home

Tribe: Senate Can Refuse To Seat Blago Farce Choice Burris

oculus wanted to hear from Lawrence Tribe on the Blago/Burris farce and here is his take:

President-elect Barack Obama has urged the Senate to exclude from the seat he once occupied anyone appointed by embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. . . Happily, the president-elect had his constitutional law right, and the critics who said the Senate would violate the Constitution if it carried out its threat to exclude any Blagojevich appointee had it wrong.

[MORE . .. ]

. . . The fact that [Burris] is indisputably "qualified" in the constitutional sense has no bearing on the authority of the Senate under Article I, Section 5 to serve as the sole "Judge of the Elections"--and, by extension, the temporary appointments--of would-be members.

And the fact that the governor has yet to be convicted or even impeached is hardly conclusive when dealing with a Senate decision that a particular election or appointment process has been too tainted by evidence of corruption for any victor in that process to represent the electorate with honor and, equally vital, with the appearance of honor.

It matters not that the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt has not yet been met and might never be: The question for the Senate isn't whether the Illinois governor truly is a crook, but whether reasonable observers would deem the process too crooked to produce a credible result. The task of deciding whether public trust would be unacceptably compromised by seating any appointee of a governor whose overheard comments had poisoned the public well should not be confused with the task of deciding whether someone is guilty of election fraud or of corruptly conspiring to sell a public office for personal gain.

. . . . [T]hat the Senate's early December decision to exclude any Blagojevich appointee reflected nothing about the particular person he appointed cuts for, not against, leaving the matter to the judicially unreviewable judgment of the Senate itself. For the danger of invoking doubts about the process of election or appointment, as a pretext for excluding someone that a Senate majority finds objectionable, is minimized when the decision to exclude is made in advance of any individual's appointment, and thus under the classical philosopher's veil of ignorance about whose ox might be gored.

Maybe now people can stop accusing Harry Reid of "ignoring the rule of law."

Speaking for me only

< A Belated PSA | Blago Could Be Impeached By Next Week >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Tribe lays it out very well (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:21:42 PM EST
    This discussion, it seems to me, will hinge on whether "returns" refers to an appointment. I think it does.

    Took Tribe to do it (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:54:27 PM EST
    but glad that you get it now, andgarden.

    Parent
    I don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    what is Tribe saying that is fundamentally different from what andgarden said yesterday?

    Parent
    Cream City likes to take shots at me (none / 0) (#53)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:08:01 PM EST
    And vice versa! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:18:35 PM EST
    'Scuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:01:54 PM EST
    I've "gotten it" all along. What I said originally was that there would be limitations IF Powell applied. I advised you to read Powell because it showed that the Supreme Court did not always defer to Congress on Article 1 Section 5.

    From the beginning I said that Powell was distinguishable, and Tribe lays out the case why, as Balkin and others did before.

    Parent

    Ha. It's all (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    in the comment history.  But at least you won't be posting interminably about it by Tuesday, when the fun begins.

    Parent
    Indeed it is (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    The fact that you apparently weren't able to read and comprehend my comments might be my failure to communicate effectively. Or not.

    Others can read my comment from December 30th and make up their own minds.

    Parent

    But Tribe's reasoning seems unsound. (none / 0) (#162)
    by jccayford on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 09:29:38 AM EST
    I've read your Dec. 30 comment and several threads and Tribe and the (abridged) Powell judgment, and I don't see why you and Big Tent Democrat think the Blago/Burris case is distinguishable from Powell v McCormack.  

    We can all agree that "returns" refers to an appointment; that's not the hinge.  The hinge is whether the appointment is arguably improper.  Tribe cites several cases (in the part BTD cut), but they are all cases where the election was of doubtful legality.  The justices agreed in Powell that in such cases the Constitution gives the House/Senate the right to be the judge.  But the Powell judgment said they cannot "add qualifications".  All of Tribe's talk about the appearance of honor and poisoning the well and so on seems to be exactly what Powell said the House/Senate may not add as grounds to refuse to seat a duly elected or appointed legislator.

    I followed the links from BTD's other thread ("A Short-Lived Concern..") to FireDogLake to Lawyers, Guns & Money (the link is "considerable") to Jack Balkin, and it seems to me Scott Lemieux of LG&M is right:

    "The biggest omission is any evidence that the appointment of Burris was in any way illegal. If credible evidence that Burris bribed Blagojevich emerges, then I agree that the Senate can properly refuse to seat him. Otherwise, his appointment was legal...."

    This is the hinge.  I don't see why you and BTD are being so respectful of Tribe's somewhat sloppy reasoning.

    On a nitpick, the "veil of ignorance" that Tribe attributes to "the classical philosopher" is from John Rawls's 1971 "A Theory of Justice".  I'm a philosopher, not a lawyer, and to me that is a very suggestive mistake.

    Parent

    You've hidden an assumption (none / 0) (#163)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 09:51:37 AM EST
    by suggesting that the appointment has to be illegal in order for the senate to invoke its right to review the returns.

    Parent
    I thought Dellinger did (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    the same thing:

    BTD said his wording was just careless.  

    Dellinger again:

    Blagojevich's appointment is, of course, a shameful act by a disgraced Governor, a blight on the reputation of Burris for accepting, and a political embarrassment for Democrats. The proper question, however, is whether the Senate, acting in good faith, can reach a conscientious conclusion that this appointment, however unwise and unwelcome, is also unlawful under Illinois law or under the United States Constitution. If it isn't unlawful, he has to be seated.

    I think it is important to make the distinction between illegal and improper.  Esp. on the blogs.

    Parent

    I didn't mean to hide it. (none / 0) (#165)
    by jccayford on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:19:27 AM EST
    I believe that's what Powell says: the Constitution only allows the Senate to reject the returns (i.e. not seat Burris; of course they can "review" the returns) if the legal standing of the returns is in doubt.  Anything besides doubt about the legality of the returns is "adding qualifications" to the Constitution, which Powell struck down.


    Parent
    where does Powell (none / 0) (#167)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:23:47 AM EST
    say anything about returns?

    Parent
    In Powell (none / 0) (#168)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    "returns" is only mentioned once in the opinion and once in the concurrence. Both times, constitutional language (in one case of Massachusetts) is being quoted. In neither case is the word discussed. That's because returns were not at issue in Powell. They are here.

    Parent
    thanks. (none / 0) (#171)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    I think BTD's question is good - what if he had appointed himself?  Or his wife?  They would've been able to do so legally.  He was arrested, but not indicted.  And she was not arrested IIRC.

    But it would've been extremely improper, considering the criminal complaint.  

    Is that more or less correct?

    Parent

    I think so (none / 0) (#172)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    The plaint text of the Constitution (none / 0) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:35:58 AM EST
    simply contradicts you.

    Parent
    It is simple to say you disagree (none / 0) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    which is what you do.

    There is nothing sloppy in Tribe's reasoning, you just do not agree with it.

    He is saying we most of us have been saying - that Blago being the appointer taints the process and that the Senate can reasonably judge, using its Article 1, Section 5 power, that any such appointment is unacceptable.

    It is a pretty simple proposition and its reasoning is clear. you make not agree with it, but you seem to be intent on pretending not to understand it.

