this guy.  Fitz is one of those rigid law 'n order guys, and there's not the slightest hint in his history that he's ever been willing to go along to get along.

    Not to mention a guy whose primary concern is keeping his job would not have gone after Scooter Libby, thrown bushels full of subpoenas at the White House and made very dark hints about the all-powerful vice president.

    Also, although I'm no fan of Obama's, I don't see him stooping to anything of the sort, and I especially don't see him being so stupid as to play games with a guy known to be corrupt and known to be already under federal investigation, particularly over something as relatively trivial to him as which Democrat would get the appointment to his Senate seat.


    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#125)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:30:04 PM EST
    But remember Eliot Spitzer was also this holy guy who could do no wrong and we all know what happen to him.

    Parent
    Spitzer had (none / 0) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 08:47:22 PM EST
    what we call in the politics biz a "zipper problem," like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy and oh so many others, just manifested slightly differently.

    There's never been a whiff of corruption or "go along to get along" with Spitzer, either, so your gotcha doesn't actually get anything. :-)  In any case, there's a fair amount of difference between a pol and a career prosecutor in both mindset and behavior.

    Parent

    Never meant it as gotcha post sorry you took (none / 0) (#127)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:18:21 PM EST
    it that way.  But I respectfully disagree, Spitzer was corrupt.  He spent a lot of time as a prosecutor putting people involved in prostitution rings  in jail while at the same time he was doing it himself.  That is blatant corruption of a prosecutor.  Taking an oath to uphold the law, prosecuting people and at the same time being involved in the same type of crime he was prosecuting people with.  Yep that is  blatant corruption.

    Parent
    Well, no (none / 0) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    it's not corruption.  Corruption is when a pol does something or doesn't do something in order to benefit personally financially.

    And from everything I've read, you're also wrong about his dallying with prostitutes at the same time he was prosecuting prostitution rings.  He was prosecuting when he was AG, but he didn't get into patronizing them until he became governor.

    Parent

    Wow like that makes him not corrupt (none / 0) (#131)
    by Saul on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:45:17 PM EST
    I am afraid that main stream American does not agree with your definition of corruption. The majority of blogs say he is corrupt.

    Here is just one

    Farewell my friend

    Parent

    The Senate Democrat's original stand (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:48:03 AM EST
    on any appointment by Blago was based in political, not moral, calculation. It was about appearances -- disassociating themselves from the "taint" of scandal -- a PR move, not a principled stand.

    That is why, inevitably, predictably, with the continuing media coverage proving less than favorable for them, they have responded so incoherently and with so much backtracking.

    Like the declaration that they would NOT seat Blago's appointee, the decision to seat Burris, if that is what they do decide, will be based equally in appearances and political calculation.

    How this plays out will mostly be determined by how successful Burris has been in making the Senate's actions about its treament of him rather than about simply communicating its disapproval of Blago. And, of course, the extent of the PR fallout for Senate Democrats as a consequence of his success.

    To bring Augustine into the discussion of this affair is to elevate it to a level unsupported by reality.

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    My impression is they've been following Obama's lead.  He didn't want Burris seated.  Then he changed his mind and the Dems followed along compliantly.


    Parent
    I agree with you. I think Axelrod (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 03:12:04 PM EST
    advised Obama it would be best to make his original statement to distance himself from goings-on in IL.  Then Axelrod decided it wasn't such a good idea and really none of Obama's business. I also think Tribe and Obama were intrigued by the meaning Article I, section 5 and the meaty discussion of law.  

    Parent
    Oh, I think if we are to continue to (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    debate whether the Senate should or shouldn't seat Burris, adding St. Augustine to the mix mades the discussion more interesting and, somehow, more worthy of our time.  New material too.

    Parent
    Of course ... (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    so would adding Groucho Marx to the discussion.

    ;)

    Still, on the other hand, water is water! And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does.  
    -- Groucho Marx


    Parent
    After way too much consideration (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    of the matter, I've concluded the Senate must be able to bar appointed Senators under section 5; otherwise the "elections, and returns" language, in light of Powell, seems to be there for no reason, which isn't acceptible under Sutherland's principles.

    Fish's column is (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    for the most part, a pretty miserable attempt at avoiding the actual questions in the Burris/Blago case.  He examines all sort of situations similar in some aspect - but manages not to mention the CONSTITUTION, at all.  

    His comparison of Blago/Burris to Edward VI is an interesting one though.  

    The context need not be a religious one for the same issue to arise. In the late 16th century the leasing of certain lands was challenged because Edward VI, who had made the lease, had not been of legal age at the time. In response, the crown's lawyers invoked and clarified the doctrine of the king's two bodies: "The king has in him two bodies, a body natural and a body politic." His body natural is "subject to all infirmities that come by nature," but his body politic does not have a bodily and imperfect form; rather it consists of "policy and government" that has been "constituted for the direction of the people."

