home

Burris Denied Seating in Senate

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:36:24 AM EST
Tags: Roland Burris (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Senate has refused to seat or swear in Roland Burris because his appointment was not signed by the Illinois Secretary of State.

Mr. Burris made his way to the office of Nancy Erickson, the secretary of the Senate, to whom he presented his credentials. Afterward, the aspiring legislator stood in the rain outside and declared, “Members of the media, my name is Roland Burris, the junior senator from the State of Illinois.”

...Ms. Erickson had already said that the appointment letter forwarded by the governor’s office did not comply with Rule II of the Senate’s standing rules, which requires signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state.

Jesse White, Illinois Secretary of State, refused to sign the appointment papers because of the Blagojevich criminal matter.

< The Bush Depression's Silver Lining | Will the Recession Mean More Traffic Tickets? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Burris Denied Seating in Senate | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Drama! I'd like to see them do a scene out (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:44:28 AM EST
    of Gone with the wind.

    Burris: But Harry, where will I go? What will I do?

    Reid: Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

    principled? (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Palli on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:50:56 AM EST
      Boy Oh Boy...symbols, symbols

    Just when we wanted to see images of hope...

    I don't care that the situation is not analogous...I'm 61 and I'm seeing the b&w images of last stand Governors Faubus and Wallace.  
    Damit...no good beginning...
    Tell me what would the Dems have lost if they graciously seated, however temporarily, an African American Senator?

    You need to explain 2 things I think (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:52:55 AM EST
    One, how can they seat him and stsy removed from the Blagojevich taint?

    Two, how can they seat him "temporarily?" I have heard a lot about these temporary seatings and have yet to find where in the law that is allowed.

    Parent

    Next question: how is it possible (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:55:34 AM EST
    for Senate to "negotiate" w/Burris?  He gets half a vote, has to stand instead of sit, gets an inside office?

    Parent
    No idea (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    I assumed Reid was just stalling waiting for blaog to be impeached and for Quinn to appoint someone else, like Danny Davis.

    Parent
    How does seating him taint them? (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by esmense on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:34:35 PM EST
    There appears to be absolutely no indication that Burris paid for his seat. The situation is clear as a bell -- Blagovich made the appointment not as the result of pay to play but as an act of political defiance that might (because Burris ISN'T implicated in the questionable conversations about Senate appointees) also provide some minor advantage in terms of his legal problems.

    The Senate isn't refusing to seat Burris because of the "taint." They are refusing to seat him because the Democratic leadership, concerned about electability, wants to have some control over who is appointed. They object to Burris because they doubt his ability to hold onto the seat in two years.  

    Parent

    I've discussed this at length (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:36:09 PM EST
    but I will try one last sentence - Blagojevich tried to sell the seat. that he did not sell it to Burris does not remove that taint.

    Parent
    answering as best I can (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Palli on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:35:54 PM EST
    1.) The best way to avoid being tainted by Blagjevich is to out wit him, avoid him. Don't let him call the cards or pull you into the fray, be above him. Ignore the bully on the playground, calmly welcome the new stranger in, without promises, but do it in the spirit of gentlemen's cooperation to show the Senate as safe harbor away from the spin insanity.  

    2.)Note:  "however temporarily" does not mean it is labeled "temporary seating" with a brass plaque on the door.  The legal arena is Illinois and the game being played there may alter the game in DC.  Until then I would think the Senate has no standing (except egotistical pride in their own "white as the driven snow" legitimacy. Which doesn't wash since they gave Stevens a standing ovation.)  Whatever anyone thinks about Sen. Burris' grandstanding and Blagoevich's scheming: the image is a closed door.  The action carries historical cultural baggage that you have to be hopelessly obtuse to not recognize.  That is not inverse racism...that is sensitivity.


    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 05:51:22 PM EST
    And it not only is bad politics, it looks like the leadership picked a bad legal argument, which may be more evident tomorrow in Illinois.  That will only make them look worse if they do lose it and shift arguments again.  

    Durbin ought to have at least greeted Burris at the door today or delegated someone to do so -- it would seem a courtesy to extend to a constituent so well-known at home by their mutual constituency.