    The argument has nothing to do with Powell, where the House sought to add a qualification to exclude Adam Clayton Powell. The House judged the representative, not the process by which he was selected.

    Here the Senate is judging the process, not the person selected.

    Now, if Powell is applied to this situation as you suggest, in fact IF Burris INDEED bribed Blago would ALSO be immaterial - the only thing that mattered would be if Blago had the power to appoint.

    We already know that the fact that Burris might be a criminal would not be a basis for excluding Burris as per Powell. The Powell case says expulsion is the mechanism for such removal, not qualificatons.

    But there can be no comparable analogy for the senate to judge the process. It would be absurd to judge the process AFTER seating.

    Suppose we know an election was tainted by fraud. OR too make the example easier to understand - suppose we know that a corrupt Governor and Secretary of State of a state certified the LOSER of an election the winner. The certified "winner" shows up with his certificate. What power does the Senate have?

    Clearly the Senate has the power to judge this return.

    What does that power entail? Is it limitless? Is it reviewable? NOW comes the hard part.

    You do not even get to the hard part.

    Parent

    Thank you for distinguishing this from Powell, (none / 0) (#176)
    by jccayford on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    which is what was not clearly done earlier.  Your distinction turns on this one being about the process and Powell being about the person.  That helps.  But I still disagree with the reasoning you use, which is the same as Tribe's.

    Let me start with mea culpas.  First, I did not mean to be inflammatory and am happy to leave it at "disagree" rather than "sloppy".  I'll say below why I still think the reasoning is ... questionable.  Second, I am not "pretending not to understand", but it is true that I am less quick than some of you lawyers about seeing where the legal lines get drawn.  I did not understand that the "qualifications" discussed in Powell were strictly the enumerated qualifications to hold office (that is, concern the person, not the process).

    Granted, then, this case is not exactly like Powell.  How far does that get us?  The structure of Powell is like this (I think): the Constitution says, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...."; the Powell case (and the earlier Langer case) then elaborates on the limits of the "Qualifications" part of that right to judge.  The question in Blago/Burris is what the limits are on the "Elections, Returns" part of that right to judge.  

    There is still a reasonably close analogy to be drawn between Powell and Blago/Burris, or rather between what Powell says about "Qualifications" and what we might reasonably expect the Supreme Court to say about "Elections, Returns".  If there is a closer Supreme Court case, then those of you conversant with the law should direct us to it.  I am presuming that the references all over the web to Powell here, and the lack of alternative suggestions about pertinent case law from knowledgeable people like Tribe, means there is no closer precedent.

    So, just as Powell says the Senate can judge qualifications, but cannot add whatever it wants to their already established criteria, so the Senate can judge elections and returns, but cannot change their established criteria at their own discretion.  In this case, the criteria are set by the laws of the state of Illinois.  The Senate can judge whether the Illinois laws were properly followed, but it cannot simply change the Illinois rules as it wishes.  At least, that seems to me a reasonable inference from Powell.

    The hard part -- which it is true I did not even get to before -- is, what exactly counts as the "process" by which Illinois selects senators?  Is it the barest formal structure of the process (as Powell says the "Qualifications" are of the person), or does it extend to the character of the actors involved.  I think that Powell says at least this much in answer to your questions: the Senate's power is not limitless and is reviewable.  If Powell clearly answers that about "Qualifications", how could it not imply as much about "Elections, Returns"?

    I fear that "returns" being covered here is going to mean the criteria are almost as simple as with "qualifications" (unlike with "elections").  That is, the Senate's discretion may be limited to reviewing whether Illinois law does invest the power in Blagojevich and whether he exercised it properly.  I fear this because, if that is right, the Democrats are getting themselves in trouble.

    What I don't like about Tribe's reasoning, and yours, is that you draw manifestly incorrect analogies between shady elections and this case.  In so doing, you dodge the hard part at least as much as I failed to reach it.  Look at your last example: corrupt officials certify the loser of an election as the winner.  Yes, of course this gives the Senate the right to judge, review, reject, because the pertinent "process" is the election, not the certification.  Likewise, all Tribe's examples are of cases where elections were corrupt.  Those are all easy.  The whole question is whether the current Blago/Burris case is analogous to those, or is more analogous to a case where corrupt officials certify the clear winner of a free and fair election as the winner.  That's the hard part.

    Parent

    The flaw in your argument (none / 0) (#177)
    by AF on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 06:05:11 PM EST
    Is in bold:

    So, just as Powell says the Senate can judge qualifications, but cannot add whatever it wants to their already established criteria, so the Senate can judge elections and returns, but cannot change their established criteria at their own discretion. In this case, the criteria are set by the laws of the state of Illinois.

    Neither Powell nor the Constitution say the Senate cannot add to "their" criteria.  The Senate cannot add to the Constitution's criteria.  Whether the Senate can add to the State of Illinois's criteria is the question, which your argument begs.    

    Parent

    Yes, that is indeed the question, (none / 0) (#178)
    by jccayford on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 11:31:15 PM EST
    and a very serious one.  A huge issue of state's rights rides on this.  Why do so many people on this thread seem to consider it trivially obvious that the answer to this hard question is unfettered power to the Senate and zero power to the states?

    Parent
    What Is Unclear About It (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    I know Oculus believes that the word returns is somehow ambiguous, but I do not see her point at all. Evidentially you see that as a sticking point, please explain because I do not see how it is anything less than crystal clear.

    Parent
    A court could conceivably (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    decide that "returns" only refers to elections. I think if they ask what it meant in 1789, they'll find that it also refers to appointment (if only by inference).

    They might reasonably ask if the 17th amendment changes that understanding, but I don't see why it should.

    Parent

    that leaves the word without meaning (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:41:06 PM EST
    Returns clearly means the declaration of who is to fill the seat.

    Parent
    It certainly didn't trouble Mr. Tribe. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:17:58 PM EST
    As an aside, assuming President-elect Obama didn't do his own research before he made his statement from Hawaii on the Burris appointment, on whom do you think he relied?  Tribe?  Sunstein?  

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:42:03 PM EST
    The hypocrisy! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by mexboy on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:24:58 PM EST
    ...a particular election or appointment process has been too tainted by evidence of corruption for any victor in that process to represent the electorate with honor and, equally vital, with the appearance of honor.

    I find it hysterical that Tribe argues senators represent the electorate with honor. (Should we next apply this principle to Presidents?)

    Is he talking about the same senators that receive bribes, uh,  I mean donations, from lobbyists and then sponsor bills or add pork that benefit the lobbyists bosses?

    I think this was all business as usual, but this fool got caught. I also think most other politicians may have the appearance of honor, but I don't see honor in a lot of what they do.

    I understand the Senate has to take this position because they don't want to look corrupt themselves, but if Burris did no wrong, he should be seated.

    I think most politicians bend the rules in order to get ahead. It is just too expensive to run for office.


    You weren't, perhaps, thinking of (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:49:46 PM EST
    Congressman William Jefferson, were you?

    Parent
    I love this part (3.66 / 3) (#5)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:35:51 PM EST
    The question for the Senate isn't whether the Illinois governor truly is a crook, but whether reasonable observers would deem the process too crooked to produce a credible result.

