Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate said they will not seat Roland Burris, who was appointed Tuesday by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat. But it is unclear whether the Senate really can reject Burris, a former state attorney general who was the first African-American to win statewide office in Illinois. Blagojevich is still governor, and appointing a replacement is part of his powers.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
87 Comments
I think Blogo could have picked a ‘neutral’ choice suck as Adlai Stevenson and found a way around this fiasco. It’s too bad he didn’t.
I think the democrats should stay the hell out of the Illinois senator decision and leave it to the good people of Illinois to decide.
But nooooooooooooooooooooooo,
democrats have to ensure they maintain the majority in Congress. Numbers count. Party politics come before anything else with them.
And it will sure be nice when newspapers can stop referring to people by the color of their skin and instead report on the “qualifications” of our politicians.
“I think the democrats should stay the hell out of the Illinois senator decision and leave it to the good people of Illinois to decide.”
IL law provides for the governor to appoint. So, I gather you support Blogojovich?
AmWay – in case you failed to notoce – the Democrats in the Senate are looking to block a DEMOCRAT appointment.
From the thread header: “Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate said they will not seat Roland Burris, who was appointed Tuesday by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat.”
AmWay snarks: “I think the democrats should stay the hell out of the Illinois senator decision and leave it to the good people of Illinois to decide.
“But nooooooooooooooooooooooo,”
Damn Senate Democrats, not interested in seating a guy from their own party.
Actually, because of the taint of Governor Blago, there is wide bipartisan support for a special senatorial election in Illinois.
“…democrats have to ensure they maintain the majority in Congress. Numbers count. Party politics come before anything else with them.” — American_Way
——–
And how in the world will the Republicans be able to increase their numbers if the ‘democrats’ don’t move out of the way and allow them to decide who got the most votes?
/sarcasm
American_Way
Posted December 31, 2008 at 12:29 pm | Permalink
I think the democrats should stay the hell out of the Illinois senator decision and leave it to the good people of Illinois to decide.
But nooooooooooooooooooooooo,
democrats have to ensure they maintain the majority in Congress. Numbers count. Party politics come before anything else with them
==============================================
Being as Burris IS a democrat, I find amway’s post rather humorous.
Let me help clarify what is going on.
The Illinois legislature early on TALKED about holding a special election. The democratically controlled state legislature decided against it – they did NOT want to risk a republican getting the seat (as unlikely as that seems to me). But they did NOT act before adjorning.
Now, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has the audacity to step into a STATE affair.
They are talking crap – the democrats want a democrat in the senate from Illinois. (and you who have posted about the present appointee being a democrat – and congress is rejecting a democrat are not fooling anyone.)
Obama’s SELECTED replacement is who they have in mind.
It’s all a game for the democrats.
I’ll bet a paycheck: A democrat WILL fill this seat. No experience is really needed. Obama had none. He failed to vote most of the time when he was on the state legislature, so any one will do. AS LONG AS IT IS A DEMOCRAT.
To hell with what the people of Illinois decide.
PS: Did the state impeach him?
What you say?
I know very well Burris is a democrat.
So is your FEDERAL democrats going to DICTATE the law for the STATE of Illinois. Hmmmmm?
The state decided NOT to act…….
In other words,
The Democrats controlling the federal congress are saying, “The senate seat from Illinois has to be a democrat – but ONLY one WE pick.”
Try to stay on topic Walker. Read the opening thread again.
Where do states rights end and federal law begin?
It matters because democrats ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT KEEPING THEIR MAJORITY, than the will of the people, state law, or criminal law.
Well lets go agaist the State law and hold a special election….how much can those cost? Hmmm…
Well, Article I, section 5, U.S. Constitution, first paragraph, seems to give the Senate the power to do what is being threatened. Do I agree with what is going on? No, I don’t. However, it seems the Senate has the power to proceed as is being suggested.
Can The Senate Really Refuse To Seat Blago’s Appointment?
Can the U.S. Senate refuse to seat a Senator appointed by Governor Blagojevich? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed to suggest that when he cited Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, saying that each house of the Congress shall judge the qualifications of its members.
But is this power absolute? Not according to the Supreme Court. In 1969, the Court ruled that the House of Representatives did NOT have the power to refuse to seat Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., the New York Congressman who was embroiled in a legal case that resulted in a contempt citation being issued against him.
