What To Do About Blagojevich's Pick to Replace Obama

Illinois Governor Rod "Who Wants to Buy a Senate Seat?" Blagojevich is reportedly set to appoint former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the US Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Lynn Sweet, the savvy political reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times, says the announcement will come Tuesday afternoon.

Burris, a former rival of Blagojevich, is in many senses a fine pick.

The first African American to win a statewide election in Illinois--he served as state Comptroller in the 1980s and then as state Attorney General from 1991 to 1995--Burris has run unsuccessfully for the governorship (in a 2002 Democratic primary where Blagojevich prevailed), for mayor of Chicago and for the Senate. A 71-year-old lawyer who once served as executive director of the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Operation PUSH and as vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he's a reasonably solid liberal and has maintained a reputation for providing generally honorable public service--no small matter when considering Chicago pols at a moment when the governor stands accused of putting a "for sale" sign on the Senate seat.

However, Burris, who indicated after Obama's election as president that he wanted the Senate seat, is now being put in a difficult position by Blagojevich.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, and the other members of the party's Senate caucus warned the scandal-plagued governor several weeks ago that they do not intend to seat anyone he appoints. After word came that Blagojevich was going to name Burris, Reid's office declared the move to be unacceptable.

What to do?

Illinois needs Senate representation, and Burris is capable of providing it. But the Blagojevich taint is untenable.

One option would be for Burris to agree to serve only until Blagojevich's successor is named -- probably following an impeachment process that has already begun -- or until a plan to hold a special election is set.

Then Burris could resign, creating a new vacancy that -- if he serves well during his bried stint -- he could be a contender to fill.

The bottom lines should not be forgotten here:

First, no governor should have the power to appoint a senator. Senate vacancies should be filled by the voters, as are vacancies in the US House.

Second, even if the corrupt practice of allowing governors to make Senate appointments is maintained, it is entirely unacceptable to allow Blagojevich to fill this seat for the long term. (An appointee could conceivably serve until January, 2011, when the term to which Obama was elected ends.)

If Burris agrees to be a true interim senator, then a case could be more for allowing him to sit temporarily--as Minnesotan Dean Barkley did for a few months after the death of the late Paul Wellstone and before Republican Senator Norm Coleman was sworn in.

But Reid should stick to the stance he took after the governor was arrested December 9 and refuse to allow a Blagojevich appointee -- even one as credible as Burris -- to sit beyond the point when Blagojevich is removed from the statehouse.

Comments (70)

1. And again, if it's Mr Nichols....it ain't happening.

   Burris has no "taint" of Blago'gate (as noted he's a Blago AND Daley rival) and will be seated in January and that'll be that.

   end of story.

   Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 2:20pm

2. This is appalling!!!!! How embarrasssing that Mr. Burris' selection comes down to his race less than ten min. into the press conference! Rep. Rush spent over 90% of his speech blathering/slobbering about Burris' race, not his character!! MLK would be disgraced! This is just more proof of how racist the 94% of African-Americans are in this country. Pathetic!!!!!

   Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:18pm

3. Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   your racist commentary shows that we still have far to go.

   even though Bloggo has been arrested, he has not been convicted of anything.he may never be convicted of anything. he should appoint whomever he chooses. he is the gov NOW.

   Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 3:25pm

4. whether or not senators should be appointed is immaterial in this instance, John. we gotta operate with what the law is now.

   Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 3:30pm

5. Blanco is gov until legaly removed end of story.

   The sad issue is we now have a black senate seat regardless of who might be qualfied. AA at it's worst. First Obama has all his contestant removed from the ballots and now Blanco.

   Fine example for honest clean govt from Illinois.

   Nope no machine or problems here..... How fucking embarassing and a joke.

   Posted by YourJomamma at 12/30/2008 @ 3:36pm

6. Could Emile please elaborate as to what was actually racist about my commentary?

   Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:43pm

7. Rep. Rush bases a man's qualifications based on his race over and over and over and I'm the racist? Liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!

   Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:44pm

8. and I'm the racist?

   yes you are.

   Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 3:51pm

9. 2nd try....Elaborate? It's in the dictionary! I'm waiting....

   Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:53pm

10. While I wait, I'd like to use this as an example of how lunatic-loser liberals debate. Any time you're backed into a corner or flat out proven wrong by those evil conservatives....just call them a RACIST!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:56pm

11. Ok, obviously another liberal has been shut up!!! My work is done here. Emile....you coward ( cowardice is common in liberals )!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:59pm

12. BARRY, given how far out on the Fringe you are....does your opinion really matter?!?!???

    "You see, there are many conservatives, like myself, who are leaving the Republican party because it has moved so far to the left."-----Posted by BARRY25 03/13/2008 @ 1:52pm

    BLOG | Posted 03/12/2008 @ 12:58pm Comments for "David Paterson: Activist, Progressive...Governor"

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 4:18pm

13. Oh, it will, in time! I believe that the silent majority's tolerance is wearing very thin. The silent majority, hard-working, honest, taxpayers that are the real reason this country is successful, are people like me! 4-8 years of Obama/liberalism is going to cause soooo much chaos in this country and worldwide ( in the name of hope, change, tolerance etc. )that we will be forced to handle our business and TRULY cut the fat, men will be forced to become men again, and namby-pamby liberal scum will once again be the laughing stock of society just like they were on the playground!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 4:31pm

14. Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 4:31pm

    Where IS that "silent majority", Bare?

    69,456,897 voted for Obama, 59,934,786 voted for McCain (whom I'm sure YOU consider a "liberal")...that's 129,391,683 people.

    American population is 228,750,000 adults....leaving 99,358,317 who COULD make up your "silent" bunch....but not a "majority".

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 4:41pm

15. 'Feigheit hat nachgegeben und eine spricht jetzt wieder von der deutschen Gerechtigkeit...' -- Julius Streicher, Kampf dem Weltfeind. Reden aus der Kampfzeit (Nuremberg: Verlag Der Stürmer, 1938)

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/30/2008 @ 4:44pm

16. My, how the worm has turned and in such a short time! And at a time that that courageous, stand-up-for-peace-in-the-Middle East President-to-be of ours was playing golf! And right in the teeth of all of those personally disinterested, "good government" claimants that are at the heart of the Illinois political appartatus. Can you imagine?

    There's never anything more entertaining than when the reptiles that occupy the political offices of this country moralize and hiss at one another, or when the credulous take sides about them. Devotee and politician are of a piece: Filth irremediably begets filth and together they inevitably propagate.

    Posted by john lowell at 12/30/2008 @ 4:46pm

17. Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/30/2008 @ 4:44pm

    emile/ROLF....why don't you take that one?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 4:48pm

18. By the way...I say bomb Gaza until Hama's is no longer! No cease-fire, no negotiations, NO TOLERANCE!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 5:01pm

19. Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    still got those masculinity issues?

    go ahead, puff yourself up, you are to laugh.

    silent majority? we should be so lucky, not to hear the drivel you try to foist on us.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 5:25pm

20. Filth irremediably begets filth

    you should know.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 5:26pm

21. Have you learned the definition of "elaborate" yet? What's the matter sissy lib, you afraid ?

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 5:29pm

22. Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/30/2008 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    there is a problem with the german in the sentence you quoted. you're not so smart are you?

    you might also try to explain why you would quote the Nazi propagandist.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 5:29pm

23. What's the word for a person that makes false charges against another person, yet doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to back up such pathetical ludicrous charges? COWARD!!!!!!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 5:43pm

24. Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 5:26pm

    Ah, yes, emile duBois, the poorman's Maskdelta! :-)

    Here's a recommendation for you, touch hole: Draw a tub of hot water and start looking around for something sharp.

    Posted by john lowell at 12/30/2008 @ 5:46pm

25. With that being said, I'd have to apply the word "COWARD" to the MSM, Hollywood, Academia and all other liberal scum who continually state that Bush lied about WMD yet cannot prove anything of the sort, cannot even get Bush charged with impeachment in a Dem. controlled congress, and provide no evidence whatsoever other than hyperbole and conspiracy theories. These are REAL COWARDS just like you EMILE duBullshitter!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 5:47pm

26. barry25,john lowell ,HonestLiberal

    hahahahahahaha, they're all the same a**hole.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 6:00pm

27. Emile....you are embarrassing yourself! I thought you libs were "deep thinkers" who could debate rationally? Yet you are scared to back up the false charges you made earlier! Come on, sweetcheeks, have some pride and self-respect for once in your lifetime! Scared little pussy, go run home and cry to mama like the pathetic little twerpish liberal you are!!!! Hahahahahazhahahahahahahahaahahaha!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 6:09pm