    I dare say that if Caroline Kennedy is appointed to the US Senate, quite a few reasonable observers will come to that conclusion, too. And, quite frankly, I doubt any appointment to the Senate can be free of that suspicion, given the political maneuvering involved.

    Lol (2.00 / 1) (#19)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:42:59 PM EST
    Not sure where you are getting your opinion of "reasonable' people who would find Kennedy unsuitable, but if it is from inconsolable Hillary fan's here at TL and other blogs, you are off the mark: those are hardly reasonable people at least when it has anything to do with Hillary and the election.

    Parent
    Reasonable people think (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:56:35 PM EST
    that representatives of the people who will be voting for the people ought to have taken voting seriously before rather suddenly contemplating a political career that starts at the Senate level, squeaky.

    Not so seriously as they do in Chicago, of course, where they vote from the grave.

    Parent

    Really? (1.50 / 2) (#45)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    How come all the protests come from Hillary supporters regarding Kennedy's lack of experience and no one is even bothering to question Salazar's choice or anyone else for that matter.

    My take is that Kennedy's appointment is emotionally loaded because she backed Obama. THe same people protesting Kennedy now were screaming about Ted and Caroline selling out when they endorsed Obama.

    Not a reasonable bunch when it comes to anything surrounding Hillary's bid for POTUS, imo.

    Parent

    As a matter of fact... (none / 0) (#52)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:06:44 PM EST
    ...I have questioned Salazar's choice. See the relevant thread.

    Parent
    Weak Tea (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    Political Career Starting At the Senate (none / 0) (#50)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    CK's political career could both start there and end there in two years if she doesn't perform well by 2010.

    Sure, we New Yorkers tend to elect Dems but Repubs like Pataki and Javits prove it's not impossible for a moderate Repub either in the right landscape/against a weak or played-out Dem.

    Heck, we even sometimes get nightmare scenarios like "Pothole Al" D'Amato when the liberals/moderates split the vote suicidally.

    Parent

    How did HIllary's fans invade your (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:42:00 PM EST
    thought process here?  Non sequitur.

    Parent
    It's not about Kennedy... (3.66 / 3) (#34)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    ...it's about whether the process is "too crooked". Given the large number of highly qualified, highly experienced candidates for the position, an appointment of a total political newcomer who's never ran for an office and can't even be bothered to vote would certainly appear to be an outcome of a crooked process.

    Parent
    Absurd (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#55)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    ...but in your view of things, the Senate has the authority to prevent her from taking office, right?

    Parent
    They can judge her "return" (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:17:03 PM EST
    What would you have them judge?

    See, in the Blago Farce, I am having them judge the fact Blago tried to sell the seat.

    Parent

    I would have them judge... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:37:46 PM EST
    ...the apparent nepotism involved in CK getting the seat. Because if Ted Kennedy were not a US Senator, CK would not be the apparent odds-on favorite. I think we can qualify that as a "fact" too.

    Parent
    Even Ted Kennedy had never been (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:47:15 PM EST
    a Senator, Caroline Kennedy would still be the daughter of the assassinated President, the mourning of whom had Americans glued to their TVs for an entire weekend.  

    But really, doesn't any taint as to Paterson appointing her stem from his ill-considred revelations as to marital infidelity,and, especially, revealing his choice of venue was the Comfort Inn?  I mean, really.  

    Parent

    Wasn't JFK's college (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Amiss on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 12:15:00 AM EST
    roommate a placeholder for Teddy until he was of age to become senator? As in, it was pretty much "arranged" for him as they are trying to do for Caroline.

    Parent
    Good memory. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 12:21:08 AM EST
    Pardon me... (none / 0) (#86)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    ...but I think the proper phrasing here is that he allegedly tried to sell the seat.

    So it's not a fact just yet.

    Parent

    I am not a court of law (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:38:12 PM EST
    He tried to sell the seat. Period.

    Second warning for you.

    Watch your tone.

    Parent

    Where is that in section 5 again? (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 01:37:53 AM EST
    I Long To Live Where You Are (none / 0) (#58)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:12:45 PM EST
    if Paterson naming CK as interim senator is your definition of a crooked process.

    I'd prefer we always replace senators etc by special elections myself, but having one in just two years is not that far out of whack for me.

    As to the argument that we should get someone who's run for office...I prefer a promising non pol to some of the many 'experienced' old hands we could get foisted on us. i don't share your reverence for that particular qualification.

    It remains to be seen what promise CK will bring to the seat, but for two years I'm willing to wait and see. And, as a New Yorker, I might just vote for a liberal Repub against her in 2010 if she doesn't live up to my expectations.

    Parent

    Kennedy and Burris (none / 0) (#131)
    by lentinel on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:40:59 PM EST
    With Burris there is the appearance of the quid pro quo in that he raised money for Blago and subsequently, coincidentally I suppose, received government contracts and now this appointment.

    With Kennedy, there is no taint of a payoff.

    Parent

    Not that I am a pro=Burris (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Amiss on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 12:20:27 AM EST
    but he also held a fundraiser for Obama.
    Burris once held a fundraiser at his house for Obama and calls the president-elect "somebody whose career I really helped launch."

    LINK


    Parent

    see. Now that's upfront. No (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 01:40:07 AM EST
    Ayers/Obama shillyshallying.  I held a fund raiser at my house.  I'm proud of it.  In fact, w/o me doing so, where would Obama be today?  <yes, snk>

    Parent
    Now the truth can be told (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    My great-great very great grandfather held a fund-raiser for George Washington. The rest is history. My family held a seance recently. Grrrrrreat Grampa appeared. He expressed regret that his efforts had led to George Bush - but he did express an interest in pay-per-view television.

    Parent
    Not that I am pro-Obama (none / 0) (#173)
    by lentinel on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    but as far as I know Obama was not responsible for awarding Burris government contracts or appointing him to any higher office...

    but maybe he did - I don't know.

    Parent

    Remember, too, that Tribe (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:25:58 PM EST
    is one of Obama's advisors on law and the Constitution (as well as having taught his con law class).

    So, coming from Tribe makes this a pretty strong signal of exactly where Obama stands, too.

    And Tribe is at odds with (none / 0) (#140)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 07:57:25 PM EST
    Jonathan Turley on the law.  See

    Turley questions whether Burris was a good choice, however, on the basis of the Rolando Cruz matter, which I believe T Chris discussed in a post yesterday.  Turley's post is entitled "Cruz Control: Past Case Haunts Burris Appointment"  Link:  

    Parent

    Here are the links (none / 0) (#141)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    beyond the question (none / 0) (#3)
    by wystler on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    The question for the Senate isn't whether the Illinois governor truly is a crook, but whether reasonable observers would deem the process too crooked to produce a credible result.

    Within Tribe's analysis, sure.

    But there's the extra-legal issue: Whether reasonable observers believe the individual himself to be a credible appointee.

    The process' "taint" will not be gone until Blagojevich is impeached, with or without a conviction in federal court. The legislature's go-slow approach toward impeachment strongly suggests that the case for impeachment, beyond Mike Madigan's political will, is flimsy without Fitz's wiretaps.

    The federal case will remain open for quite some time. Meanwhile, the citizens of Illinois should be denied representation by two senators?