    Parent

    credibility (none / 0) (#12)
    by Nasarius on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:57:38 AM EST
    Is it really surprising that every Democrat in the country wants to keep Blagojevich at arm's length? Burris' appointment is probably legal and impossible to prevent, but fighting this by all means necessary is one of the few politically smart things Reid has done.

    Oh, and I think the filibuster-proof majority margin works out better if we delay a while, so Burris and Franken can be seated at the same time.

    Parent

    That still is only 59 (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:07:02 PM EST


    Parent
    They would have lost credibility (none / 0) (#13)
    by Birmingham Blues on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:58:43 AM EST
    The only racism that's playing out here, IMO, is Blagojevich's assumption that all black men are interchangeable.  He thinks he can use Mr. Burris's race to force through an appointment he has no business making.

    Mr. Burris, if he were a person of integrity, would never have accepted the appointment under these circumstances.

    Parent

    Mr. Burris has a record and a career (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:07:08 PM EST
    ...that one can look at to judge whether or not he is a person of integrity. He may be unwise, in your view, to accept what may be a perfectly legal appointment; he may even be foolish and perhaps think a bit more of himself than you think is seemly but he doesn't deserve to have all of his integrity stripped from him for this one action.

    And, btw, its precisely because Blago was clever enough to know that not all black men are interchangeable that he has put the Dems in this pickle. Gotta give the devil his due.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#79)
    by Birmingham Blues on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:29:10 PM EST
    I won't question Burris's integrity about everything, but he didn't show much in accepting this appointment under the circumstances.  Perhaps it was only this one time that he let his ambition overrule his better judgment.

    I still posit that Blagojevich deliberately picked a person of color in order to stir up a faux controversy that (he thought) would force the Senate's hand. Why else would he have Bobby Rush speak about "lynching" at the announcement?  It was a cynical power play that had nothing to do with keeping an African-American in the Senate and everything to do with scoring some kind of victory.

    Parent

    Oh Blago was cynical all right.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:37:54 PM EST
    ...that's why he picked Burris and not Emile Jones. And I agree that Burris' judgment may not always be on target but I think the evidence is that he has integrity. But alas integrity does not make you mistake-proof.

    Parent
    I think I'd have more sympathy to this (none / 0) (#14)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:59:17 AM EST
    argument if we hadn't just elected an African American President. This would be like gays complaining about Warren being at Tammy Baldwin's inauguration.

    That doesn't mean that I don't think we need more AA's in the Senate.

    Parent

    NYT doesn't seem to be on board (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    with L. Tribe and B. T. Democrat.  

    Or with the facts (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:53:17 AM EST


    Parent
    Adam Liptak should have (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:56:17 AM EST
    been a contributor to this article.

    Parent
    FYI: a Univ. of Wisconsin (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    professor agrees with you and Tribe at Huff Post.

    Parent
    Clealry not althouse (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:48:47 PM EST


    Parent
    No, but she certainly (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    generated a huge headline.

    Parent
    Who is right (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Saul on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    I had brought this argument before but now it was being discussed on MSNBC and they could not answer it with finality.

    What I said.
    If the senate is stalling for time in the Burris case in hopes that the Il congress impeaches and convicts Blago so Quinn can become governor and appoint someone else beside Burris will Quinn's new appointment  trump Blago 'appointment.  

    If the senate said that it did trump Blago appointment then you would have to say that all the pardons and bills issued and signed by Blago since his arrest would also have to be null and void and I doubt if they would do that.  IMO it would have to be all or none and you could not cherry pick just what you want.   Burris could challenge the Quinn appointment and the senate IMO could not seat either one until the legality of all this is iron out by the courts.  

    Also what takes precedence Senate rules or the Constitution?  Does the constitution requisition to be a senator say you must have the signature of that states Sec of State or is that just a Senate rule  

    IMO this case is no longer a case of taint, or morals it is just a case to be argued on the legality of actions in the frame work of the constitution.

    It would trump it politically (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    as a legal matter, the Blago appointment must be rejected as it came first if the Quinn appointment is to stand.

    Parent
    What about the second question (none / 0) (#26)
    by Saul on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:30:52 PM EST


    Parent
    I do not accept your premise (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    the Blagojevich acts which are beyond redemption involve his use of the appointment power to replace Obama. Why?