The House’s power to judge “qualifications”, the Court said, meant Constitutional qualifications: age, citizenship, that sort of thing.
more at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/12/30/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4691872.shtml
American_Way
Posted December 31, 2008 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
I know very well Burris is a democrat.
So is your FEDERAL democrats going to DICTATE the law for the STATE of Illinois. Hmmmmm?
The state decided NOT to act…….
===============================================
You mean kinda like the Republicans did in Florida? That kind of interference?
And if the Democrats were so concerned about keeping a Democrat in congress, why the hell are they so concerned about keeping Burris out? Your logic doesn’t compute.
Ahhh, politics as usual eh?
We deserve whatever we get.
“And if the Democrats were so concerned about keeping a Democrat in congress, why the hell are they so concerned about keeping Burris out? ”
Godo question. What do they know that we don;t? Or is this just a PR power play by the Senate Democrats?
Linda, thanks for the link. I recall studying the case involving Adam Clayton Powell in Constitutional Law while in law school. A factual distinction between the current situation and that of Mr. Powell was the fact that Powell had been elected, not being appointed to fill a vacancy. Does this distinction make a difference? I don’t know if it does or should; but the distinction is there.
lindainks55
Posted December 31, 2008 at 1:30 pm | Permalink
Can The Senate Really Refuse To Seat Blago’s Appointment?
Good pickup Linda
If the federal government stays out of the business of Illinois (as I personally think they should) the Governor has the right to appoint under Illinois state law. If the Governor is so marginalized / corrupt / incompetent / tainted that he can’t fulfill the responsibilities of his office then he needs to be removed from that office.
Seems to me since the state legislature changed nothing before adjourning — nothing is changed.
nothing is changed.
But democrats believe they may do ANYTHING for the GREATER GOOD…..
“Seems to me since the state legislature changed nothing before adjourning — nothing is changed”
Seems to me that should be right on target, and the Senate Dems need to just stay out of it. Of course, if they want a special election, I guess they could volunteer to pay for it. Yeah, and pigs fly.
Blago should just select a member of the American rootbeer makers and be done with it. A little froth, sweet tasting and goes good with vanilla ice cream.
What else do the people of Illinois want in a candidate but to serve tasty floats?
Of course the greater good is keeping a majority in Congress.
Of course they CANNOT force the state legislature to allow a special election. They also CANNOT force the state legislature to IMPEACH the governor.
It is a show put on by some the worlds greatest actors. Just wait until they get a professional comedian in from MN. What a show!
Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate said they will not seat Roland Burris, who was appointed Tuesday by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama’s Senate seat.
—————————————————-
So they’re going to make him stand?
I think the dems should seat the Il. appointee. So far there are only accusations against the gov., and since it’s his job to fill the vacancy he should. Unless there’s evidence/proof that the job has been sold.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty.
What? But, but, but fifty democrats have ALREADY voted……….
I wonder if b-b-but or maybe bbbbbut are more effective?
The rules of the United States Senate are pretty arcane and convoluted.
But near as I can figure out, the body can choose to oust (or refuse to seat) just about anybody.
As I pointed out yesterday, the vast majority of appointed Senators are not retained in office after they serve their predecessors’ term.
Just ask Kansas Senator Sheila Frahm.
Burris is not likely to run for election in his own right. He’s a place-holder. Blogojevich is simply trying to leave another turd in the punch bowl because he thinks he’s been betrayed by non-corrupt Illinois Democrats.
It’s interesting to watch, however, how the Repubic Party is working so hard to gin up a single state’s other party’s issue into something that might help the CONservative cause.
Meanwhile, the highest-ranking post in the Republic Party is likely to go to the guy who thinks “Barack the Magic Negro” is both funny the party’s best hope for its future.
Keep it up, CONs.
Keep doing what you do and keep doing it the way you do it.
So far you’ve given the United States a Democratic President and two houses in a Democratic Congress. Thanks to all you Coulter-ites and to the Limbaugh-tomized Masses.
Keep up the good work!
Have fun with the Whigs in the ash of history.
“ash bin of history,” actually.
Racist Senate Democrats don’t want an African American back in the Senate.
That’s the only reason they won’t support Roland Burris.
Regardless of what Blago MAY have done, what’s wrong with Burris?
And no Due Process for Blago?
Dems are trying to sweep Blago-Gate under the rug as fast as possible.
The Dems truly fear how far reaching this Blago-Gate scandal will be. Blago may even topple THE ONE!