28. The original post by John Nichols seems to assume that Harry Reid and the other members of the Senate can decide whether to seat someone who is selected by Blagojevich. However, as long as Blagojevich has the legal power to make the appointment, it is extremely doubtful that either Reid or the rest of the Senate can do anything ab0ut it. The Constitution only allows the Senate to refuse to seat someone if there are questions concerning the validity of his/her election, the election returns, or his/her qualifications. In a case involving Adam Clayton Powell, the Supreme Court stated that the term "qualifications" refers only to those qualifications set forth in the Constitution itself (e.g., age, etc.). The Constitution also allows the Senate, by at 2/3 majority, to eject someone who has been seated, but even if Reid were foolish enough to try ejecting Burris it is doubtful he could obtain the necessary number of votes.

    On another note, why is Reid so adamant about opposing the replacement of Obama with another Democrat who, despite being a politician from Illinois, apparently is unblemished by scandal? Reid's willingness to take a hard line in this instance is particularly galling in light of his unwillingness to take a similarly hard line in opposing any of a number of proposals (such as watering down the already minimal FISA protections) made by Bush and the Republicans.

    Posted by taikan at 12/30/2008 @ 6:09pm

29. Posted by taikan at 12/30/2008 @ 6:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    good points. as to Reid and others' motives? they're playing to the galleries.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/30/2008 @ 6:17pm

30. Ah yes! Electing/appointing politicians to senate seats based almost entirely on race ( just ask Rep Rush )!!! Dem's are definitely OBSESSED with race and are no doubt RACISTS to the core. These morons give me sooooo much ammo, and make it sooo easy for me to prove to family and friends which side is truly the racist side, and it's getting harder and harder for the left to cover it up or deny it! It's only a matter of time you racist twerps!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 6:20pm

31. "White man's greed keeps a world in need" Barack Osama. Now, nay on the left, including the entire MSN minus Fox, believes (ha!) that Barack is NOT a racist (Ha!)and that this type of statement is not racist, or if it is racist, the fact that they believe it's true justifies it's use. So here's my statement, and let's see if you twerps give me the same benefit of the doubt! " Black man's criminal tendancies,laziness, and refusal to work keeps the hood in need!" Barry25. What do ya' think about that?

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 6:29pm

32. Or how about this one..." black man's refusal to take parental responsibility keeps the hood in need"! Barry25

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 6:39pm

33. Oh, I'm sorry.... I can't take credit for that last quote because the originator of it or something very close to it was.... BILL COSBY ( a BLACK Man)

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 6:41pm

34. Now that's how to effectively SHUT-UP liberal scum! My work is officially done here BITCHES! Hahahahahahahahahahah ha-ha!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 7:08pm

35. barry25, you wrote "This is just more proof of how racist the 94% of African-Americans are in this country."

    It is, in fact, only proof of how racist one man -- Rep. Rush--is. Since you are willing to take evidence against one man and use it to judge a large set of people, you are pre-judging that set of people, and your statement is by definition prejudiced, and racist. Is that sufficient elaboration?

    Posted by grinch44 at 12/30/2008 @ 7:14pm

36. Let's see if you have enough self-respect to answer these 2 questions since you fell directly into my trap Mr Grinch ( fitting name since it was proven by a liberal from Clemson that Liberals are actually FAR less charitable with their money that their evil conservative counterparts ). 1) Was Obama pre-judging/stereotyping an entire race when he stated " White man's greed runs a world in need"? If so, do you or have you condemned HIM for it?

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 7:25pm

37. It just keeps getting easier and easier to Check-Mate these libs at will!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 7:26pm

38. If 94% of whites had voted for McCain, would have have stated that racism got McCain elected?

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 7:28pm

39. I didn't fall into any trap; I simply offered the elaboration you were asking for. Btw, you should make the (small) effort to proofread your remarks before you post. The fact that you don't is, ironically, evidence that you yourself are stupid and/or lazy.

    Posted by grinch44 at 12/30/2008 @ 7:42pm

40. barry25, we know you are really Joe the Plumber.

