Senate Dems Will Seat Burris(update: Leaders Dispute Reports of Seating Burris)

[maddezmom]

Source: CBS

Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat, the Associated Press reported. The move comes after Burris was blocked from taking his seat at the Senate yesterday.

Burris' paperwork was rejected at the opening of the 111th Congress, with Democratic leaders loath to accept any Senate nominee sent by embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Burris was scheduled to meet Wednesday with the Senate's top two Democrats - Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and assistant leader Dick Durbin of Illinois.

Three weeks after Blagojevich was arrested on corruption charges in what federal prosecutors said was a scheme to sell or trade Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder, the governor shocked Democratic leaders by appointing Burris to finish the final two years of the president-elect's six-year term.


Read more: http://cbs4.com/national/roland.burris.senate.2.901744.html

---

Leaders Dispute Reports of Seating Burris
By David M. Drucker
Roll Call Staff
January 7, 2009, 10:53 a.m.
Despite news reports to the contrary, Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday assured that Democrat Roland Burris would not be immediately seated as the next U.S. Senator from Illinois.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/31101-1.html

[cali]

1. good. time for this stupid fight to end.

[mikelgb]

2. Firm as a wet noodle

I'm glad they caved on this though

it's the law

[bdamomma]

3. many threads to come about this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8065457

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8065471

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8065458

we know.

[RussBLib]

4. It's about time

Reid picked a pretty stupid battle to open up the new Congress with. I'm afraid that this is indicative of Reid's leadership in the Senate.

Still, with a large Democratic majority, I expect some great things out of this Congress. That expectation is tempered, however, with the knowledge that Reid and Pelosi are still the majority "leaders." (retch)

[Chan790]

5. Any word on why the sudden aboutface?

I read the article but it didn't say why the change in policy was likely (which I'd consider necessary to their headline), only that a meeting was taking place.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Maybe it had something to do with all the hay being made by the Republicans

and their Faux News mouthpieces pointing out that the LAW was on Burris's side.

In a brilliant move, Reid made the republicans the party of the law - in 180 degree contrast to what they've been for the past 8 years.

[maddezmom]

12. one of the guys on MSNBC said they he saw Obama's hand in it

:shrug:

[radfringe]

23. Dem Congress step-by-step

1. stand up
2. speak out
3. sputter while getting beaten up by repubs
4. apologize for speaking out
5. sit down/cave in
6. whine

[GinaMaria]

29. Chicago News this morning indicated DiFi was a big influence

She spoke out on Burris' behalf yesterday. I think she's po'd at Obama about Panetta, and that is what is motivating this but whatever. I think her stance was about Obama and not Burris. She did make a point about law and the senate respecting states' laws. She's being credited with the 'rule of law' perspective not the repukes at least on TV/NBC this morning.

[OwnedByFerrets]

6. Only AFTER embarrassing the shit outta themselves and giving

tons of ammo to the right wing hate mongering talking heads.

[NashVegas]

11. Silly People

It's a shame Dems didn't think anything through before they went on that course of action.

[jayfish]

7. I'm Glad Burris Will Be Seated.

I also think it's time for Harry Reid to give up his leadership role. The media should have a field day with this.

Jay

[deathrind]

8. They have to.

Legally they have no way not to... as one would say his "papers" are in order... legally speaking and after DF made her comments they were left with no other choice. However that does not mean they have to give him anything of importance as far as chairmanships.

[tom_paine]

9. BURRIS and NOT Franken? WTF???

:wtf:

Is Harry working for the Republics here? This is Sean Hannity's Wet Dream.

Yes, I am well aware there are legal and other issues that I am unaware of here. I read something which said that legally the Dems HAVE to seat Burris until Blago is convicted or somesuch.

The seating of Burris is disturbing, but there may be legal and continuity issues at stake here (not out of the question Burris and Blago, one or the other or both, gamed it out this way after Blago's bust).