Barack the Magic Negro
Is Barack a negro? I thought he was half-white?
Racial remark? Racial profiling Monkey?
“The state decided NOT to act…….”
I don’t know about that AmWay. I understand Jesse White is considering not certifying the appointment. That could make a difference.
Blago-Gate scandal
JJ I doubt you have a point there. But as a democrat, I want the air completely cleared. I’d prefer the investigation be completed before the inaugaration, but that is not likely.
Although I want nothing swept under the rug, I also am not going to presume guilt before we have all the facts. And I do want the facts.
I know this is difficult, if not impossible, for the cons here to understand, but the Democrats, in this case, are trying to make sure there is not the slightest hint of impropriety in the senate selection by Blogo. With Blogo being indicted for attempting to sell the senate seat, it makes sense to deny him his selection.
If they were so concerned with filing the seat with a Democrat, as amway implies, this would not be an issue. My thoughts on this is the cons are so used to the bush administration circumventing laws, and using any and all means necessary to further their republican agenda, they think everyone does it. They can’t understand politicians acting in a responsible manner. In this case, it must really suck to be a con.
And my guess is Obama is the driving force behind it, and good for him.
Dems are really gonna F-Up their appointments.
They moved Hillbut out of the way (to a position where she can easily be FIRED!), and now the Dems are gonna put Caroline Kennedy into that seat. WTF? What’s ANOTHER unqualified Dem gonna make a difference? Put the rich btich in Hillbut’s seat.
Now Obama’s seat, up for grabs, and the Dems can’t get that right either. The CULTURE OF CORRUPTION is SOOOOOOOOOO Thicccckkk, the Dem’s won’t support the nominee Burris because he’s African American and tied too closely to Blago and Chicago politics. What? Where’d Obama come from?
Righttt. Chicago.
Burris The Magic Negro?
I think the dems are guilty of an overabundance of caution, which is why the Senate is opposing the seating.
JimJohnson
Posted December 31, 2008 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
Racist Senate Democrats don’t want an African American back in the Senate.
That’s the only reason they won’t support Roland Burris.
Regardless of what Blago MAY have done, what’s wrong with Burris?
JimJohnson
Posted December 31, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Permalink
And no Due Process for Blago?
Dems are trying to sweep Blago-Gate under the rug as fast as possible.
The Dems truly fear how far reaching this Blago-Gate scandal will be. Blago may even topple THE ONE!
==================================================
That rock you’re living under must be really small.
Actually, Hillbut as Secretary of State is not a bad move.
Can you imagine, Ackmadimadickhead will probably shake in his boots if that btich ever comes to ‘visit’ him.
He may even surrendor to keep her out of Iran. Nobody can stand that SHRILLLLLL!!!
Unless they have cause to question Burris qualifications or reputation, it should be left up to Illinois as to who gets the position.
Seat him. We need the votes.
JimJohnson
Posted December 31, 2008 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
Actually, Hillbut as Secretary of State is not a bad move.
Can you imagine, Ackmadimadickhead will probably shake in his boots if that btich ever comes to ‘visit’ him.
He may even surrendor to keep her out of Iran. Nobody can stand that SHRILLLLLL!!!
================================================
That should read, the pebble you’re living under must be really small.
Why not a special election?
Should the People of Illinois have the right to elect a Senator?
Duh…
JJ, the Illinois State Legislature did NOT act to approve a state-wide special election.
Should the federal then act?
It’s all dirty democrats trying to keep their numbers up. That’s all that matters.
It’s a big show for the blue people. Like mass koolaid drinking.
Least we all forget:
1. A democrat tried to sell a senate seat
2. A democrat presidential contender tried to buy the seat (along with a half dozen other dems).
3. And finally the democrats party is trying to cover it all up.
I am not a crook mantra is being repeated often in the Illinois Governor’s mansion.
Repubs know their only hope for another repub to fill the slot is for a special election to be held. I haven’t checked, but I wonder if the person saying they won’t certify Burris is a repub.
Until Blagojevich is removed from office, he still has a duty to appoint a Senator.
Really, it is the Illinois Congress that dropped the ball on this one. They could have moved swiftly to call a special election, they even had Blago’s (and most everyone else in the Nation’s) support to do so. But they failed to act.
Thus, because he is still acting as Gov., Blago had to appoint a Senator.
The US Congress has no legal grounds to block the appointment.
It is unfortunate, because whether he does a good job or not, Burris’ term will be marred by this.