    I'll try this one more time - HE TRIED TO SELL THE SEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Parent

    I taliking about Burris (none / 0) (#34)
    by Saul on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    question what takes precedence Senate rules or constitution on the White issue.

    Parent
    The Constitution always take precedence (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:37:49 PM EST


    Parent
    I assume you saw (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    that Dean Chemerinsky is not afraid to be on the opposite side of an issue from Larry Tribe.  While I'm unpersuaded by what he says, it does confer a little more heft on the other side of the argument than John Cole does!

    Of course, if the Senate took my advice - investigate and then seat - it would avoid the thorny constitutional question, while preserving the principle of the Senate's prerogative to reject a corrupt appointment.  They would simply be saying that, in this case, they investigated and found nothing corrupt about Burris.

    Parent

    Blago is a suspected criminal, not a convicted one (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jolsson on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    which makes him no different from any other Governor. Burris must be accepted legally, and even if Blago is convicted at a later date, Burris cannot be gotten rid of on ex post facto grounds.

    Parent
    I don't get it (none / 0) (#94)
    by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 07:11:03 AM EST
    When a number of prominent constitutional law scholars (probably a majority, in fact) have opined that the Senate has the right not to seat Burris, from where do people derive this sort of certitude that the law is crystal-clear and that the federal courts will agree with their position in a heartbeat?

    We all have a right to our own opinion, but refusing to recognize this issue as an unsettled legal question is just silly IMO.

    Parent

    Meanwhile, the plot thickens, as (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    IL Gov. has started the process of setting special election for Rahm Emanuel's seat in the House of Representatives.  Should the House refuse to seat the victor?  

    Hardly (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:33:27 PM EST
    unless Blago has appointed himself as the Canvassing Board for that election.

    Parent
    I bet he'd get away with doing just that. (none / 0) (#33)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:36:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Certainly. It's tainted. (none / 0) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:45:43 PM EST
    How could they do otherwise?

    Also, Blagojevich was accused of selling an Illinois Senate seat.  Dick Durbin holds an Illinois Senate seat.  They should refuse to seat him too.

    Parent

    we the people (none / 0) (#42)
    by lilburro on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:47:09 PM EST
    appointed Durbin, not Blago.

    Parent
    But, did the IL secretary of (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    state sign Durbin's certificate?  Also, he was elected, not appointed, which seems to be a definitive factor differentiaing him from Burris.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, since you have posted (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:46:08 PM EST
    this, I've been wondering if you or TChris or both of you would weigh in on the Senate denying Burris the seat because of Blago's being the Governor who appointed him.  Any opinion on this based on the fact (1) Governor has been charged via federal criminal complaint, not indicted, not convicted, and (2) Governor has not been empeached?

    He was denied being seated (none / 0) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:44:16 AM EST
    because he was appointed by Blagojevich.

    The lack of a signature was a mere technicality.

    and frankly, a fairly dishonest one from the Senate.

    they should have said it straight up, as they have, the appointment is tainted. The lack of the SOS signature is not the problem. It is the excuse today.

    The Senate should return to its principled position laid out in its December 2008 letter to Blagojevich. This excuse is ridiculous.

    That is the frustrating thing (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:11:36 PM EST
    No one will talk about it clearly, not even the Senate Dems executing their prerogative.

    They just raise more questions by bringing in a lack of signatures into the discussion. I'm sure they think they are being clever.

    Parent

    CLever? (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:34:06 PM EST
    Simplest way is more like it. There is quite a bit of confusion, disagreement about the constitutional issues, even though to many here the solution appears to be clear and simple. Resolving those issues today seems more complex and would certainly put more of a spotlight on Burris than Blagojevich.
    The procedural out seems simpler and keeps the issue on Illinois and the taint of Blagojevich.

    Reid has already made the statement that the senate's refusal to seat Burris is because of Blagojevich only. Todaqy's paper thin move may be flimsy but it does seems to follow the same logic that Reid earlier stated: Neither Illinois nor the Senate will certify/seat an appointment by a rogue governor who is about to be impeached.

    Essentially it buys time so that the whole thing will evaporate in a puff of smoke post impeachment. Quinn will get to appoint and Davis will be seated.