But to seat Burris and NOT Franken, which plays into the Bushie Meme that we "stole the elections" (can you believe the SHAMELESS AUDACITY OF THESE VOTE-STEALING BUSHIE PRICKS?) so we are NOT seating Franken out of guilt or something.

To the disinterested (which is to say 90-99% of all Americans) that's EXACTLY what it looks like and the Hannities and Weiners and Coulters and Malkins will have a field day because it plays into their Bushiganda Strategy, which is so mendaciously brilliant, templatable and repeatable by any bully with a 3rd Grade education, I call it "The Art of Lying Without Lying" (although they also do PLENTY of outright lying) and am amazed at the brillance of human beings, for good or ill, when we REALLY put our minds to it.

But I digress. My main point: BURRIS and NOT Franken? :wtf:

There are some days I think that Watergate was 100% successful, and that most of our Democratic Congresspeople, with a few notable exceptions, are just subsidiaries of the Bushies and the Republic Party.

Consider this "Twilight Zone" thought: If one analyzes the last eight years using THAT hypothesis...suddenly most everything "puzzling" now makes sense, and most of the "mistakes", such as passage of FISA and Iraq War Funding, cast in a new light.

Now I most definitely do NOT mean to say that I am 100% that this is what is going on. I am just stating that, under that hypothesis, the last 8 years make more sense if they do under most hypotheses, including the Official Story of the last 8 years. It is still an UNLIKELY SCENARIO.

Which is why I call it a "Twilight Zone" thought, because it fits like hand in glove with the perplexing last 8 years...28 years, really, of inexplicable reality.

Unlikely, but still remotely possible. Yes, after 8 years it can be said like that, I think.

[Arkansas Granny]

16. Apparently, Franken doesn't have the election certificate yet because Coleman has filed

a lawsuit. This seems to explain it:

Two months after Election Day, Minnesota's State Canvassing Board certified the election results of the state's protracted U.S. Senate race Monday, declaring former comedian and Democratic challenger Al Franken the winner by 225 votes. Franken made an acceptance speech just hours after the Board met and the certification of the race's results put a temporary stamp on the two-month recount. Franken, however, doesn't yet have the election certificate needed to take his seat in Washington; and a lawsuit filed by Coleman threatens to entangle the race in even more months of legal wrangling. (See pictures from the historic Election Day.)

By state law, a candidate has a calendar week to contest the results of a recount to a three-judge panel appointed by the chief justice of the state's Supreme Court. Coleman, who initially led the race by 215 votes on Election Day, filed suit the very next day. He declared, in an "equal protections" clause argument, that there had been inconsistency in the way in which counties tallied absentee ballots that election officials had mistakenly rejected. Moreover, Coleman alleges 150 ballots were counted twice and that the State Canvassing Board incorrectly included 133 ballots that had gone missing in a Minneapolis precinct. " legal theory is fine, he just has to have the facts to support it," says Guy-Uriel Charles, a University of Minnesota law school professor who specializes in election law. "I think this contest is going to be an uphill battle for Coleman."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1870054,00.html

[tom_paine]

25. Maybe so. But you KNOW the Bushies would have found a way to seat him

and write the argle-bargle "if you aren't going to physically stop us then it's done and legal" later.

I guess, if what you say is true and it certainly appears so, then what I am pissed about is the constant way we Democrats roll over, and it doesn't matter whether we are in or out of power, it still seems like the Bushies govern the nation. I pray that Obama will change this, but I am no longer as sure as I was on Nov. 5th that he will.

Thanks for helping to clarify my thinking on the matter. If I had to boil down my anger over this, I'd have to say it comes down to one of two things, BOTH falling squarely on the shoulders of the Nancy Pelosi Democrats, which is to say ALL but about 20-40 in House and Senate together:

1) Enforce the LAW and STOP letting Bushies break it at will! Hold THEIR feet to the fire and humiliate THEM! (let's hear some fucking "Sore Losers" from the media at the Bushies NOW - cue crickets chirping)

2) If you can't do 1) then at least start doing 2) to provide some corruptive balance!