    Roland Burris has served Illinois well. There is no hint of corruption in his history. He ought to be seated.

    disagree entirely (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    If the process is tainted, it shouldn't matter who was appointed. Jesus himself shouldn't be seated under these circumstances.

    Parent
    What are the criteria... (none / 0) (#7)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:37:35 PM EST
    ...for an untainted process?

    Parent
    I know what is a atainted process (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    One where the Governor appears to have been trying to sell the seat.

    Parent
    IOW, "I know it when I see it"... (3.00 / 2) (#22)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    ...and I'll definitely see it when the person in question is someone I don't like.

    Parent
    not entirely fair (none / 0) (#60)
    by wystler on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:14:38 PM EST
    BTD appears to know next to nothing about Roland Burris. (Ditto most Dem members of DC's Club of One Hundred.)

    Parent
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    I have come to know more than I care to about Burris.

    The point of the argument presented, the one you refuse to be "ensnared" in is that any choice by Blago is irredeemably tainted.


    Parent

    Like the Senate (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    I saw it BEFORE I even knew of Burris' existence.

    But your MO is now apparent to me.

    You are skating on thin ice with me. Cool it if you want to stay in my threads.
     

    Parent

    The "person I don't like"... (none / 0) (#92)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:39:39 PM EST
    ...is Blagojevich, of course, not Burris.

    Parent
    Whatever the Senate says they are (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    It's a political question.

    Parent
    So then (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    should Lisa Murkowski have been seated?

    Parent
    The taint there being? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:39:38 PM EST
    Nepotism? Are you really comparing that to Blago's trying to sell the seat?

    Parent
    So nepotism does not count... (none / 0) (#20)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:43:00 PM EST
    ...as a "tainted process"? Wow.

    Parent
    The Senate didn't think so (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    But they could have. QED.

    Parent
    Let's put it this way (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    Being part of a family should not be disqualifying.

    But my larger point is no way is it comparable to trying to sell the seat.

    Parent

    In my view, it is... (none / 0) (#27)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:51:23 PM EST
    ...this kind of familial preference is the very epitome of corruption. It's the equivalent of treating a public office as private property, whether you "gift" it to a family member or sell it to a stranger, it's all the same.

    Parent
    So Were You (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:55:24 PM EST
    Against Hillary's run for Senate and POTUS based on that?

    Parent
    She RAN for the office... (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:59:43 PM EST
    ...and was duly elected. Nobody gave it to her.

    In other words, no nepotism was involved.

    Parent

    No Nepotism (none / 0) (#71)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:22:25 PM EST
    Well...

    Let me start out and say that when the trial balloons first were floated about HRC running in New York, I was thrilled mostly because I enjoyed the way it had the VRWC gnawing on their own livers.

    I argued against some of my neighbors that she shouldn't be allowed to run because she was not a 'true' New Yorker but rather was a carpetbagger swooping in from her pedestal as First Lady and should go back and run in Arkansas if she wanted to be in the senate.

    And I've felt vindicated watching her run twice and earn the seat.

    But if she had not been married to the president of the U.S. (and in that position gotten to demonstrate her own talents) how seriously would her initial run for the senate have been taken by anyone?

    Family association played a role as it is now for CK and in two years she will have to run her own race. It won't necessarily be a shoo- in for her if she proves to be a poor senator.

    Parent

    The Senate at the time (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:40:08 PM EST
    didn't see any reason not to. However, if they suspected corruption, they could have questioned the returns.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:45:42 PM EST
    They could have, but they didn't.  In fact I'm not aware of any evidence that they even considered it for the slightest moment.

    You're trying to create an entirely new standard, where if there's even an appearance of a taint, Jesus himself shouldn't be seated.  They can do it if they like, but it's completely at odds with how the Senate has conducted itself in the past, and it strikes me as complete overkill.

    If the Senate does an investigation and finds no evidence that Burris paid anything for the seat or that Blagojevich solicited a payment from him, they should go ahead and seat him.  There's no need to go to the mat by imposing a requirement of a completely pure process that has never before existed.

    Parent

    Sophistry from Steve M. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:47:23 PM EST
    This is something new.

    Blago tried to sell the seat.

    That is the taint we are discussing.

    There is a lot of "look over there" in your comments today Steve.

    Parent

    Not a bit (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:58:50 PM EST
    we just disagree on an underlying premise, that being whether the process has been irredeemably tainted.

    In my view, even where a public official is tried and convicted of bribery, we still don't void all their non-corrupt acts, just the corrupt ones.

    I stand by my position that the Senate should investigate Burris' appointment and, if they find no evidence of wrongdoing, at that point he should be seated.

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    so, if I understand you correctly, you posit that the fact that Blago tried to sell the seat does not irredeemably taint a Blago appointee to the seat he tried to sell.

    OOOkaaaay.

    Parent

    Correct (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:05:40 PM EST
    I believe that if there is no evidence that he tried to sell it to Burris, or that Burris paid anything of value in exchange for the appointment, then there's nothing wrong with it.  However, I believe that the Senate should investigate so that we truly know whether there is "no evidence," because there certainly exist grounds for raising the question.

    Parent
    The "value" Blago gets (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:45:06 PM EST
    in exchange for the appointment is a defense for the corruption he was caught red-handed in. "See? I appointed someone who didn't bribe me!" What Burris offered in exchange was his reputation, his good name.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#113)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:00:08 PM EST
    That's not "value."  Value has to be something tangible.  Every political act results in some sort of intangible result.

    Parent
    Blogo seemed to find it of value (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    He certainly emphasized it enough in his press conference about the appointment.

    Unless you want to argue his entire concern in emphasizing Burris' clean reputation had to do with his care for the people of Illinois and their proper representation. The fact that even saying that is ridiculous shows how corrupted this whole appointment process was.

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:14:37 PM EST
    I am not saying he did it because he's a saint.  I'm saying that committing a political act in exchange for intangible goodwill is what every politician does, every day.  It's completely different from receiving a bribe or quid pro quo.

    If you're going to invalidate every political act by a politician who hopes to get something intangible out of it, you're going to invalidate every political act.

    Parent

    More Like (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:18:38 PM EST
    Calculated blackmail, shameless using Burris, and a fU to the people of Illinois by doing a dishonest end run around the law based on a technicality.

    Parent
    That's more than intangible goodwill (none / 0) (#127)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:23:18 PM EST
    It's an attempt to cover up a criminal act.

    Obviously there's a line Blagojevich crossed, according to the U.S. Attorney for IL.

    You seem to think this is just another case of attempting to "criminalize" politics.

    Parent

    Uh, no (none / 0) (#130)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    in fact, I've made no comment whatsoever in this thread about the validity of the underlying charges against Blagojevich.

    But look, if I've been caught committing some heinous crime, and I decide it would be a good idea for me to be seen the next day helping an old lady across the street so people think better of me, that's not an attempted "cover up."  These words you're using have meanings.  They don't mean whatever the heck you want them to mean.

    Parent

    The difference from your example (none / 0) (#132)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:45:06 PM EST
    is that the Burris appointment is directly related to the underlying crime and charges and grows out of them.

    The argument is that others who should have been considered for the appointment were passed over before Blago's arrest because they wouldn't pay bribes, and that Burris was only chosen after that because he hadn't been under consideration and mentioned on the tapes because he was known to not be in a position to pay bribes. His appointment flows from Blago's criminal acts no matter what.