    Directing the people is his job, and he has not only the right but the duty to do it no matter what kind of person he happens to be. Therefore the body politic - the king's official power - "cannot be invalidated or frustrated by any disability in his natural body."

    Under US Law, my guess is that Edward VI, if he were a Senator, would be removed from the Senate upon discovery of his age.  The land sales would have gone through (of course, as a Senator, he would not have had sole responsiblity for that decision, but rather would've been one of 100 to vote on the matter).  This is a "Qualifications" issue.  The Senate would be expected to exercise its power.

    You may think it is wrong for the Senate to block Burris, but they can certainly exercise their power to do it constitutionally (judging Returns).  Let the Supreme Court determine if it is an appropriate exercise of their power.  Let American law develop.  What's wrong with that?

    American Law Does Not Always ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by santarita on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:40:53 PM EST
    develop in good ways.  The Senate should come up with its own principled decision.  If it is contested, so be it.  But the only reason the Senate might want to punt it to the courts is because of political cowardice.  

    Parent
    Burris may demand his seat next week (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    Here is the one argument (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 10:01:25 AM EST
    that I might respect for seating Burris: "we don't think Burris tried to buy the seat from Blago, so this particular appointment is not tainted."

    Problem is, if the Senate Dems do that, they'll just be backtracking on their letter. Further, it's really hard (perhaps impossible) to prove that Burris didn't do something. "Absence of evidence" and all.  

    This whole circus about the SoS's signature seems silly to me, and at the end of the day it all comes back to the Constitution.

    I suggest you go back and read the letter (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:00:20 AM EST
    You said:

    "Problem is, if the Senate Dems do that, they'll just be backtracking on their letter."

    This has all been covered on this blog already. The link to the letter was posted. The letter itself was discussed. Here is the pertinent part:

    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.

    Well they have determined that. They came to the conclusion publicly that they had no problem with Burris. The Senate is not backtracking on anything. They talked to him and did not reject him.

    I don't understand why BTD and some posters want to ignore what has already taken place and what has already been discussed and ignore it as if none of it has ever happened.

    BTD wants to punish a man, Burris, who has done nothing wrong. I find that appalling and is certainly not in step with someone who practices law and says they respect the law.

    It seems that you and BTD and others want to punish someone with guilt by association when that person has a record of being a stand-up and accomplished public servant. Guilt by association has nothing to do with the law. It has to do with personal prejudices and nothing more.

    As for BTD's: "the legal powers of the Senate pursuant to Article 1, Section 5:

    That too has been discussed and in BTD's own link there was a SCOTUS decision that set a precedent on what congress could do and could not do in regards to Article 1, Section 5. So far BTD has not made on legal argument as to why that decision does not apply in this instance. Not one legal argument.

    I say all this screw Burris stuff by many here is no more than a non-legally founded witch hunt to punish a innocent man and that is shameful. Very shameful.

    Parent

    There are so many misdirections, half-truths (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:09:34 AM EST
    and downright lies in here that I'm not going to respond in detail.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Steve M on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    I think the Senate did, in fact, promise to make a determination, as opposed to a promise not to seat the appointee.  Those words strike me as carefully chosen.

    As you know, all along I have been recommending that they investigate Burris and seat him provided he turns up clean.  I think you would be hard-pressed to argue that that represents a deviation from their letter.

    As to proving Burris innocent, I don't think they really need to prove him innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.  I think they just have to do their due diligence.  If they conduct a reasonable investigation, and nothing turns up, I personally think that goes a long way towards dispelling the taint.

    Parent

    Question (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    But isn't technically, the "taint" on Blago? He is the one accused of trying to sell the seat - Burris is not accused of trying to buy the seat.

    Why does Burris need to be investigated?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    There is nothing "technical" about a taint, it is a matter of perception.  When someone has been credibly accused of trying to sell a Senate seat, it's reasonable for people to wonder if there was anything shady about the appointment he ends up making.  What's being investigated is the circumstances of Burris' appointment.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:31:58 PM EST
    I could be wrong, but it seems that the way it's playing out right now is that people aren't blaming Burris (or, seeing him as "needing to be proven innocent).

    They are seeing the Senate Dems as idiots who caved to Bush on Iraq, FISA, etc., but when it comes to the Blago affair, it's a different story. L'Affaire Blago exposes a dirty little secret of the Democratic Party (that they are as corrupt and dirty as the Republicans), and the Senate Dems will bend over backwards and do a somersault with a twist to separate themselves (and maybe the Chicago-trained PEBO?) from even dirtier Illinois politics.