    Posted by grinch44 at 12/30/2008 @ 7:52pm

41. Barry I want you to know that people like you are the problem with this country. Closed minded ignorant people who are fine wallowing in their ignorance. You have no clue how the world works outside of your home and you don't care to learn anything about it. I feel bad for you. Maybe one day you will become a real man instead of being a child trapped in anger.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 12/30/2008 @ 9:56pm

42. Let's try to cut through the ever-thickening fog about the Illinois U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Obama. 1) Rudy Blagojavich is STILL the lawfully elected, sitting, Governor or Illinois, and the charges leveled against him are allegations until there is a trial and convicted, or he is impeached, convicted, and removed from office by the Illinois legislature; 2) the 17th Amendment to U.S. Constitution gives Gov. Blago the authority to make an appointment to this vacancy; 3) Roland Harris is, by all accounts available so far in the news, a well qualified, both professionally and personally/ethically, person who also happens to be an African American. Therefore, his appointment is legal, he is well-qualified, and he should be seated in the U.S. Senate. HOWEVER, there now unfolds yet another wild shot in the Democratic leadership family dinning room by Obama and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, stating that Harris's appointment is unacceptable because of the taint hanging on Blago and Reid says "the Senate will not accept Harris." Excuse, me this is the same Obama-Reid tandem that let richly documented political traitor Joe Lieberman escape a shred of accountability for campaigning for McCain and doubting Obama's qualifications to be President? You stamp "OK" on Lieberman, but say "NO ADMITTANCE" to Harris? And this Harris stupidity comes on the heels of Obama's inviting mega-church hate preaching Rick Warren to deliver the Inaugural Invocation? How many more nasty surprises do Obama's supporters of "the change we need" have to endure before it dawns on them that they are being grossly taken for granted and should expect to be further manipulated and co-opted? How many more days will pass before Harry Reid and his fellow Congressional Democrat leaders recall

    Posted by invoxicated at 12/30/2008 @ 10:04pm

43. [oops...continuation and conclusion]

    that they are running a separate branch of government and that they can support Obama without being his lap dog? How can these supposed "leaders" be so politically tone-deaf to not realize their huge hypocrisy and that they are morphing into Demogogocrats. Did we really get rid of the Bush autocracy only to usher in an Obama autocracy? The political health of our nation would be better served if the Senate (and House) were more independent and willing to administer some political practicality and wisdom lessons to young Mr. Obama. And Mr. Obama and his incoming executive branch will be much more effective by keeping front and center the reasons people supported him in his campaign, which they seem to be quickly forgetting.

    Posted by invoxicated at 12/30/2008 @ 10:11pm

44. 1. Who's Roland Harris?

    2. Poor Roland Burris. Blago must have really hated him, to appoint him to the seat that just about every Senate Democrat has stated will NOT be filled by Blago. Burris is irredeemably tainted by the appointment. Blago's replacement wouldn't dare appoint Burriss even after Blago is removed. Repubs will have an easy time campaigning against Burris in any future election. ("He's Blago's man!").

    Burris' political career is over.

    Posted by twillie at 12/31/2008 @ 01:55am

45. Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 4:58pm

    "The people are stupid, but someday they'll wake up and believe what I do!"

    Gosh, BARRY, when did you become such a stereotype?

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 07:18am

46. Burris may be an upstanding man, but I don't think he should have accepted the position under the circumstances. Blago, although he's still the Gov. I think he should just step down and wait for this investigation to play out. All this controversy is not necessary with PE Obama's inauguration just around the corner.

    Posted by Caj at 12/31/2008 @ 08:56am

47. Posted by Caj at 12/31/2008 @ 08:56am | ignore this person | warn this person

    I disagree. the gov is gov. it is his duty to appoint a senator. Blago may never be convicted, remember OJ?

    the appointee is evidently beyond reproach.

    this may all blow over.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 09:20am

48. twillie - you are on the mark in correcting my "word-o." Of course I meant Roland Burris. But, I'm sticking with the substance of my comment regarding the several actions and statements by PE Obama which are tantamount to throwing sand in the face of many of his campaign supporters. Add to that list the statement that the Obama administration will not investigate and prosecute Bushites for approving and carrying-out torture. If those actions don't cry out for accountability, nothing does.

    Posted by invoxicated at 12/31/2008 @ 09:32am

49. " This is just more proof of how racist the 94% of African-Americans are in this country."

    This is possibly racist because you have painted a huge majority of a race with a characteristic, i.e. that they are racist. It's pretty textbook, actually.

    Posted by onthehelm at 12/31/2008 @ 09:43am

50. I disagree. the gov is gov. it is his duty to appoint a senator. Blago may never be convicted, remember OJ?

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 09:20am

    That may well be true, but it none the less I think would leave Burris somewhat tainted through no fault of his own by accepting the position. We'll have to wait and see anyway I suppose.

    Posted by Caj at 12/31/2008 @ 09:49am

51. Burris resign when the Governor resigns (or gets thrown out)? Interesting idea, but there must be some more ignominious way Democrats can figure out to throw the seat to Republicans. I thought Harry Reid was a master at this sort of stuff. Looking bad while losing ugly should be right up his alley. Come on Harry. Do us proud, again.

    Posted by S Thornton at 12/31/2008 @ 10:04am

52. Posted by onthehelm at 12/31/2008 @ 09:43am

    Gotta remember, BARRY so far Right he thinks Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is a "moderate"!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 12/31/2008 @ 12:07pm

53. no matter what happens to Blago, Burris has no reason to resign. he is in no way connected to the governors problems. Burris has had by all reports a stellar career and is deserving of the senatorial position. if at some future time the gov is removed, Burris'appointment should stand. history does not work in retrograde.

    Posted by emile duBois at 12/31/2008 @ 12:31pm

54. It's only a matter of time, and you twerps will be protesting again!

    Posted by barry25 at 12/30/2008 @ 4:58pm

    I think you need serious help!!

    Posted by Caj at 12/31/2008 @ 3:33pm

55. Roland Burris=Excellent choice

    Posted by julien38 at 12/31/2008 @ 5:24pm

56. The media is all over Blahgo's impeachment push, but the hsuB/cHeney admin secret energy deals for profit, lying us to war for profit, no-bid deals for profit, D.U./Vet health benefits (or lack thereof), illegal spying on US citizens and torture to sustain the profits,... hohumZzzZZzzZZz. The MSM's hypocrisy is way too overwhelming to be taken seriously any longer. They definitely win the limbo award....

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/31/2008 @ 5:41pm

57. Whoa!!! Wait a minute. The IL governor hasn't even been CHARGED with a crime yet. I smell a lynch mob mentality in the MSM (aka the ministry of truth) instigated by the FBI.

    Do YOU trust the FBI? I don't.

    Maybe Blago is squirrelly and maybe he isn't. I don't really know. What I DO know is that he was the ONLY public figure to show up at the doorstep of the Republic Window and Door sit-down strike, pledge UNconditional support for the striking workers AND tell Bank of America to HIT THE ROAD in IL.

    Three weeks later the FBI is on his case, attempting to convict him on TV. This one doesn't pass the smell test for me.

    BTW: the president-elect (also from Chi-town), acting like the spineless worm he is, made only one statement in support of the workers@Republic Window and Door, and it was pretty tame.

    Posted by twistedboomer at 12/31/2008 @ 9:02pm

58. Yes, as others have already noted, Mr. Nichols is just repeating the elitist party line for this situation and is ignoring cherished legal realities, such as: "you are innocent until proven guilty", and "each state is entitled to two senators at all times the senate is in session". And this latter would be even more crucial when, supposedly, plans for trying to emerge from the depression are to be voted on and implemented.

    I always seem to be disappointed by The Nation for one reason or another, whenever I come, and this time is definitely no exception.

    Posted by tremaine at 12/31/2008 @ 11:25pm

59. And I don't trust that little weasel fitzgerald alias fitzpatrick

    Posted by julien38 at 01/01/2009 @ 3:27pm

60. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution begins, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members", which is limited to whether a person qualifies under the Constitution to serve in the Senate. For example, the Senate could deny a seat to an 18 year old who won in a landslide. Burris was not elected but appointed.

    The second paragraph of the 17th Amendment says, "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." If Burris was appointed in accordance with the existing law of Illinois and he meets the Constitutional qualifications to serve, the Senate must seat him.

    This was settled in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969). The House refused to seat Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., in 1967 after his election due to scandals. The Supreme Court ruled that a house of Congress has no power to exclude someone who satisfies the Constitutional requirements for office: "analysis of the "textual commitment" under Art. I, § 5 ..., has demonstrated that, in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution."

    Posted by agamemnon17 at 01/01/2009 @ 6:59pm

61. Posted by barry25: I am a firm believer that conservatism is a mental disease that destroys ones character and warps their mind. You are a glowing example of it. It has obviously warped your thinking to where all you can spew is venom at anyone who doesn't agree with your ideology. Do yourself a favor and get help while you can before the sickness has gone to far that it can't be reversed. I have seen first hand what it's done to some people. Listening to hate rhetoric daily. It warps some people's thinking.

    Posted by ganddw42 at 01/02/2009 @ 09:21am

62. Posted by comanchenation at 01/01/2009 @ 4:10pm

    You forgot to mention how you're an "independent", RIO.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/02/2009 @ 10:57am

63. I still find it a bit baffling how quickly Blago can be impeached for what he's "supposed" to have done and yet Bush and Cheney are still running around totally free of any blame to what they have done in regards to the Iraq war!!! Still, it seems sending troops to kill and be killed in a war that was based on a lie is more acceptable than a "maybe" pay for play senate seat....sick logic to me!!!

    Posted by Caj at 01/02/2009 @ 11:40am

64. <i>Posted by agamemnon17 at 01/01/2009 @ 6:59pm </i>

    Right; this is why Nichols' point means absolutely nothing. The House cannot refuse to seat this guy.

    <i>Posted by ganddw42 at 01/02/2009 @ 09:21am </i>

    Where's the causal link? Are there conservatives who are also hate- and venom-filled? Of course there are. Are there liberals of whom the same could be said? Certainly. So my question is: what's the causal link, exactly, between a conservative political philosophy and venom? To some on the other side, I would also ask...what is the causal link between a liberal political philosophy and venom? I don't think it exists for either of these positions, but instead is an independent characteristic either of particular people who treat their given ideology as the only position that a rationally and morally sound human being could accept.

    Wanting a more limited government isn't a hate-filled notion, nor is believing that certain moral values regarding interpersonal relationships can be codified by government. I would consider myself more of a moderate, but I know a lot of conservatives who are anything but hate-filled. It seems to me that this kind of stereotype hurts political discourse by making it harder to actually have civilized political conversation between people of different political persuasions.

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/02/2009 @ 11:43am

65. I also don't think the Senate has grounds to avoid seating Burris. The clause regarding "elections, returns and qualifications" covers the process by which someone got elected or if they meet the Constitutional requirements. Note that Powell v. McCormack isn't directly on point since the Senate will presumably argue here that they are talking about corruption in the selection process.

    There are two precedents. The refusal to seat Theodore Bilbo in 1947 and the refusal to seat William Vare in 1927. In both cases, however, the basis was corrupt acts by the senators-elect themselves. Unless there is some proof of a corrupt bargain involving Burris, the Senate will likely have to seat him.

    If you'll forgive the self-promotion, I did a blog post on this at http://jeffersonlocke.blogspot.com /2008/12/senator-burris-get-used-to-that-sound.html

    You'll have to close up the space after "com"

    Posted by brunowe at 01/02/2009 @ 12:42pm

66. why would someone want to be placed in a senate seat by blogoyovich?

    when bloggy finally gets convicted - that's all burriss opponent's will have to hammer on when he actually has to run for the seat.

    truly a deal with the devil

    Posted by urmygyro at 01/02/2009 @ 4:28pm

67. Barry25,

    You're embarrassing yourself. If you think your juvenile taunts are going to impress anyone here at the Nation, you're delusional. It may have worked in elementary school, but it doesn't work on the internet. You just look stupid and ill informed.

    Posted by anandakos at 01/02/2009 @ 7:15pm

68. Burris is not without scandal as many attest.While state attorney general in 1992, he aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.But by 1992, another man had CONFESSED to the crime, and Burris' own deputy attorney general pleaded with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.Burris refused. He was running for governor at the time. His deputy later resigned out of outrage.

    Posted by mystic7 at 01/02/2009 @ 9:53pm

69. Unfortunately, that probably isn't grounds to deny him a seat. In fact, that type of low political pandering would likely be seen as a useful skill set.

    Again, barring some evidence of corruption in his selection, he has the stronger case. On the other hand, if he gets harried with stuff like this sufficiently, he may pull out on his own.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/02/2009 @ 11:27pm

70. And we have Harry Reid from that great state of Nevada, the state of casino economy and legalized prostitution, and of course old Harry is as clean as a virgin.

    Posted by julien38 at 01/04/2009 @ 11:29am