    Parent

    I think simple is just (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ruffian on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:43:18 PM EST
    being too clever in this case. Sends up a red herring to the press that all Burris has to do is get another signature and he is all set. Now the press is all breathless about that.

    If he did get the signature, would they let him in?  NO.

    Reid should keep reiterating his earlier statement, and so should every Dem that is asked about it. For once, can't they stick to a talking point?

    But yes, I trust it will soon be over, and I can stop being annoyed!

    Parent

    Doesn't look to me like (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:39:21 PM EST
    Burris will go quietly into the night though.

    Parent
    He Made That Clear Already (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:47:07 PM EST
    Most who would look past his pitiful claim that he is the junior Senator, will see that something is not Kosher. Blagojevich is a slime ball for playing Burris and the AA Community and the good people of Illinois.

    For anyone who cares more than pushing their own tired agenda, the story is clear and it has only to do with Blagojevich's last minute, less than clever effort, to flip the bird at all his detractors.


    Parent

    Isn't he the junior Senator until (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:52:23 PM EST
    proven otherwise?

    Parent
    Only in His Own Mind (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:54:22 PM EST
    As the events of today proved.

    Parent
    I think so (none / 0) (#76)
    by jedimom on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:18:51 PM EST
    yes, there will be a writ of mandamus issues forcing the SoS in IL to sign the much vaunted certification then the sec of Senate will have to accept it,

    thus Ried and Durbin hope to meet with Burris tomorrow, and come out announcing he will be seated as though it were their idea, today was IMO a show to save face, Burris will be seated I betcha!

    unless they are prepared to fight for a precedent that would leave all future executives open to being made impotent by the mere threat of impeachment or a charge without indictment, which is what this action does since Blago is neither impeached or indicted....

    Parent

    clarify (none / 0) (#77)
    by jedimom on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:22:37 PM EST
    to clarify that I mean any executive Gov or POTUS, if he/she were charged but not indicted not even impeached as BLago..

     or say as Big Dawg -impeached by House and not the Senate, is anything he does then illegal or without merit or standing? You cant just draw an imaginary line with no hard rules, is Richardson now tarred by the investigation or is it only if a charge is filed but no indictment?

    so if any corrupt US Atty goes after some sitting executive for political reasons that executive loses poewer to appoint? imagine the nightmare that would open up!

    of course not, then we would have nothing getting done every single appointment would be challenged, it is ridiculous and dangerous precedent imo and they will lose it in court ...just seat him and get on with it.

    Parent

    Yep! (none / 0) (#78)
    by gtesta on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    Besides didn't Bush get rid of the U.S. Attorneys who weren't willing to play a little political ball?  And Fitzgerald is still with us right, so....

    Anyway, I'm waiting for the indictment.  He's only got two more weeks as far as I'm concerned then it's, "thanks for playing, here are some lovely parting gifts, don't let the door hit you in the @ss on the way out".

    Time to start fumigating the DOJ.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    -- State legislators weighing evidence against Gov. Rod Blagojevich may finish their work before getting any tapes of the governor's conversations that were made secretly by the FBI, attorneys indicated Monday.

    [...]

    "These tapes are relevant evidence; we'd like to have them," said David Ellis, a lawyer for the impeachment panel. But he said the panel could wrap up its work as early as this week, and "we have already gathered a large volume of evidence."

    Disagree, Reid and Durbin announce that Burris would be welcome to meet with them.

    "Roland Burris is welcome to Washington; he is welcome to come to my office," Illinois's senior senator, Richard J. Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, said on Monday. "But he couldn't possibly be anticipating any official action until at least his papers are filed."

    NYT

    Seems more like Durbin is making good on his promises.


    Parent

    the linked "report" is (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    stunningly bad.

    The problem for Mr. Burris, of course, is that he was named to the seat by the embattled Illinois governor, Rod R. Blagojevich. Ms. Erickson had already said that the appointment letter forwarded by the governor's office did not comply with Rule II of the Senate's standing rules, which requires signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state.

    That may be so, but I think Durbin's quote is key:

    "Roland Burris is welcome to Washington; he is welcome to come to my office," Illinois's senior senator, Richard J. Durbin, the chamber's No. 2 Democrat, said on Monday. "But he couldn't possibly be anticipating any official action until at least his papers are filed."