    Parent

    Bad Analogy IMO (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:01:59 PM EST
    Is Burris the old lady, how about Davis, him too.

    A better analogy would be if Blagojevich held a press conference to document him helping an old AA lady cross the street. And it turned out that the old lady just happened to be an important fundraiser.

    It is plain arrogance on several levels. I am surprised that you think that the appointment is mainly an act of good will meant to give back something to the good people of Illinois.

    On the other hand this is what a parting act of goodwill is, imo.

    Gov. George Ryan commuted all Illinois death sentences today to prison terms of life or less, the largest such emptying of death row in history.


    Parent
    Holy crap (none / 0) (#139)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 06:47:37 PM EST
    I am surprised that you think that the appointment is mainly an act of good will meant to give back something to the good people of Illinois.

    Where do you even remotely draw this from?  How could you possibly believe that I think such a stupid thing?  What did I write to suggest the appointment was mainly an act of good will?

    Parent

    From This (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 01:09:29 AM EST
    I'm saying that committing a political act in exchange for intangible goodwill is what every politician does, every day.

    From my point of view Blagojevich is obviously a lying fake and the appointment is an embarrassment and an insult. Burris made a political mistake to accept, imo, he should have followed Davis' lead.

    Parent

    Davis's Congressional district is (none / 0) (#158)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 01:27:20 AM EST
    entirely w/i Cook County.  Interesting, eh?

    Parent
    I think you have convinced me BTD (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:48:00 PM EST
    I've been following this dialog and not commenting because Steve M has been making the same points I would have tried to make - and doing it better than I would have.  I was looking at it from strictly a logical view, as is my tendency sometimes, and do not find the Burris appointment in and of itself tainted. But I have come to see that the whole situation with Blago appointing anyone to this seat is tainted beyond reclamation.

     I don't want to find out a year from now that there was some hanky-panky going on.  Who knows what deals Blago could have cooked up with third parties that Burris does not even know?

    So I think I have been wrong on this one, and I now think the Senate will be doing the right thing in not seating Burris. But I hope  they don't like exercising this power. Actually, I kind of hope Burris does make sure it gets proper judicial review. That will make the Senate think twice about abusing this power.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    For once Reid was correct. Let's hope that this is an example of what is to come. The stain of BushCo runs deep. The last place we need to mess with end runs around the law from tainted representatives.

    Parent
    Also (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:59:28 PM EST
    let's hope it's an indication of a new sense of party unity.

    When was the last time the Democratic Caucus acted as a bloc on something, with one united message?

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:04:47 PM EST
    Although uncharacteristically I avoided stirring things up with the flammable words party unity.  lol...

    Parent
    More accusations that Blago tried to sell the seat (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ericinatl on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:03:58 PM EST
    No evidence has been provided that he tried to sell the seat.  In fact, my bet is he will not even be charged with a crime with respect to the Senate seat.  He is caught on tape saying that the seat is valuable and he wants to extract value in return.  That, in and of itself, is not illegal.  He can get political contributions in return for the seat, even some political quid pro quo.  He cannot get cash.

    It has to be shown that he took a substantial act in furtherance of the conspiracy (to sell the seat) in order to be a crime.  I somehow doubt there is any such further act.

    If there is no crime, where is the taint?  There is no taint.  There is faux outrage at Blago's crassness.  

    Seat Burris and end the circus.

    Parent

    Hilarious comment (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    Sophistry v. Sophistry (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by wystler on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:17:34 PM EST
    Surely you're not suggesting that Blago tried to sell the seat to Burris.

    So when can the seat be filled in your view, BTD? Will it require an acquittal, or equivalent, in federal court?

    Parent

    Impeachment (none / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 10:16:21 AM EST
    i predict ... (none / 0) (#180)
    by wystler on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 11:23:22 AM EST
    ... that the state senate will not find the votes needed to convict without the feds' wiretaps.

    State senate is not mike madigan's plaything. they're actually going to wind up requiring real evidence, rather than the hearsay that most here have decided is slam-dunk.

    Parent

    According to Tribe, Burris may (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:29:39 PM EST
    as well be Jesus H. Christ:

    Of course, nobody suspects corruption or racism on the part of this governor's shrewdly chosen appointee, a squeaky clean African-American politician.


    Parent
    You're setting up a straw man (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:47:33 PM EST
    The process does not need to be free of corruption. However, if the Senate determines that the process was corrupted, it should be free to refuse to seat.

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#30)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:55:10 PM EST
    but I see the "process" as the process by which Burris himself was appointed.  You see the process as encompassing Blagojevich's prior acts of corruption even if it turns out they had nothing to do with Burris.

    Let's try an analogy.  If you bribe a judge, his rulings in your case will certainly be vacated.  But his rulings in all his other cases won't be automatically vacated, although they'll surely be investigated.  If no evidence of wrongdoing is found in those other cases, the rulings will stand.

    Assume, for the sake of argument, that Burris is completely clean.  If that turns out to be the case - and I assume there will be an investigation - then your insistence that Burris still should not be seated because the process is tainted amounts, in my opinion, to an "appearance of impropriety" standard that the Senate has never applied previously.  Again, they have the power, but you're asking for something unprecedented.

    Parent

    I'm coming around to BTDs pov (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:53:58 PM EST
    of seeing the process in its entirety, as starting from the day Blago realized he would get to make a Senate appointment.  Looking at it that way, I have to see it as a corrupt process, even if there was no corruption in the Burris choice per se.

    Also, we may never know if that choice was as clean as it seems now.

    Parent

    It's the same case (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:57:28 PM EST
    "Let's try an analogy.  If you bribe a judge, his rulings in your case will certainly be vacated."

    Your analogy pretty much demolishes your argument.

    Parent

    Well, no (none / 0) (#41)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    but you have illustrated why my analogy doesn't do much to resolve our differences, I guess.  You see it as the same case and I see it as a different one.

    Parent
    I am having trouble following (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:11:12 PM EST
    your logic which separates Blago's attempts to sell the seat with his actual appointment.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:20:37 PM EST
    Let me try to muddle the point further by positing a few hypotheticals that may or may not have anything to do with reality.

    1. Governor G appoints Senator S to a vacant Senate seat.  A year later, we learn that G asked S to pay a bribe in exchange for the appointment, and that S did in fact pay the bribe.

    2. G appoints S to a vacant Senate seat.  A year later, we learn that G asked S to pay a bribe in exchange for the appointment.  We also learn that S refused to pay the bribe and that G went ahead and appointed him anyway.

    3. G appoints S to a vacant Senate seat.  A year later, we learn that G asked a number of individuals, but not S, to pay a bribe in exchange for the appointment.  When all of them refused, G went ahead and appointed S instead.

    In all three cases, G has clearly committed a crime.  In case #1, I assume you will agree that S should be removed from office, because he obtained his seat through a bribe.  Would you also seek to remove him from office in cases 2 and 3?

    Parent
    Expulsion vs. seating (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:23:38 PM EST
    Two different criteria.

    Change your hypos to it all happening BEFORE the appointee took the seat and I can safely say the Seante should not seat the appointee every time becauase of who the appointER was.