    Parent

    Republican corruption is different--- (none / 0) (#55)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:34:32 PM EST
    almost more principled, IMO.
    The modern GOP will break any rules and cheat in any way, to advance their agenda. It's not always about personal gain when it comes to corruption---of course it helps to have a philosophy that endorses greed. Democrats are more venal when they are corrupt.

    Parent
    Randy "Duke" Cunningham's actions (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:38:00 PM EST
    weren't policy-driven, except for his policy of making sure he got stuff.

    Parent
    What about Libby, or Delay? (none / 0) (#65)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:55:36 PM EST
    I disagree (none / 0) (#59)
    by Steve M on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:46:57 PM EST
    You and I have different opinions about how the general public looks at this.  Among other things, I don't believe this is impacting opinions of the national Democratic Party notwithstanding all the bungling.

    Parent
    I agree, mainly because Reid (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    has such a history of backing down; probably not remarkable to most people.

    Parent
    Your response (none / 0) (#16)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    is a misdirection and a lie andgarden. It's like throwing sh*t up against a wall and hoping it sticks.

    If you disagree with anything I said then MAN UP and correct me. If you can't do that you got nothing but the slur you responded with.

    You know damned will all of this Burris stuff has been previously discussed and there are no half-truths that I posted. If there were you would have pointed at least one of them out. But instead like a child you troll rate me and post a lie yourself. Shameful. Very non-intellectual.

    Parent

    I think you're both making some ... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    valid points but, with respect, could you have the discussion without calling each other liars.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#43)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    But you should be telling that to andgarden not me. He called me a liar and lied in doing so. I'm not going to allow that kind of low handed behavior to go unchallenged. If he is wrongly calling me a liar,   and lying in doing so then he deserves to be called what he is.

    Parent
    The lie is this: (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    BTD wants to punish a man, Burris, who has done nothing wrong.
    Though if I were feeling generous toward you--and there's no reason I should be--I might downgrade the statement to "half-truth."

    Parent
    It's more than obvious (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:08:30 PM EST
    that BTD does not want him seated. That is unquestionable. And the only reason BTD has given is because Blago appointed him.

    Given that Burris has done nothing wrong. Given that he is a respected politician in Illinois who is qualified. Given that his conduct of behavior when he came to DC was admirable...

    What would you call it other than "punishing" a man for the unrelated accused offenses of another man?

    If someone was doing this to you what would you call it if not punishment?

    When someone is taking something away from you for something you did isn't that punishment? When someone is taking something away from you for something that someone else did isn't that still punishment because of your association and in this case the fact that they appointed you?

    Of course it's punishment. If it were anything else you would have stated that already.

    Parent

    He has done 2 things wrong: (none / 0) (#71)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:11:05 PM EST
    he accepted the appointment, and he played the race card in a very calculated manner. Are those reasons to refuse to seat him? Perhaps not, but they are reasons not to respect him.

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:17:15 PM EST
    if we're going to start punishing politicians for playing the race card....

    Parent
    "Punishment" per Merriam Webster: (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    pun·ish·ment  
    Pronunciation: &#712;pə-nish-mənt\
    Function: noun
    Date: 15th century
    1: the act of punishing
    2 a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
    3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment

    Note:  "retribution" is only present in definition 2 a.    

    Parent

    I never said the word retribution (none / 0) (#78)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:32:44 PM EST
    But thanks for the Webster's. In the case of BTD and others that are out for Burris's head I'd say Webster's definition #3 is apropos.

    Parent
    Not "given," at all. (none / 0) (#89)
    by wurman on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:54:46 PM EST
    "Given that Burris has done nothing wrong."

    More correctly "assumed," against a moderate degree of contrary evidence.

    Burris testified to the IL House that he met with Lon Monk, which contradicts his previous claim that he had not contacted Blagojevich emmissaries.

    FoxNews (sorry choice, yes), supported by some Newsmax & Chicago Trib. stories, establishes that Burris donated money to Blagojevich (though having lost to the governor in a primary election), held a $1,000 per plate dinner @ Casa Burris for the Guv, picked up over $700K in IL state contracts for the partnership of Burris & Lebed, & then Lebed helped the Guv's wife get an $80K per year job on a commission that Lebed chairs.

    Sheesh.  And no investigative work has been done on the connections among these people.  These are just generally, commonly known quid pro quo arrangements.

    So . . . as the junior senator from IL, which appointments will Burris recommend that meet approval, which "shovel ready" state projects will be at the top of whose lists, which military academy appointments will be spooned, etc?

    It's IL business as usual.

    Parent

    As we learned from recent discussions (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    re Ayers/Dohrn hosting at their home a political campaign event for Barack obama, this stuff means nothing.  