    Emphasis mine. Durbin is referring to action on the underlying issue - to wit, considering whether an appointment by blagojevich will be accepted by the Senate exercising its powers under Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution to judge Senate "elections and returns." here is where the article runs crazy:

    If the Illinois Senate seat is contested in court, the issues could be serious indeed. The Constitution gives each chamber of Congress the power to judge the qualifications of its members. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled that the lawmakers cannot arbitrarily add membership requirements that are not spelled out in the Constitution.

    Mr. Burris' qualifications are not in issue. The appointment by Blagojevich is. Here the article continues its strange line:

    And if the appointment of Mr. Burris is tainted by Mr. Blagojevich's situation, as some have argued, it must be noted that the governor has only been accused of crimes, but neither indicted nor convicted.

    And?

    Parent

    Continuing push on the race card.... (none / 0) (#10)
    by vml68 on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:56:25 AM EST
    Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. told CNN Tuesday that Roland Burris's "credentials are in order. There is a strong constitutional and legal case for his seating."
    "The longer this process takes the more racialized this seat becomes and the more difficult it becomes for Democrats to hold it in 2010."

    Candidate #5 (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:59:50 AM EST
    should try to stay away from the cameras on this issue.

    Parent
    No kidding. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:10:21 PM EST


    Parent
    I thought the race card (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by nycstray on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    was soooooo last year . . .

    Parent
    Yeh. Imagine the job now (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:39:37 PM EST
    of Obama's inaugural speechwriters, as it would be the time to declaim that this is a new era for a country long held back by holding back progress for all Americans, and this election heralded a new era when as Obama said, even an African American with a funny name can be elected president, but. . . .

    That's the problem: Burris doesn't have a funny name?  

    Parent

    Please. You're stepping on a corn. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    In an election year where names like "Huckabee" and "Blagojevich" have emerged, I really don't think Obama is so "funny."  It's easily pronounceable, for one thing.  For a second thing, I think BHO carefully packaged his name to sound this way (he hasn't called himself Barry or Soetero or Dunham, for example).

    Parent
    yea, (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by JThomas on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:01:14 PM EST
    Barack Hussein Obama is like Joe Smith or George Bush as a name on the ballot for president.

    Sure, Obama decided when he was 19 years old that he would be president and that Barack would work better than Barry....geeez..talk about ODS.

    Parent

    You are not listening to your (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    president-elect -- that is, unless you think Obama has ODS?  Yikes, the pretzelification of that.

    You ought to have listened to him on the campaign trail, when he was quite funny -- and effective -- in defusing criticism on this count.  

    Since you missed it -- maybe by CDS? -- here's one of Obama's many quotes on it:  `He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?'  A brilliant line.

    Parent

    Don't Strain Yourself Now (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    You are more obvious than you think. Complimenting Obama on his self deprecation? And for the first time on your part...

    hard to take you seriously when you have to strain so much..

    Parent

    Fool, far from the first time (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:15:34 PM EST
    which shows that you don't really read my comments; you're just stalking again, reacting to my name rather than reading what I say, squawky.

    I call 'em as I see 'em.  You call 'em as you're told to do.

    Parent

    You Are Right (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:24:14 PM EST
    This is far from the first time that you have imagined you were giving Obama a compliment when it is clear to all here that you are expressing thinly veiled contempt.

    Nuns mocked my name (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    in front of grade-school classes, although mine is a saint's name, and my grandmother's name, but not one that was common since.
    After that experience, I never have mocked a name since -- and as a teacher, I see a lot of unusual names these days . . . at least, unusual until some become common, too.  

    So much for being honest...

    Parent

    Yawn. (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:27:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep. On the other hand (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    the flipflop above is funny, if also sadly more evidence of lack of reading comprehension.

    But I have better things to do, so I shall continue to listen to Oculus (and Dr. M.).  Your questions are good in this thread, as usual, and I'll be interested in the answers.

    Parent

    Oops, sorry JT; you get it. (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:08:05 PM EST
    This comment was meant for the Upstart who's not down on Obama's best lines.  (Too bad, in a way, that he has to be presidential now and may not be able to use humor as much, when we need it most.)

    Parent
    I hold my point (none / 0) (#57)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:11:23 PM EST
    That Obama is a lot less "funny" than Huckabee or Blagojevich. I take it you don't agree.  So be it.