But the Congressional Democrats seem too afraid of the Bush Noise Machine and the M$M it basically commands to do 1) and they are too squishy soft to do 2)

Not that I would desire 2), but I can truthfully say after 70 years of letting Bushie High Crimes and Treasons go

(yes, it HAS been 70 years since we've been letting Bushie High Crimes and Treasons go, dating back to FDR) http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml

that I wouldn't mind 2) as much as if I didn't know the Bushies are Serial High Treasonists and their followers nearly as mad (though not as violent) as Hitler's Followers, the hardcore ones, anyway.

[goodhue]

24. It relates to something know as "the law"

State laws in fact. Burris is senator in accordance with Illinois state law. In Minnesota, there is now an election contest regarding whether Franken will receive an election certificate.

[tom_paine]

26. Thanks. Arkansas Granny set me straight first. See Post #25.

:hi:

[tularetom]

13. OK, what the f*#k was all that about?

You had to know this was gonna end this way. Are the Senate Dems too goddmn stupid to see it?

Oh well it at least gave Harry Reid another opportunity to look like an invertebrate.

[Still Sensible]

14. They did what they needed to do...

Given the legalities, it was a pretty lame thing to all of a sudden grow balls to fight about, but it probably was mostly about giving dems the opportunity to go on record anti-Blago so that if for any reason the appointment goes bad, the dems can say "we challenged it at the time, but couldn't do anything becasue of the law." It's all about political cover.

[bluestateguy]

15. This was the plan all along: seat him late, so he has less seniority

That way the Democrats can make him a sort of second class senator.

[BlueMTexpat]

17. OMIGAWD! Does this mean that the Dems might actually

make some decisions where common sense is a factor?

:dilemma:

If they seat Franken too, then I'll begin to believe it.

[goodhue]

18. of course they will

[Wizard777]

19. I'm Glad to hear this. The Senate has done the right thing.

[pampango]

20. I thought I just heard on NPR that he had lost the last 4 races he has run in Illinois.

They said that three were primary contests for the Democratic nomination for governor and once mayor of Chicago. He seems as qualified as most other senators, but not a proven vote getter. With the stigma of Blago further weakening him, it will be a challenge when he runs for the seat in 2010.

Best of luck to him. If he is successful in office and in running for reelection, more power to him. If he loses in 2010, we can "thank" Blago.

[truthisfreedom]

30. Another, stronger Democratic Party member can run against him, remember...

In the end, it's no big deal.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

21. Harry Reid had no legal leg to stand on in not seating Burris

But what he did to Rolando Cruz to score cheap political points is inexcusable.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

22. About time.

So when can Franken take his seat?

[maddezmom]

27. MSNBC just reported that Burris has left for Chicago...news conference coming up

[FriendlyReminder]

28. Day late, dollar short

Although it is right that he would have less seniority than the elected members...

[struggle4progress]

31. Fate of Burris Still in Limbo (Washington Independent)

By Mike Lillis 1/7/09 12:20 PM

Following a 45-minute meeting with Roland Burris, Senate Democratic leaders said Wednesday that several steps remain before they’ll decide whether to seat the former Illinois attorney general to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the upper chamber.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters in the Capitol that Senate rules dictate that Burris must have the signature of both Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (which he has) and that of Secretary of State Jess White (which he doesn’t) as the first step in the process. That rule, Reid said, dates back to 1884, and has “never been waived in the history of the United States Senate.” It’s a rule “not easily challenged or changed,” Reid added.

The Illinois Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments today or tomorrow on the question of whether White, who has refused to certify Burris’ appointment, has the legal authority to do so. The court’s decision is expected to follow shortly thereafter.