“repub to fill the slot is for a special election to be held”
It would be nice, but in my opinion it won’t make much different. Majority, super majority whichever: History is about to watch and judge a democrat in the white house and democrat controll of both houses. In four years, possibly the USSC too.
Although clearly not a win for conservatives, I see this as the same opportunity as blue Americans. We should all experience utopia together right?
If not, we have a clear party to blame.
Win-win.
American_Way
Posted December 31, 2008 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
JJ, the Illinois State Legislature did NOT act to approve a state-wide special election.
Should the federal then act?
It’s all dirty democrats trying to keep their numbers up. That’s all that matters.
It’s a big show for the blue people. Like mass koolaid drinking.
————————————————————
Right, the Dems are afraid to let the people vote. God knows, there might actually be a Republican elected in Illinois someday.
American_Way
Posted December 31, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Permalink
Least we all forget:
1. A democrat tried to sell a senate seat
2. A democrat presidential contender tried to buy the seat (along with a half dozen other dems).
3. And finally the democrats party is trying to cover it all up.
—————————————————————–
Oh nooooo! Say it isn’t so?
I thought all the Liberal Socialist Democrats were fcuking angels?
In some ways, a super majority would be ideal.
Presently, democrats control both houses of Congress.
But you wouldn’t know it judging by the comments liberals post on this blog: it’s all still Bushy’s fault!
Despite the fact:
1. Democrats had second highest record earmarks.
2. Democrats failed to enact 23 appropriation acts on time.
3. Democrats approved budget busting spending.
4. Democrats helped prolong the Iraq war by approvaing VERY BIT OF FUNDING the president asked for.
5. Democrats set no date for withdrawal.
6. Democrats approved 700 billion for CEO big bankers (and all the investors)
7. Democrats 150 billion dollar stimulus package last year was for naught – money down the tubes. Trickle UP didn’t work.
Yet your eyes are all still full of BUSHY.
I can’t wait until you can join me in singing:
“I can see clearly now, the republicans are gone.”
“I can see all obstacles in my way.”
“Where is that bright, bright, bright sun sunny day?”
Oh and lets skip over:
Democrats Congress approval rating by all polls in December was WORSE than that of the the president you hate.
Record low for congress too.
But you blindly ignore it.
Even more reasons to get rid of political parties.
Lets end the Republicans this and Democrats that bullcrap so our elected leaders can focus on fixing America instead of currying party favor.
lindainks55
Posted December 31, 2008 at 1:30 pm | Permalink
Can The Senate Really Refuse To Seat Blago’s Appointment?
____________________________________________________
linda, Your court case was concerning the House of Reps. I’m not sure but it may be different with the Senate which have their own rules more of an elite organization. It would be interesting to see if it is tested in the Supreme Court.
Brian I couldn’t agree with you more, or less.
I have said for years the two major parties use each other to distract us voters. By putting us on the blue or red teams – we end up supporting a party instead of the nation. The two parties have become so powerful, or elections too expensive that unless you are “one of them”, rich, or famous, you will never get elected. Palin aside, I believe we need more common people in power.
On the other hand, one party ANY party is way to much control.
So there ya have it.
It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world….
” the Senate which have their own rules more of an elite organization”
That sounds truly scary.
#
brian_nuevo
Posted December 31, 2008 at 3:14 pm | Permalink
Even more reasons to get rid of political parties.
Lets end the Republicans this and Democrats that bullcrap so our elected leaders can focus on fixing America instead of currying party favor.
_______________________________________________
brian, I’d be curious to know if you were saying that two or three years ago.
“American_Way
Posted December 31, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Permalink”
As I have posted before, I think the first steps to improving our political system are:
1. Remove party designations (e.g. ‘R’, ‘D’) from ballots
2. Enact term limits for both houses of Congress at the national level.
3. Change Congressional salaries to match average household income in the districts they represent, and give them the same healthcare and retirement benefits as the Armed Services.
Removing party designations will take the party out of the in-the-booth voting process, and be the best thing we could do to push voters to learn more about candidates than who is representing which party.
Term limits, reduced pay and benefits will help get rid of career politicians, and help get more capable people into office who have ‘real-world’ experience and a desire to make America better.
More power more corruption. Have you heard the cliche “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”?
“donndublin
Posted December 31, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
brian, I’d be curious to know if you were saying that two or three years ago.”