    Parent
    Oh, I agree with that -- but (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    that wasn't my point.  It was Obama's point.

    Parent
    (parenthetically ) (none / 0) (#64)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    That wasn't to you, cc, but the other comment!

    Parent
    Oy. I didn't click on "parent" (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:23:26 PM EST
    and my apologies.  These subthreads just don't configure well sometimes.  Sorry.

    Parent
    I was quoting Obama about himself (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:57:13 PM EST
    as I never have found the name odd -- not where I live and work, with lots of colleagues with names from all over the wonderful world.  (Nor, for that matter, do I agree with Obama that he has funny ears.  Hey, I married a guy with ears like that!)

    Plus, it's nice to finally see, as the old saying among my Italian relatives goes, a president whose name ends in a vowel.

    Parent

    too long a view (none / 0) (#83)
    by Palli on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    Rep. Jackson is right!   Reid et al should be concerned about the 2010 race. But the best way to ensure Democratic success in the off year election is GET TO WORK AND GOVERN.
    Do they believe Sen. Burris will be a Lieberman Democrat?  NO.
    Tee best way to strengthen the number of Democratic majority is to GOVERN EFFECTIVELY NOW not try to select from this vantage point the best candidate two years from now!

    A little cultural sensitivity would go a long way also to satisfying more voters in 2009.

    Parent

    And the Congressional Black Caucus (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 03:23:12 PM EST
    is reported as supporting Burris on this.  Also not wise to divide Dems in Congress before they even can begin to conquer all the problems ahead.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    Got a link?

    The Congressional Black Caucus must coalesce around Burris. Their response so far has been tepid

    link

    Has there been a change since yesterday or are you making this up?

    Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the CBC chairwoman, declined to comment on the matter until the group discusses the issue at a Wednesday meeting.

    link


    Parent

    Yes, I have a link for it (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    from an AP story, if someone else asks me for it.

    You can google for it.  Takes a nanosecond.

    Parent

    I would be interested (none / 0) (#87)
    by Steve M on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    I googled "congressional black caucus supports burris" and got inconclusive results.  I'd be interested to read the real deal.

    Parent
    The Real Deal (none / 0) (#88)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:14:57 PM EST
    Is that
    Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the CBC chairwoman, declined to comment on the matter until the group discusses the issue at a Wednesday meeting.

    There are members that are behind seating Burris but the CBC has not taken a stand on the issue as a group.

    Tomorrow they will decide.

    Parent

    Sure, Steve M, for you (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:35:33 PM EST
    here is the most recent AP report.

    Politico also has BTD favorite Clyburn coming out for Burris on this and a couple of others in the CBC.  Plus Feinstein, who says she is hearing from her African American constituency in California.  

    I suspect there is lobbying going on about this, although not of the usual sort visible to the usual media.  The black press has been reporting for days now that Burris has strong backing of Chicago's black ministers, a powerful group and connected nationwide -- as is the black press.  

    I think I recognized some leading Chicago ministers (not Wright:-) among the group walking to the Capitol with Burris this morning.  Another in the group really gave me a double-take, as at first he looked just like John Lewis.  I haven't seen word from him or others at the top of the CBC, but for Clyburn.

    But it's very interesting to see that Emanuel Cleaver is ascending into CBC leadership.  He was courageous in speaking up for Lewis and against the pressure put on him in the campaign -- but that was not siding with the president-elect, of course.  So that Cleaver is being rewarded is intriguing, and it will be a group to watch.

    Parent

    My Point Exactly (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by squeaky on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 04:44:04 PM EST
    Your initial statement:
    And the Congressional Black Caucus is reported as supporting Burris on this.

    is quite different than this:

    Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said Tuesday that Burris should be seated.

    It will be decided tomorrow whether or not the Congressional Black Caucas is supporting Burris according to Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), the CBC chairwoman.


    Parent

    We the People (none / 0) (#11)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    In order to form a . . . never mind

    Ever get the feeling (none / 0) (#18)
    by SOS on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    Government does this stuff just to keep everyone on the edge of their seats?

    Wondering if, each and every time (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    a new senator shows up for swearing in the senate actually requires certificate of state's secretary of state.  