“We’re hoping that they act on it in an expedited fashion,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat ...

http://washingtonindependent.com/24210/fate-of-burris-still-in-limbo

[struggle4progress]

32. Legal Questions To Be Answered Before Burris Seating (CQ)

Catharine Richert, CQ Staff

... Senate leaders also noted that Burris will be testifying Thursday in impeachment proceedings in the Illinois legislature against Blagojevich.

“We believe that what he’s going to do tomorrow afternoon is very important and the court decision is very important before we move to the next step,” Reid said.

Burris meanwhile specifically denied that he had been asked to pledge he would not run in 2010 in exchange for the Senate seating him. “No commitment at this point,” he said.

That next step will most likely be a referral to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, a panel that would review the Burris matter – a process that could take weeks and buy the Senate some time as Blagojevich’s impeachment trial proceeds. Once the panel is done investigating the issue, it would make a recommendation to the entire Senate, which would then need a three-fifths majority vote to seat Burris, according to a leadership aide ... http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003004161

Actually, Burris could be seated with a simple majority vote: the three-fifth apparently means a filibuster would occur

[struggle4progress]

33. Burris' fate may be decided by full Senate, Reid says (St Louis Post-Dispatch)

By Bill Lambrecht
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU
01/07/2009

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid emerged from a "positive" meeting with Roland Burris and Sen. Dick Durbin this morning and said he expects the U.S. Senate to ultimately decide whether Burris will become Illinois' junior senator.

Nonetheless, Reid, D-Nev., put no timetable on Senate deliberations ...

Reid gave every indication that he would be eager to seat Burris, which contrasts with the hard-edged opposition he and other Senate Democrats voiced last month when legally embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed Burris as President-elect Barack Obama's replacement ...

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/7A2322D2A432DF6886257537005E2C2E?OpenDocument

[struggle4progress]

34. Burris says he expects to be seated in Senate soon (AP)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Roland Burris said Wednesday he should be able to join the Senate "very shortly," after talking to newly supportive Democratic leaders and working on lingering legal obstacles.

Talking to reporters on the second day of a Washington power odyssey that would intimidate many, the 71-year-old Burris declared himself "very happy" and said he was pleased with his meeting with Sens. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin.

"My whole interest in this experience is to be prepared" to lead Illinois, Burris said, "and very shortly I will have the opportunity to do that" ...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUvQkRopntRBnfYyaz06sD89bwnQD95IG0TG0

[struggle4progress]

35. Editorial (Ft Worth Star Telegram)

Wednesday, Jan 7 2009

... If those involved were interested in doing the right thing, Blagojevich would have bypassed making an appointment so the new senator wouldn’t have been soiled by scandal residue; Burris would have turned down the offer, recognizing that his legitimacy and effectiveness would be hampered; and the Illinois Legislature would have helped avoid the problem in the first place by calling a special election before the governor could outmaneuver everyone ...

Burris meets the basic qualifications of age, citizenship and residency. The cloud of federal charges over the governor’s head doesn’t clearly invalidate the method of selection, and there’s been no suggestion that he demanded or that Burris provided any kind of compensation for the appointment. Senators can satisfy themselves that there was no quid pro quo, but they shouldn’t use that as an interminable delaying ruse.

It’s a shame that the new president’s former Senate seat should be filled this way. And Senate leaders might not like it. But there’s little legal standing to continue rejecting Blagojevich’s choice.

http://www.star-telegram.com/225/story/1127018.html

[struggle4progress]

36. White: I've done all required in Burris case (Belleville News-Democrat)

CHICAGO -- Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White and Attorney General Lisa Madigan say White's done everything he's legally required to do regarding Roland Burris' appointment to the U.S. Senate.

In a Wednesday motion filed with the Illinois Supreme Court, White and Madigan say no law requires a secretary of state's signature on appointments.

They say the signature is "recommended" by a U.S. Senate rule ...

http://www.bnd.com/breaking_news/story/604542.html