    Parent
    Sense & sensibility (none / 0) (#128)
    by wurman on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 12:18:31 PM EST
    Apparently, to some folks there is no difference between a koffeeklatch in the neighborhood & a $1,000 a plate hosted dinner.

    Seemingly, there is some parity between a $200 campaign contribution & more than $21,000 in continuous political donations to the dude who defeated you in a primary---- perhaps to those who think it's the thought that counts.

    The notion that $700,000 plus in preferentially awarded contracts to a "lobbying" firm equates to, oh wait, Prof. Ayers has not received any tangible "reward". . . yet.  Can we suppose that Obama will appoint Ayers an under-secretary of education for the 200 bucks & the coffee with danish?

    I've written many times previously (as have all the major news media, especially the Chicago Sun Times & Tribune), the Obama/Ayers connection is disappearingly infinitesimal, as in there's nothing there except in the minds of Sarah Palin & a few other folk from some fantasy land.

    Parent

    So nothing has changed (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:20:07 PM EST
    with angarden from this morning. Just another 'childish' troll rating that says more about andgarden and not anything about anyone else.

    And more refusal to account for what he says in his posts. Yeah it's punishment angarden what BTD wants to do with Burris and you know it. And your response to the truth is a childish troll rating. Sad.

    Parent

    Ratings are meaningless here (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    But I have to admit that your throwing a hissy fit is kinda funny, and par for the course.

    Parent
    Oh ratings do have meaning (none / 0) (#81)
    by Pepe on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    As I said they reflect directly on you.

    I point them out because only the children here resort to troll ratings instead of intelligent conversation. I just want people to take note of your use of them because you lack the ability of intelligent conversation.

    Now please troll rate this post to reinforce my point. Thank you.

    Parent

    That's not quite true (none / 0) (#104)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:37:08 PM EST
    The default setting seems to be Highest Rated First, so downrated top-level posts go to the bottom of the thread unless users change their settings.

    Parent
    Andgarden, isn't that one ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:21:26 PM EST
    "lie/half-truth" not "so many" as you suggested above.

    Frankly, I think this whole thing is serious tempest in teapot stuff.  Burris likely to be seated.  And likely to be a fairly good Senator for at least two years.  Probably longer.

    In this day and age that doesn't seem to be a terrible outcome.


    Parent

    He won't be an effective Senator (none / 0) (#52)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:25:21 PM EST
    if it turns out he lied about contacts with Blago, even if he didn't break the law.

    Parent
    How won't he be an effective Senator? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jerry on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    This is part of the argument against Burris that I don't understand.  Maybe I'm dumb, maybe cynical, probably both and more.  But I figure that within 24 hours of his being seated in the Senate, he will be just as effective as the average n00b Senator and all talk of taint will fall by the wayside.

    How does his appointment limit his effectiveness?

    Will he be refused committees?  Refused time on the floor to debate?  Will he not get a vote?  Not be allowed to propose a bill?

    Parent

    I don't understand you. (none / 0) (#67)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:04:25 PM EST
    So we are even. In my view Burris is half-corrupt for accepting the appointment in the first place; if it turns out he lied about contacts with Blago, that makes him 3/4 corrupt.

    Parent
    Reply to Andgarden (none / 0) (#94)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    Sorry to say that from my outsider perspective, you seem to be getting a bit too wound up in your argument. (Yes, I understand law school and the tempting fun-with-words; I've been practiciing for 35 years--mostly, federal enforcement.) By the way, I've always found your comments perceptive, refreshing. But here....

    Parent
    I interpret andgarden's purpose here (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:25:27 PM EST
    to BTD, who so very able to defend his own ideas, should he so choose.

    Parent
    "to defend BTD" (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:40:53 PM EST
    this is where you are wrong (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    That too has been discussed and in BTD's own link there was a SCOTUS decision that set a precedent on what congress could do and could not do in regards to Article 1, Section 5. So far BTD has not made on legal argument as to why that decision does not apply in this instance. Not one legal argument.

    over and over and OVER again we have discussed how the Blago/Burris situation is different from the Powell decision.  An issue of "RETURNS" not "QUALIFICATIONS."  BTD and others here have made the same argument - about the Senate's ability to judge Returns - multiple times.  There has been no SCOTUS decision limiting the Senate's ability to judge Returns.

    I know you enjoy getting your hate on when it comes to BTD, but you're simply wrong.  Let me recap the "legal argument" as to why Powell does not apply - Powell was about "qualifications."  Blago/Burris is about "returns."  For more information, please see, oh, almost every post at TL on Blago/Burris since Burris' appointment.