    I read some historian of the Senate (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:19:15 PM EST
    saying that this would be unprecedented -- but not really with the evidence I would have wanted, as so often it turns out that there are precedents.  Or that this wasn't a requirement from the start, so I would have wanted to see mention of when a certificate became a requirement.

    I'm watching for a better discussion of this point on historians' listservs and will post if I see it.

    Parent

    I bet they do (none / 0) (#63)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    Bureaucrats live by the rules. And I'm not saying the rule is wrong or inappropriate in this case, but it wouldn't surprise me if there is a checklist of stuff you have to present or do before you can take your seat on the Senate Floor.

    Parent
    Note to self... (none / 0) (#21)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:16:21 PM EST
    1)Go to DC and arrange press conference.
    2)declare myself Jr. Senator from Colorado.
    3)?
    4) Profit!

    no, i don't. (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    Government does this stuff just to keep everyone on the edge of their seats?

    it would require too much complex planning and well-time execution, something congress isn't exactly famous for.

    are there people serially suggesting that mr. burris' ethnicity has anything at all to do with this? the guy could be purple (ok, green, if you must!), and it would make no difference, the stain remains the same.

    that said, i think the senate dems may have hoist themselves on their own petard.  

    wow, what a shock!

    thank goodness franken's coming in, to bring some necessary decorum and intelligence to the group.

    I only have one thing to say (none / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 12:53:13 PM EST
    Thanks for the insanity Blagojevich, I too was taught that it is important to share :(

    Was Blago in favor of a special election? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Saul on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    I heard on TV and other blogs that Blago was in support of a special election to fill the Obama vacancy but Reid feared if  Il had one a republican might win and therefore it was shot down by the Il congress.  

    Seat Burris Now (none / 0) (#62)
    by gtesta on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:19:48 PM EST
    Sorry, not seeing the argument for not seating him.

    Burris is over 30 years old, a U.S. citizen for 9 years and a resident of IL.  He has been appointed by the proper executive authority of IL.
    Seat him.
    This is way too dangerous a precedent if we allow our congress to determine the "right kind of persons" to sit.

    Besides the Blagojevich allegations are coming from the same justice department that brought us such gems as Siegelman's prosecution and Spitzer's charges that never were filed.

    No special election here.  This is a democratic seat.  Let's not bend over backwards to open up the door that might let the republicans grab one back.  Bring a gun to a knife fight.

    First, no one is suggesting a (none / 0) (#68)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    special election. Second, the same prosecutor who caught Blago trying to sell the seat on tape also convicted Libby of obstruction of justice.
    He is not a Bush administration lackey.
    I think the presumption must be that there was a quid pro quo for the Burris seat, given Blago's taint. Burris is a fool to accept the nomination.

    Parent
    I'm not buying into the (none / 0) (#71)
    by gtesta on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    "selling the seat" argument if all I've heard so far is a crude politican talking about how he's got "something of value and is not giving it away".

    Is he referring to holding joint fundraisers in 2010....who knows....I'm waiting for the charges...put up Fitzgerald or shut up.

    Besides Harry Truman was the senator from Pendergast. He turned out okay.  I'm willing to give Burris the benefit of the doubt.  I'm more concerned that he lost so many elections...not a great track record...

    Parent

    Burris did win 4 statewide elections (2.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:03:32 PM EST
    which is more than the Senator he's replacing!

    But yeh, after that, Burris did start becoming the Harold Stassen of Illinois.  I miss Harold Stassen, always good for high comedy -- not what is going on here.  He would not have brought a Bobby Rush into it.

    Parent

    Sher, you must not be old enough (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    to understand the reference to Harold Stassen.  Read up before marking down; Stassen was a marvelous man in many ways.

    Or maybe it's that you don't like Bobby Rush, either?  Then the thing to do is to comment as to why, rather than leaving us to wonder about just what you are ignorant.

    Parent

    reid.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by jedimom on Tue Jan 06, 2009 at 02:12:50 PM EST
    commenting they (he and Durbin?) are meeting with Burris manyana, methinks they realize they have to seat him.....and Boby Rush is still yelling racist...very dependable reaction it seems from Rush....

    Burris Denied Seating in Senate | 93 comments (93 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment