The latest here. Apparently there is to be a news conference this afternoon.
UPDATE: TPM summarizes the Blagojevich/Burris press conference. Ouch!
Blagojevich forcefully said that the people of Illinois should not be without full representation in the Senate, and urged people to not hold any cloud over Burris: “Please don’t allow the allegations against me to taint this good and honest man.”Burris had an awkward moment when he was asked about his past donations to Blagojevich’s campaign. Burris expressed surprise at the dollar amount listed. “We didn’t have that much money to give to the governor,” he said in a jocular tone — not exactly the sort of remark that would inspire confidence.
Burris also backed away sharply from his prior statements that he was only seeking to be a caretaker. When asked whether he would run in 2010, Burris responded: “We have to determine that when we get to that point.”
Finally, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) made an appearance at the podium and stated in forceful terms that the Senate must not reject the appointment of a black Senator, going so far as to tell everyone to not “hang or lynch the appointee as you try to ruin and castigate the appointer.”
Discuss
22 Comments . Leave a comment below.Since Senator Reid and the Democratic caucus in the Senate have already threatened not to accept a Blagojevich appointment, this substantially raises the stakes:
1. The Senate is the "judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members" under the Constitution,, but the Blagojevich appointment is not an "election," and the appointee is, as far as I know, "qualified" to be a Senator in the constitutional sense. So it seems clear that the Senate cannot refuse to seat Mr. Burris.
2. Of course, the Senate could expel Burris after the appointment, but that requires a two-thirds vote and thus the cooperation of at least some Republicans.
Very interesting!
TedF
I don't know if such a letter has any legal standing to begin with. When Marty Meehan first got elected to the US House he submitted a pre-emptive letter to the Clerk instructing that he himself not be seated for a fifth term. This was back when he was all gung-ho on term limits. Obviously he took that back.
Also, the Illinois Secretary of State has refused to certify the appointment.
I guess Meehan was anticipating that senate vacancy he got bored waiting for would come around a decade or so earlier. He still has his 5 million in the bank, just in case though.
rather than on who the choice is, that says something sad about Reid. One thing is for sure, I would not like to play poker with Balgojevich!
only that the Senate would "exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated." This leaves the door open a crack. If Reid determines that the Senate does not have the Constitutional authority to block Burris, (and it's by no means clear that they do), he can use this as an out.
Text of the letter is at the end of this post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
to not seat anyone Blago appoints.
Reid wouldn't have issued the letter if it wasn't in the Senate's authority to refuse to swear one of its own into office.
Technically, as I understand it, the Senate could appoint a loser over a winner, if they wanted. It just would never happen in a million years. (There's been plenty of talk about this with the Franken/Coleman case - that the Senate Dems wouldn't seat Coleman if he 'won' unless all the votes were counted, even if the State certified the election. The blogs could be wrong, which has happened in the past, but I doubt it in this case.)
I don't see anything in either Art. I s. 5, or in the 17th amendment, that would allow the Senate to refuse to seat a gubernatorial appointee made in accordance with state law. Reid may have seriously miscalculated here. At least two law profs agree that, absent evidence of actual corruption relating to Burris (of which of course there is none), the Senate cannot refuse to allow Burris to be sworn in.
As for "appointing a loser over a winner," if that's true, it would be because the Senate is indeed the judge of the "elections" and "returns" of its members. But, as Ted points out, Mr. Burris is not taking office as the result of an "election."
The letter doesn't say the Senate will block any Blagojevich nomination. Just that it might try to if it looks like a bad nom.
emphasis added
plenty of wiggle room here for Reid et al if they like Burris.
I had mistakenly thought that the Senate Democrats had made a strong statment against the taint of corruptionm on a matter of principle.
My head hurt.
NOW I see that it's another tinselly show-gesture, complete with intact back door.
The picture straightens. Carry on.
but they were smart enough to not say they'd throw out a worthy baby with the dirty blagojevich bathwater. nice spin attempt, PP, but you lose. again.
reads thusly:
That clear enough for ya?
Maybe the good Senator Reid just wants his own crony on the job?
I can't see how Gov. Blagojevich made any money out of this. What's the gripe?
the country just elected a black senator from Illinois President of the United States, obviously few think there's anything "wrong" with that (and the rest are racists SOBs).
That said, Blogojevich was caught trying to sell the Senate seat. There's something very wrong with someone appointing a person when that person making the appointment has been caught trying to sell the seat, especially given the fact that the person that is potentially being appointed has donated a lot of money to Blogo in the past.
I don't know why you decided to make this about race. It's very clearly NOT about race.
Bobby Rush mentions race in the posting. Obviously the two year appointee is qualified, honest he lost elections (in most states that means you were honest) and seems reasonable. Last I checked, and under this administration I could be wrong, this country's legal system still presumes innocence until a court of law determines otherwise. Even the FBI sometimes loses when they try a case in the papers.
I laugh as Gov.Blogojevich really out-politicians the politicians on this.
Who are Blogojevich's adversaries trying to put in as senator? Anyone know? I wonder how much they got?
in the legal sense, but there's more to ethics than being legally innocent or guilty. You can still be an unethical scumbag who shouldn't be in office or making appointments... that won't end up in jail.
He may be guilty or innocent in the court of law, but he was verbally upset that Obama wasn't willing to buy the Senate seat for his choice... and he apparently had people who were willing to buy it, or at least the expectation that it would be bought. Whether or not he goes to jail, none of that changes. Thus, the fact that he shouldn't be making political appointments from here on out doesn't change either.
You have a woefully inadequate base of knowledge on the subject. That's not how it works. If the Governor doesn't appoint someone, the only other thing that realistically could happen is that there will be a special election, or the Lt Governor gets in power and makes his choice months down the road. Either there's a wide-open, heavily contested election for the seat, or it's chosen by someone else months and months down the road by a newly sworn-in Governor, who almost certainly hasn't been 'stumping' for a Senate pick.
Try again.
Uh huh. And on any given topic in this country, somebody is going to mention race. That doesn't mean that everything is always about race. Try again.
methinks there's a bit more to this story than you get from AP
As someone who VOTED for a black Senator (Brooke-MA), I have to ask - is he the ONLY black politician in IL?
for a pointless question.
you're just not able to stir up the dust around here lately, are you pete?
I wonder what Reid is talking about exactly....
I ralize there IS an off-chance that some on BMG may not have seen Karl Rove on Fox talking about the Burris appointment tonight, and I'd like David to weigh in on this in his lawyer capacity.
Rove spoke aobut how the Senate CAN'T refuse to seat Burris if the appointment meets the Constitutional test, i.e., age, residency, citizenship. But he's basing that on the Adam Clayton Powell Supreme Court decision where the Court said he couldn't be denied his seat as he met the requirements.
BUT! This is an appointment, and Powell was ELECTED. I would think that a person reelected, when his district and all the WORLD knew of his legal problems, is differnt from an APPOINTMENT, which is based on the judgement of one person.
What do you think?
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 18 May 1:27 PM