    Parent

    Somewhat on topic (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06:53 AM EST
    Bill Jelani Cobb on Burris and the race card.:

    While most of the country spent the past year pondering Obama's relationship with white voters, it was his relationship with black leaders that held my attention. Last year, during the primaries, I talked to an old-school black politician who complained that the Obama campaign had not provided him with any "street money" -- cash traditionally paid to local leaders and community organizers to get people to the polls. This would inevitably hurt the senator's chances of winning because, he said almost gleefully, "The change Obama wants is not here yet." The very fact of Obama's election in a country that once denied blacks the right to vote is a barometer of change. But in other ways, the old-schooler was right. Obama's attempt to change the tone of American politics runs into one cold reality: Divisiveness still works.

    A week ago, Senate Democrats said that it would be very difficult to seat anyone appointed by Blagojevich. By Wednesday, we were treated to the sight of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid doing everything but composing sonnets to Burris: "He presents himself very well. He's very proud of his family. He's got two Ph.D.s and two law degrees." This was, of course, shortly after the media spectacle of a harried and harassed Burris struggling to make his way to the Senate chamber. It didn't take much imagination to conjure visions of Little Rock in 1957 or black voters being turned away at the polls.

    It's precisely because that history remains so vivid in our memory that Blagojevich's choice of Burris stings. African Americans have spent centuries struggling for inclusion, not for the right to be political cover for indicted governors. A scarier thought is that being connected to political grime is precisely what inclusion means. Take a random tour through the scrapbook of racial politics, from Ronald Reagan's "welfare queens" reference in 1980 to Bill Clinton and Sister Souljah in 1992. The race card has always yielded political benefits for those who deal it.

    The irony, of course, is that after decades of white politicians using racial division to whip up their constituents, it has morphed into a card for black politicians to play as well.




    Parent
    first off: (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    augustine has, in my opinion, always been overrated as a deep thinker of deep thoughts. he seems to have spent the vast majority of his "deep thinking" time coming up with reasons for people to subjugate themselves to the power, majesty and moral authority of the church, rather than ways to make the church's adherents lives better. of course, much like karl rove today, that was his job. yeah, thanks a lot bro. augustine!

    second:

    But I always found Augustine to have a lot more concern for earthly things than appeared seemly for a religion that proclaimed itself to be rendering on to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Casesar's.

    boldface mine.

    the church never said this. jesus is supposed to have made this comment, responding to a question about whether or not taxes should be paid to the romans, then occupying judea. jesus and his buds were still jews at the time, so there was no christian religion to be making this claim.

    clearly, if this were indeed a central tenant of the church, the historic pattern of it inserting itself into the secular affairs of men would have been antithetical.

    in fact, from my catholic school days (i survived, thank you), i recall this being considered a pretty important distinction. but then, it was nuns teaching the classes, not priests.

    third:

    My view is that if the Senate can not, then under what circumstances can the Senate refuse to seat? Why have Article 1, Section 5 at all?

    agreed. i wondered that very same thing myself, after re-reading the pertinent section of the constitution. obviously, the authors considered it important, else they wouldn't have wasted space on it.

    The Bible quotes Jesus saying it (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 10:16:51 AM EST
    I take that to be an endorsement of the view.

    As for Augustine, I completely agree - second rate thinker at best imo.

    Parent

    More significantly, the New Testament. (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:54:35 AM EST
    Although it would be pretty (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:07:34 PM EST
    difficult to quote Jesus in the Old Testament.

    Parent
    I think Augustine has become ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 10:27:04 AM EST
    the intellectual reverse of comparing someone/thing to the Nazis.  (You have a difficult to defend intellectual position, grab some Augustine and sally forth.) And like such comparisons it should end the conversation immediately.

    The Blago/Burris story has gotten way too much virtual blog ink anyway.

    Meanwhile, the Bush administration continues to plunder the government coffers, as they laugh all the way to one non-proverbial, illogically propped up bank after another.

    Hence, my continual criticism of the blogosphere (or is that blagosphere?) which too often is just the political equivalent of a supermarket tabloid.

    Parent

    We talk about (none / 0) (#10)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    things we feel competent to discuss.  The bank bail-out is beyond my ability to discuss intelligently--

    "the Bush administration continues to plunder the government coffers, as they laugh all the way to one non-proverbial, illogically propped up bank after another."

    --as it would seem to be beyond yours.  I'm sure there's thoughtful argument out there somewhere about the wisdom of letting the banks fail or whether Paulson's attempts to prevent a collapse of the financial system are on target or not, but railing about plundering and laughing and illogic ain't it.

    Parent

    Gyrfalcon, I think you're alone ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:13:41 AM EST
    in the blogosphere in only talking about things you feel competent to discuss.

    But I think it takes no competency to say that everyone should be up in arms about the fact that Paulson and company will not explain the decision making process regarding which banks get money.

    Nor that money has gone to banks which don't appear to have problems.

    Parent

    irony (none / 0) (#85)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:46:09 PM EST
    ironically, it is Fox Business who is doing the people's work on TARP by filing suit under FOIA to get Treasury to release details of whom what has gone to and what we the people go back as collateral....

    Parent
    Up in arms only if you (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:04:03 PM EST
    don't get the elementary fact that the entire financial system problem (note, not the economy, the financial system) centers around confidence.  If you can wrap your head around that, you get why Paulson has dealt with this the way he has.

    The huge and very legitimate fear has been that the very act of taking the bail-out money would cause troubled banks to crash because it's a loud signal that they're in trouble and nobody's going to do deals with a bank that's in trouble.  Read up on what happened to Bear Stearns.  Rumors began circulating in financial circles (whether true or not, I have no idea) that they were on shaky ground, and their whole house of cards fell apart over a period of a few months as a result.  (Good rundown here.)

    The only way to counter that is to either keep it secret for a while or give everybody a cash infusion, whether they need/want it or not.  Paulson has done both.

    Maybe there's another way around this problem, maybe there isn't.  As I say, I'm not competent enough in finance to know.

    However, I have read and listened to at least a minimal amount of straight, non-ideological info and analysis on this whole situation to know that that almost the entire blogospheric "discussion" of TARP and the bail-outs has been based on near utter ignorance.  Even the sainted Krugman got critical parts of this factually wrong, even while he was leading the charge against the original TARP plan.

    It's one thing to argue, as we are here on the Blago/Burris issue, when everybody has the basic facts well in hand and understands the basic dynamics of the political situation.  It's another thing altogether to argue about stuff people simply haven't done their homework on and don't understand the first thing about.

    I'm a socialist.  Just the very concept of private banks makes me want to throw up.  But in an uber-capitalist system, it's the levers of capitalism that have to be pulled in order to prevent a breakdown and get things back on an even capitalist keel again.

    When people on the blogs don't even understand the difference between the stock market, the financial system and the economy as a whole, arguing about TARP and bail-outs and banks is just meaningless noise.

    Parent

    Interesting that during the Great Depression (none / 0) (#115)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    a version of this same debate occurred -- with Democrats insisting on "transparency" in terms of those financial institutions receiving aid from the RFC and the Republican administration making essentially the same argument against it -- "that the very act of taking the bail-out money would cause troubled banks to crash because it's a loud signal that they're in trouble" -- as you are making in this instance.  

    Parent
    Just to be clear (none / 0) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 08:53:50 PM EST
    I'm not making the argument, I'm describing the argument.  I've yet to see anybody cogently explain why what seems a very real problem actually isn't, though.

    What I object to rather vehemently is the kneejerk assumption that the bail-out details are being withheld from public view for some sneaky, nefarious reason and that banks not in trouble are "illogically" getting cash only because their friends in the administration are seizing the opportunity to gouge the taxpayers on their behalf.

    If only the world were so simple.

    I didn't know they had this argument during the Depression, though.  Who won?

    I don't know enough about it to know whether conditions, regulations, etc., are different enough today to change the dynamics, but it's significant to me that Ben Bernanke is a very serious scholar of the Great Depression.

    But the very recent Bear Stearns collapse and other examples now are, it seems to me, a pretty strong warning about what can happen to a financial institution that isn't particularly in trouble when people think it is.  It's quite clear that Paulson and Bernanke (and Geithner) have that very much on their minds.

    Parent

    Congress passed legislation, in 1932, (none / 0) (#124)
    by esmense on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 10:59:11 AM EST
    requiring the publication of the names of the recipients of the loans. Initially, when the names were published, because it revealed that  political considerations HAD motivated many of the loans, it did undermine the effectiveness of the agency and bog it down in partisan politics. But, the problem appears to have been the actual corruption revealed, not the transparency itself.

    Roosevelt reorganized the RFC, increased the funding, etc., in 1933 -- in the long run, the agency made an effective contribution to recovery.

    From that experience I think it is reasonable to conclude that transparency should be an on-going principle, instituted from the beginning when funds are first being dispersed.

    Parent

    Here's what I wish we were (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:46:11 PM EST
    talking about today:  AP

    Parent
    A full Congressional investigation (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    of the CIA should be the price exacted by Obama for keeping Kappes in the CIA and giving Brennan a position.  If you're obviously not going to prosecute, you should at least expose.

    The CIA should welcome an investigation.  If we don't find out what actually happened and who did what, the CIA's role will remain unclear.  And later generations of ambitious Republicans can villify the CIA and lionize Bush and his cronies.  There will be little official literature to prove them wrong.  If the CIA doesn't want to go down in history as the bad guy, it should show us what kind of "guy" it is.

    Parent

    Any "circumstances" they like (none / 0) (#47)
    by NealB on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:09:16 PM EST
    The Constitution doesn't say what the circumstances could or must be. It's up to the Senate based on whatever criteria they choose to apply. Given that, and the fact that there's no political downside to seating Burris (yes, the Repukes will whine about it, but almost no one else really cares), at the outset of this first Democratic Congress with an honest-to-God Democratic President waiting in the wings, why did Reid go to the absurd extent of refusing to seat the 56th honest-to-God Democratic Senator?

    I assume that Reid is getting more and more befuddled as he ages and the stress of the job becomes too much for him. He messed up. He'll never admit it, but it's not the first time he's screwed up something so obvious; it won't be the last.

    Parent

    No political downside to seating Burris? (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:13:10 PM EST
    I want some of what you're smoking.

    Parent
    What's the "up side" to not seating (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:46:53 PM EST
    Burris? Will the average voter suddenly be convinced that Democrats are pure as the driven snow? Will the "taint" attached to Chicago/Illinois politics for the last century or so suddenly disappear? Will the media stop gleefully covering everything Blago? Will people really be convinced that Senate Democrats are primarily morally principled as opposed to politically calculating?

    I don't think so. Politically, not seating Burris won't provide significantly to what supporters of that position seem to hope for; disassociating Democrats from any "taint" of scandal and legitimizing whoever might eventually be appointed in his place. Another appointee, appointed under circumstances Reid and Durbin have engineered and approve of, will mostly be, and be seen as, just one set of political calculations prevailing over another. In the meantime, less than competent handling of appearances, in terms of how the conflicts inherent in their resistance to Burris have played out in the media, just distract from the focus on the work that needs to be done for the nation and from confidence in the Democrats' ability and willingness to focus on what is genuinely important.

    Parent

    Above should have read (none / 0) (#61)
    by esmense on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    "won't contribute significantly

    Parent
    You don't think digital vs. analog (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    TV is THE most important issue at present?

    Parent
    PEBO.. (none / 0) (#88)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    maybe PEBO does, he has asked the Congress to delay the switch over, lol

    Parent
    how so (none / 0) (#87)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:52:11 PM EST
    if people are taking the position that the fiasco over NOT seating Burris is not harming the DEMS, and some here note none of their freinds even know about it then why would seating him harm the Dems?

    and I still do not agree that this Powell ruling and 'returns' applies to the 'appointment'. I think the 17th amendment guarantees the states constitutions the right to decide how they fill senate seats. They allow their GOV to appoint..

    Oh how I wish we could take it to SCOTUS, but Burris should be seated now, I betcha we who argue, like the IL SC, that the Senate ROOLZ or traditions have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on how the states appoint a senator to fill a vacancy and that NO SENATE self made ROOLZ can overcome the 17th Amendment would win both 'sides' and the middle- of that august bench

    it is pretty simple..any other ruling would mean the Senate can make ROOLZ anytime they want , a new tradition, and overcome the states rights, balderdash! no way that flies...

    Parent

    Mr. Fish, BTD, and a commenter (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:27:49 AM EST
    refer to "Augustine" w/o his honorific.  Surprising.

    Fish isn't a lawyer,accoring to NYT bio.  His last column was on 10 greatest movies evah.

    Also, Burris isn't looking quite so pure after his testimony in IL.  

    make that Mr. Augustine, then (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by DFLer on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    Heh! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    TUrns out, according to Wiki, there (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:49:46 AM EST
    three "St. Augustine"s.  Also, "our" St. Augustine is patron saint of Bridgeport, Connecticut; and of Kalamazoo, Michigan.  

    Parent
    Don't know about Kalamazoo, but (none / 0) (#80)
    by allimom99 on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:37:15 PM EST
    having grown up next door to Bridgeport, they might have been better off w/St. Jude (snark).

    Parent
    Oh, Thomas Hardy. Sad. (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    I thought Fish made it a practice to (none / 0) (#34)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    Seinfeld his way through columns. Making a point would be against his philosophy.

    Parent
    Lt. Gov. Quinn (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    I heard someone in the cable-world suggest that if Burris is not tainted, then have Quinn give his blessing to Burris.

    While it might help the situation and help Burris, I think Quinn would appear weak right out of the gate if he has any notion of staying as governor long-term.

    Quinn has to back Burris now (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    under the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court that held that, even without the state Secretary of State's signature, the appointment was legal.  

    Imagine this:  Quinn becomes gov and appts someone else.  The result would be a challenge to the state constitution, wouldn't it?  The state constitution that, under the ruling of the Illinois high court, was not violated by the Blago appt of Burris.