    ONCE seated, I believe expulsion becomes an issue of the conduct of the appointee, not the appointer.

    Parent

    Hm (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    Well then, my hypotheticals actually succeeded in identifying a meaningful point of distinction, although I'm not sure whether I ultimately agree with you or not.  Perhaps I have a career as a law professor in my future.

    Parent
    That distinction (none / 0) (#80)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:28:36 PM EST
    was key to the Powell decision IIRC.

    Parent
    Why does it matter (none / 0) (#102)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:45:08 PM EST
    whether it's the same case or a different one? Don't we get rid of judges who take bribes because their decisions are no longer trustworthy?

    Or do we just vacate the decision where bribery was involved and let them keep their jobs?

    I think you know the answer.

    Parent

    Nope... (none / 0) (#43)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    ...because Burris did not buy the seat, or even attempt to, as far as we know. In his case, the process seems to have been entirely legit.

    Parent
    You ignore (none / 0) (#65)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:17:35 PM EST
    the obvious possibility that Blago appointed Burris not because he thought he was the best pick, but because he thought the appointment of someone who appears so honest will somehow bolster Blago's defence to the charge that he tried to sell the seat.

    What other reason was there for Blago to make this appointment now, given that he had earlier said he wouldn't NOT be making the appointment just yet?

    This means that the Burris appointment IS tainted by corruption because there is a good chance it was made to help Blago, not the people of Illinois.

    It seems to me that people who defend this appointment do so because they think Burris will be an ok choice, so they don't care how he got the job. But the process DOES matter. If the shoe were on the other foot and this was a Republican governor just having appointed some hard-core conservative to the seat, the cynicism expressed in the left blogs would be enormous.

    But it's a Dem governor appointing a likeable Dem so let's just put on our gas masks and ignore the stench.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#73)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    that's not what "corruption" means in my book.  Lots of politicians do things to make themselves look better, not out of a selfless desire to serve the people.  Sometimes a governor might give someone a Senate post because they don't want to have to run against that person in the next election; that might be crassly political, but we wouldn't call it corrupt.

    Let's say Gov. Paterson appoints Caroline Kennedy to the Senate because he figures, "People like Caroline Kennedy, so they'll think better of me for appointing her and they'll be more likely to reelect me."  Is that corrupt?  Seems to me you need much more tangible consideration than that before you can call it corrupt.

    Parent

    Steve's right... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:43:42 PM EST
    ...what he is doing with Burris is not corruption. It's crass opportunism, but not corruption.

    Parent
    Steve (none / 0) (#85)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    You are usually one of the best commenters around here. But not today.

    Parent
    Uh oh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:38:56 PM EST
    I hope that doesn't mean I'm in line to have a bad year!

    Are you sure you don't just mean that today you're disagreeing with me? :)

    Parent

    He's still a good commenter (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by sj on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    You just happen to disagree with the comments themselves.  As for me, I find myself in the unusual position of being swayed by arguments on both sides of this fence.

    Glad I don't have to make a decision and can just watch this play out.  It can be tough having opinions on everything :)

    Parent

    Same judge (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    It doesn't matter (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:04:32 PM EST
    The Senate could decide that Blago's hair style taints the appointment process. The won't, and they shouldn't, but I think the Constitution gives them that authority.

    I think the Supreme Court might conceivably try to limit that authority by setting standards for a "corrupt process," but they have no do so yet.

    Parent

    Now you've hit on the crux of the (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 01:33:28 AM EST
    matter.  Will there be an outcry by people sporting or admiring Blago's "do"?  

    Parent
    Compare your comment to Powell. (none / 0) (#179)
    by jccayford on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 11:40:16 PM EST
    andgarden:

    "The Senate could decide that Blago's hair style taints the appointment process."

    The Powell transcript:

    "Mr. LUCAS. The Senate can do anything it wants to do. . . . Yes; the Senate can deny a person his seat simply because it does not like the cut of his jaw, if it wishes to."

    This is the position the Powell decision rejected.

    Parent

    This is no response to Tribe's point (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:38:54 PM EST
    Rather it is a reinforcement of his point. You write:

    "The process' "taint" will not be gone until Blagojevich is impeached, with or without a conviction in federal court."

    Precisely. And since the Senate said so BEFORE Burris was tapped, the point stands on principle, irrespective of Burris' merits, such as they are.

    He should definitely NOT be seated as Blago's pick.  

    Parent

    admittedly, not responsive (none / 0) (#46)
    by wystler on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:03:46 PM EST
    Tribe's point seems to be that in which everybody has become ensnared.

    He should definitely NOT be seated as Blago's pick.

    Perhaps he shouldn't be seated on the merit of being the Governor's pick.

    Even so, the Senate does have the opportunity of weighing whether he should be seated despite the credibility issues the governor faces.

    The local Chicago media made a big deal of Danny Davis' purported turndown of an offer of appointment. The reasoning behind the turndown is far different: Davis has, in his own mind, an electoral future statewide that would be besmirched by accepting such appointment, both within the party structure (controlled by Mike Madigan) and with a wide swath of voters necessary for the Illinois Dems to keep their successful coalition.

    Roland Burris, on the other hand, will not likely stand for election in 2010.

    And here's a special hint: the Illinois Dems are in HUGE trouble in 2010. Cook County Board Chair Todd Stroger, plus the Blago scandal, has the party on the brink of electoral ruin in two years. There's no white-knight out there who will survive the onslaught. Best option, for the party's sake, is for a placeholder.

    So I have deflected. It's my belief that the frame of reference is poorly chosen for those who would put forth a progressive agenda. Let Burris be measured not by the odor of the Governor, but by his own words and deeds.

    Parent

    Ensnared? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:13:41 PM EST
    Um, for most of us, it is the point. That most of us includes the Democrats in the Senate who told Blago as much in a letter.

    Parent
    That;s different from (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:24:21 PM EST
    "the Senate said so," as you said above.  A Senate vote on this in the abstract would have been good, but it adjourned before this came up.

    Senate Dems saying so is a political statement and does not carry at all the same weight as "the Senate said so."  

    Of course, what the Senate and/or Senate Dems say on Tuesday will be what to watch.  We probably can expect political pretzelification to attain new levels of inaninity, and all on live tv.  

    Whee, what a wonderful way to start the long-awaited return of "progressives" to power.

    Parent

    If I could trust them to (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:59:44 PM EST
    make the arguments against seating Burris as free of political pretzelfication as BTD and others here have made them, I would feel better about it.  But yeah, I'm afraid it is just going to be embarrassing.

    Parent
    A fair critique (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:31:18 PM EST
    This is opening Pandora's box (none / 0) (#35)
    by ericinatl on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:58:35 PM EST
    Why should the Senate get to decide who they can seat?  Does this mean that if the Republicans get control of the Senate they can refuse to seat a Democratic Senator by alleging "taint"?  This is not a road we want to go down.  At all.

    Parent
    Cuz the Constitution sez so? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:00:00 PM EST
    Is it your view... (none / 0) (#48)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:04:16 PM EST
    ...that the Constitution gives the US Senate an absolute power to determine who gets to join that body? Does it have the power to overturn election outcomes it does not like? No Blacks Need Apply? Is there no limit to that power, as you see it?

    Parent
    Absolute power? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    No, just the power described in Article 1, Section 5.

    Parent
    Like anything in the Constitution... (none / 0) (#100)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    ...that's open to interpretation. How broad is yours?

    Parent
    Just because the constitution grants a power (none / 0) (#54)
    by ericinatl on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:08:15 PM EST
    doesn't mean you have to exercise it.  Sometimes it's best not to exercise a power, because once exercised, that power can become a far different weapon in the future.  It's a bad, bad idea.

    Parent
    A different point (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:15:24 PM EST
    of course. You asked why does the Senate have such power.

    I answered your question.

    I think it's use appropriate here and if it sets the precedent that Governors who get caught trying to sell a Senate seat appointment will not have their appointments recognized, that seems a GOOD thing to me.

    Parent

    How about this hypothetical... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:48:11 PM EST
    Gov. Siegelman of Alabama nominates a Democrat as a Senate replacement. He is then promptly indicted by a Bush crony at the DoJ on trumped up charges.

    Well, obviously, that appointment should not stand, right?

    That's the kind of scenario that worries me. Letting Blagojevich appoint someone and have that appointment stand is better than giving a politicized DoJ the ability tamper with the composition of the US Senate in the future.

    Parent

    I wasn't writing as a lawyer in my initial post (none / 0) (#81)
    by ericinatl on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    I was writing colloquially, as this is a blog.

    As to the first point, it is debatable whether the Senate has the power.  Tribe is the only constitutional scholar who has come out on this side of the fence to date.  And as much as I love Tribe, his positions are not usually adopted by today's conservative jurists (who actually decide what the law is).

    As to the second point, you keep writing that Blago was caught trying to sell a Senate seat.  And I keep responding that, in fact, he hasn't been caught doing any such thing.  You can type it as much as you want, but the evidence is not there.  In order to sell the seat, you need to make the statement he made to a potential buyer.  If it's shown that he did that, than there may be a crime.  Otherwise, it's all a bunch of puffery (i.e., puffing himself up to make himself feel powerful).

    Also, to think that once the Senate first exercises a power, it will restrain itself to the situations you describe, is simply ludicrous.  It's a political body, and the power will become a political power.  

    And who will govern the disputes on the exercise of that power?  The President?  The judiciary?  It's a big fat mess that should be avoided at all costs.

    Parent

    You say (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:31:53 PM EST
    Tribe is the only constitutional scholar who has come out on this side of the fence to date.

    But if you read the last day or two of TL, you'll know that's false.

    Parent

    it is indeed false. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by lilburro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:36:07 PM EST
    There is nothing particularly creative, nor outside of the mainstream, about the arguments of Tribe, Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz, SCOTUSblog (Lyle Denniston)...

    Parent
    In fact, I have not been reading TL (none / 0) (#87)
    by ericinatl on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    over the past couple of days.  But if you say so, that's cool.  

    The point remains that the position is not a slam dunk.  It's debatable and will take the judiciary to resolve, all the way up to the Supreme Court -- who do not, on principal, generally concur with analyses put forth by Tribe.

    Parent

    More silliness (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    THIS court, if it gets the case will certainly be predisposed to supporting the Senate view. Hell, they may just overturn Powell for good measure.

    Parent
    Why are you confident a majority (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:35:57 PM EST
    of the current U.S. Supreme Court would support the Senate excluding the Governor's appointment? Because Warren authored Powell v. McCormack?  

    Parent
    General (none / 0) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:42:55 PM EST
    separation of powers/judicial activism = bad philosophical noises.

    Parent
    Bush v. Gore? (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:53:21 PM EST
    I just can't have the confidence you do on Burris question.

    Parent
    Legal Realism (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:59:13 PM EST
    What do they care if Burris is seated for e few months in 2010?

    Perfect moment for "principles."

    Parent

    Oh please (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:40:55 PM EST
    I have written a number of posts on this subject and you sit here and write a comment telling me tribe is the FIRST and ONLY scholar to take this position?

    In fact, there  have been almost no actual leading scholars to take a different position.

    My gawd, Daily Kos is citing Nate Silver and John Cole for their legal authorities for your proposition.

    I have Tribe, Balkin, and Amar.

    I think I win.

    Parent

    Oh, and Danby agrees with Cole and Silver (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    Go figure.

    Parent
    Strengthening my position (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:44:01 PM EST
    You don't win unless there is an actual (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ericinatl on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:46:41 PM EST
    decision from the Supreme Court on point.  Otherwise, you just have a bunch of constitutional scholars trying to outyell each other.

    Parent
    Moving those goalposts. . . (none / 0) (#107)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:51:49 PM EST
    I don't believe I was playing to win (none / 0) (#126)
    by ericinatl on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:21:14 PM EST
    Goalposts or not.  BTD on the other hand . . .

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:56:53 PM EST
    I personally agree with Balkin on the law, and that's certainly the side the giants have weighed in on, but I can at least point to Brian Kalt, Mike Rappaport, and Eugene Volokh as folks on the other side of the argument who are a little more learned in the law than John Cole.

    In fact, Prof. Kalt alludes to a point that seems to have escaped the attention of a lot of people:

    At least Amar and Chafetz have made a plausible legal argument, as opposed to Senator Reid's legally vacant pronouncements. I find it ironic that Reid, a Mormon, is hearkening back to the pre-Powell notion of excluding people from Congress through guilt by association. Back in the day, that illegal approach was used to keep Mormons out of Congress for being Mormons. Senator Reed Smoot was challenged on these grounds, and it took four years of hearings and debate before he was seated. Notwithstanding their hard-to-overstate distaste for the people who sent Smoot to the Senate, the senators eventually let him take his seat.

    Some of the people who argue for seating Burris claim that if the Senate excludes him, a precedent would be set that would enable future Senates to exclude people for entirely arbitrary and distasteful reasons.  What these slippery slope arguments overlook is that if people care to look back far enough, that precedent already exists.  Check out footnote 83 of Powell v. McCormack for more details.

    Parent

    Sheesh Steve M. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:08:28 PM EST
    there is so much wrong with this comment I'll have to write separately on it.

    But if you agree with Mike Rappaport:

    "In this area, one must distinguish between who gets to decide and what the Constitution requires of the decisionmaker.  At least as a matter of original meaning,there is a strong argument that the Senate gets to decide whether the appointment here was legitimate, since it probably falls under the judging elections clause.  It is possible that the Supreme Court would review the Senate's decision here -- whether that is contemplated by the original meaning or not -- although my guess is that the Court would at least confer substantial deference on the Senate."

    Then you are agreeing with me.

    Parent

    Didn't I just say (none / 0) (#119)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:10:03 PM EST
    that I agree with Jack Balkin?!?

    Parent
    You also said Rappaport (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    argues that opposing legal view when he does not.

    In essence, the only developed argument was Kalt's.

    Parent

    Dunno about that (none / 0) (#129)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:30:24 PM EST
    Rappaport seems to be arguing that it would be unconstitutional for the Senate to exclude Burris, but that the issue might be nonjusticiable.

    Perhaps it's a fine point but I don't believe "the Senate has the power" is the same thing as "the Senate has the power, even though they would violate the Constitution by doing so."  In most constitutional disputes, you and I would presumably agree that the law means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, but that doesn't mean we believe the Supreme Court always gets it right.  Similarly, if this is one of those situations where the final authority to interpret the Constitution is given to the Senate rather than to the Supreme Court, that means they have the raw power to make the determination, but it doesn't mean their interpretation of the Constitution is the correct one.

    Having said all that, I disagree with Rappaport on the merits, as the Senate certainly has at least a colorable basis to exclude Burris in accordance with the Constitution.  Whether or not the courts would give the Senate latitude in a more flagrant case (partisan majority decides not to seat a member of the minority part for some BS reason), I don't see the courts disturbing a political judgment call like this one.

    Parent

    Kalt's aside (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:10:02 PM EST
    is really absurd and rather offensive frankly.

    Reid wrote a letter, not a blog post at a law blog.

    Parent

    I addressed Kalt's argument (none / 0) (#121)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:12:10 PM EST
    yesterday. Volokh's argument is empty as all hell and indeed he has had no reply at all to the arguments presented by Tribe, Amar and Balkin. Frankly, there is no real reply.

    Lemieux's argument is also empty.

    Frankly, I have not seen a credible argument made on this against the position of Tribe and amar.

    Parent

    I hope you can see (none / 0) (#124)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:18:04 PM EST
    the difference between the point I made in my comment, and the point Kalt sought to make with his little history lesson.  To quote is not to endorse.  I thought I already made clear, not clearly enough I guess, that I disagree with Kalt on the underlying legal issue.

    Nevertheless, I just didn't want to leave the thread with the impression that it's nobody but the likes of John Cole and Nate Silver on the other side of the legal dispute.

    Parent

    Kalt (none / 0) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:28:38 PM EST
    is what you are left with really.

    Parent
    This is the result, actually (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:27:25 PM EST
    of Congress actually exerting such outrageous power in past.  The precedents were set; see cases such as the House refusal to seat the first Socialist in Congress, ca. 1917, owing to his neutrality stance.

    And he was duly elected and returning to his seat.  It's a fascinating, sad case -- and far from the end of the abusive behavior of the federal government toward him; see also the Milwaukee Leader case that went all the way to the SC . . . too late for him, but it matters for the First Amendment.

    Parent

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:03:22 PM EST
    say what you will about the unfairness of the charges, but he was in fact a convicted felon at the time they excluded him.

    In any event, I don't feel the decision on Burris, no matter which way it goes, brings us any closer to returning to an era when people were excluded from Congress on the basis of unpopular opinions.  There hasn't been a hint of that in ages, and Burris' case clearly has nothing to do with his ideology or political views.

    Parent

    I think that the conviction followed (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 12:20:23 PM EST
    the first of the House's series of refusals that left the people of my city without representation (but with taxation, you bet:-) for years.

    If I read the record correctly, the House convened in January and -- does this sound familiar? -- refused to seat him and referred it to committee.  The conviction came in late February.  The committee reaffirmed the refusal in November.

    Anyway . . . thanks for your posts here, Steve M.  Disgusting as is the Chicago machine, I'm rather fond of innocent until proven guilty.  It's a significant resort against exactly the sort of politics played by the Chicago machine.

    Parent

    And we're going to see more of that... (none / 0) (#106)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:49:39 PM EST
    ...if the short-sighted anti-Burris faction gets its way.

    Parent
    Willful Distortion (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 04:00:24 PM EST
    No one here is anti-Burris. You on the other hand are acting as a puppet for Blagojevich with that comment. This has zero to do with racism, most intelligent people can see through that regardless of their skin tone.

    Parent
    Another level of complexity for Burris (none / 0) (#13)
    by wurman on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    The IL SecState, Jesse White, was interviewed this a.m. & made clear that he won't sign & seal the Gov. Blagojevich appointment document.
    CNN Politics
    The move comes after Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, a Democrat along with Blagojevich and Burris, refused to sign off on the appointment, which was announced Tuesday

    So the process heads off to the IL Supreme Court.

    Another delaying gambit.

    Kewl.

    I do not love that gambit frankly (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:41:49 PM EST
    Yes . . . but . . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by wurman on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:52:49 PM EST
    Perhaps I too thoroughly enjoy a political game when it involves ALL the players: Federal law enforcement, legislature, courts, &tc; and then brings in State legal operations, courts, executive departments, &tc; then sends scholars, litigators, & putzers off to their sources.

    It's all soooooo theatrical, histrionic.  Now, somehow, we need Mayor Daley & the Chicago aldermen to get involved.

    Parent

    SoS White (none / 0) (#68)
    by wystler on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    ... is merely playing ball with Mike Madigan. Dem caucus state politix have been an ongoing soap opera here since 2003 (when Blago was sworn in after beating Mike Madigan's guy in the primaries).

    Parent
    The SC will be the ultimate trier IMO (none / 0) (#94)
    by Saul on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:41:32 PM EST
    The case is getting more and more complicated.I doubt if the Senate will seat anyone until the SC has their say especially if Quin names someone else if Blgo is impeached and removed.  Being impeached and being convicted by the senate in IL  are two different things.  Il has never impeached a governor.  

    Same logic applies to Franken? (none / 0) (#134)
    by magster on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:14:20 PM EST
    Coleman's desire for an election contest "has no bearing on the authority of the Senate under Article I, Section 5 to serve as the sole "Judge of the Elections"--and, by extension, the temporary appointments--of would-be members."

    If Franken wins the recount after the absentee ballots are counted, the Senate should take over and shut the door on Coleman.

    Absurd (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:17:26 PM EST
    You are being foolish.

    Parent
    Explain why (none / 0) (#136)
    by magster on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:29:35 PM EST
    I can understand an argument that it would be "absurd" politically to do what I proposed, so is that what you mean? If so, then fine, I'm not so sure you're wrong, honestly.

    But if you're saying the Senate can't usurp the power to decide MN, I don't understand that.  Gregoire was seated in WA while Rossi's case languished a year. A FL republican congressman was seated while the Dem was still fighting for the seat two years ago. MN law does not allow what WA and FL did allow, but that language Tribe used shows that the Senate has superior jurisdiction over the Minnesota courts as to who gets seated.  If the Senate has the power to ignore IL law and the right of Blagojevich to still appoint Senators, they have the same power to say it doesn't matter what a MN court says in an election contest.  They can say they monitored the recount and are satisfied by its fairness and then seat Franken.  

    Parent

    That's what I mean (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 05:43:31 PM EST
    OK. Last thought from me (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by magster on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 06:18:08 PM EST
    I don't think it's absurd politically to seat Franken provisionally under this constitutional power, like Klobuchar suggested, because of the precedent of WA governor and the FL congressperson. The only downsides politically that I see at that point is that Franken is Franken instead of some distinguished former politician or businessman, and/or Coleman's claims are more legitimate than they now appear.

    And while I don't discount your "absurd", I am frustrated that the Dems are so willing to use their constitutional power to prevent the seating of a Dem, but not to seat a Dem. We have a 58-41 advantage, and by not using the Constitutional power to provisionally seat Franken if he is initially certified will make it look like we are genuflecting to big bad John Cornyn.  

    Parent

    The FL congressperson (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 08:46:20 PM EST
    was a certified winner by the state of Florida.

    Parent