Yes I have said that for many, many years. (Feel free to look up my old posts)
I have never in my life registered for any party, and have no plan ever to do so. (FWIW, I have voted for candidates from both major parties and some minor parties.)
“donndublin
Posted December 31, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Permalink
More power more corruption. Have you heard the cliche “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”?”
It is more of a truism than a cliche, and I am familiar with and a believer in it.
Getting long-term, career politicians out of Washington will definitely even the power among all member of Congress.
Brian,
Good post, however the R and D would just be replaced by C or L.
I can’t argue with that brain.
I heard it suggested that the presidency be a one 6 year term. I don’t about that since he is already limited but he wouldn’t spend the first term tying to get re-elected.
Amway, Are you a musician?
“donndublin
Posted December 31, 2008 at 3:34 pm | Permalink
Brian,
Good post, however the R and D would just be replaced by C or L.”
No labels allowed, other than ‘i’ to indicate which is incumbent.
Problem with ‘c’ and ‘l’ is definition. I know some people who are fiscal conservative but social liberal. Maybe it would be better if people actually read a candidate’s positions on things.
“bth
Posted December 31, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Permalink
Problem with ‘c’ and ‘l’ is definition. I know some people who are fiscal conservative but social liberal. Maybe it would be better if people actually read a candidate’s positions on things.”
Amen to that!
brian, why do you think the incumbent should be noted?
“lindainks55
Posted December 31, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
brian, why do you think the incumbent should be noted?”
If a voter does not remember the name of the candidate, but are happy with the way things have been going since the last election they can vote for the “i”.
Seemed like a bone to throw for voters who may not have capacity (in one way or another) to actually learn the names of all the candidates.
No labels allowed, other than ‘i’ to indicate which is incumbent.
__________________________________________________
No labels allowed, other than ‘i’ to indicate which is incumbent.
________________________________________________________
Ideally you have a good point but how can you enforce such a rule.
The position views mean little without a record and with term limits there would be little record to judge. The media would never go with censorship laws. To judge someone’s world view and ideal logy is human/political nature.
Maybe we just need more parties or at least one. Call it the Non party or Not. Independent used to be good but it was hi-jacked.
“donndublin
Posted December 31, 2008 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
Ideally you have a good point but how can you enforce such a rule.”
State election laws govern what goes on each state’s respective ballots and how. Any rules regarding this labeling of candidate parties would have to be passed by each state.
“The position views mean little without a record and with term limits there would be little record to judge.”
Records mean nothing. In political life, like the stock market, past performance does not predict future results. Politicians regularly (as they probably should) change their viewpoints and stances on issues large and small.
Talk of Bill Clinton being ‘caretaker’ senator for n.y., wouldn’t that frost bushies’ asses.
I disagreed LOUDLY with my Obama loving brother over this.
HE thinks the Dems should stay away from any sense of impropriety.
I don’t give a damn WHAT the cons think is right or wrong.
What Blago did is commonplace. It’s the way things work. He was just more direct about it.
I say seat his choice and quit trying to out nice the cons.
Phantom – I like it!
I do too!
I think we ALL can be pretty sure.
IF Stevens had won in Alaska, Sarah Palin would have used her capacity as Governor to take that seat.
The cons would have been perfectly fine with that.
I see no difference between that and what Governor Blagojevich did.
Mmmm? Bill Clinton? New York Senate seat?
Yeah, I like the sound of that.
Except … I think we need Bill to help with international issues – especially in the Middle East.
Is Chelsea old enough?
Blago should have given the job to himself. If Obama don’t want to deal, hell with him!
Chelsa would piss them off royal, they’d never get her out.
Now the entire campaign to de-legitimize Blagojevich is getting harder for U.S. senators and the U.S. attorney handling the case to make, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley and others told FOXNews.com.
“There is no question that (Burris) is the legitimate successor to Barack Obama. There is no controversy here as a matter of law. The controversy is purely political. People simply don’t like the governor who appointed him,” Turley said. ”
fox
“Blogojevich is simply trying to leave another turd in the punch bowl because he thinks he’s been betrayed by non-corrupt Illinois Democrats.”
‘Non-corrupt Illinois Democrats’ … a concept right up there with flying pigs, the abominal Snowman and alien bodies from the UFO crash site in New Mexico.
WAR – you are obviously ignorant of Illinois politics and how Adlai Stevenson got back-stabbed in 1986. There are, in fact, TWO very different Democratic parties in IL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevenson_III