    Parent

    I think your reading of the Illinois Supreme (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    Court ruling is overly-broad.

    Parent
    Thanks -- I trust your opinion (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    over that of the Chicago Tribune.  So you think that Quinn, if moved up to gov, could appt a different Senator -- and that it would stand?  

    Parent
    I think the Burris appointment (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    wwould have to be somehow annulled/withdrawn before any appointment of Quinn could be valid.

    Illinois Supreme Court denied the request for writ of mandate Burris filed to request the court order the IL Secretary of State to sign the certificate.  Court sd., you don't need no stinkin' certificate, and added the extraneous-to-the holding opinion:  you've got the log book--just get a certified copy of that.  The court's opining about the power of the Senate to reject the Burris appointment is dicta, not the holding of the case, and, of course, does not bind the U.S. Senate or any federal court.

    Parent

    My Bet: If both Burris and ... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    Caroline Kennedy become Senators, Burris will be the one with the easier re-election bid.

    Although Gov. Palin opines (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:42:18 AM EST
    Caroline Kennedy is a media darling.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:53:13 AM EST
    That happens to be true.  She also said Kennedy was qualified and experienced (insert laugh here!)

    Parent
    "You know" vs. "You betcha" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:03:22 PM EST
    "Um, uh, yeah" (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jbindc on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:29:26 PM EST
    LOL! File that under the ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    "Consider the source."

    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#29)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    Ms. Kennedy won't get the appointment--Cuomo will--but if she did, she'd win.  She already leads 2010 polls, even though current polls show her running second to Cuomo.

    Burris is toast in 2010.

    Parent

    Maloney (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by jedimom on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    I am pulling for Carolyn Maloney :0)

    Parent
    Latest poll I saw (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:48:10 PM EST
    has her barely beating King by a couple of points, while Cuomo beats him by something like 19.  NYers seem to have liked the idea of Caroline, but not the reality they've been seeing.


    Parent
    There is (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:53:24 PM EST
    another poll that contradicts the poll you refer to.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 03:24:52 PM EST
    Most feel that she would be about the same as Hillary. I tend to agree.

    Parent
    I said "if" and ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    on the latter we'll see.

    And I said "easier."  They could both win, but one have an easier time of it.

    Parent

    Burris has some powerful (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:57:25 AM EST
    video and photos to use.

    Parent
    And an impressive ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 12:00:43 PM EST
    second serve for a man his age.

    ;)

    Parent

    Bad Facts Make Bad Law... (none / 0) (#36)
    by santarita on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 11:52:38 AM EST
    Legally, the Senate may have the right to not seat Burris.  But should it exercise that right where the appointee is apparently morally and legally blameless?  And should it do so before Blago has been found guilty and/or removed from office?  Clinton, after all, was impeached and even found guilty of a crime.  His appointments were not questioned because of that.

    I come down on the side of the Senate exercising this right very infrequently and only in extreme cases.  Reid should have engaged the Senate Rules Committee first to come up a  some well-thought out decision that expressed guidelines or principles to be used to make such a decision.  To do otherwise would set an unfortunate precedent.  What would happen if Blago were to be found innocent and survives the impeachment trial.  The Senate would have ruled against an innocent appointee appointed by a governor of questionable ethics but a legitimate governor nonetheless.  On the other hand, if Blago is removed from office and Burris is admitted as a Senator, then for two years the Senate has an innocent appointee appointed by a legitimate governor who at the time of appointment was under a cloud.  Which is worse to protect a basic premise of out legal system?

    A good sense response from Santarita (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by christinep on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    Thank you, SantaRita

    Parent
    I agree with (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    your basic point.  But please.  There's no comparison at all to Clinton.  He was impeached for private personal behavior, not anything to do with his office.


    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#98)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    is an amazingly pedantic bit of obtuseness from Stanley Fish.

    However, it was made up for by this, from the wiki link:

    Since Jesus had told Peter to put down his sword in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 18:11), the Circumcellions [Donatist followers] piously avoided bladed weapons and instead opted for the use of blunt clubs, [with] which they...would attack random travelers on the road, while shouting "Laudes Deo!" ("Praise the Lord!" in Latin.) The object of these random beatings was the death of the intrepid martyr, who hoped that hitting someone over the head with the club would provoke the victim to attack and kill them.

    Methinks we still have a few of those in the blogosphere.


    Interesting factoids, but not sure your (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:35:48 PM EST
    final sentence logically follows from the quote.

    Parent
    No? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Jan 10, 2009 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    Consider some of the more fanatical "Obots" on PUMA sites and PUMAs on Obot sites...

    Parent