BREAKING: Burris Rejected By Secretary of the Senate

[berni_mccoy]

Ruh. Roh.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/burris/index.html

(CNN) -- Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson has rejected Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate, an aide to the secretary told CNN.


Roland Burris says Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's problems have nothing to do with him.

Erickson rejected Burris' appointment because his certificate of appointment was missing the signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, the aide said Monday.

Rule 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate states that the secretary of state must sign the certificate of election along with the governor.

White has declined to sign the certificate, siding with some Senate Democrats who say Burris should not be seated because of the cloud over Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat.

The embattled governor last week appointed Burris to fill the seat.

According to a Democratic source and a Democratic Senate leadership aide, without the signed certificate, Burris will be denied access to the Senate floor.

[WeDidIt]

1. The Secretary of the Senate HAD TO REJECT

Until White signs the appointment certificate, it's not official.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. True

but what is White's excuse for not signing? Isn't he required to sign unless something is gravely amiss? If so, isn't Burris entitled to be confronted by his accuser?

The law's the law FOR EVERYONE; not just for those we like.

[WeDidIt]

25. He'll only sign if ordered to do so by the courts

Strong move by White and I support him wholeheartedly in this.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. Great. More politics of "because I say so".

What makes us any better than Tom DeLay if we snicker along with that kind of crap?

My question, to repeat, is: what's his justification? If he's only saying what he's doing and not why he's doing it, then is he doing his job? Isn't there something in his job description about doing his job? If there's ANY reason to not seat Burris other than a territorial pissing contest, bring it up. If he's morally unsuitable for some reason, then it really needs to be some form of illegality to preclude him being seated, doesn't it?

What's his justification?

What's YOUR justification? Because the Obama team says so? If our new Administration is going to dig its heels in on a relatively insignificant issue just to rub everyone's noses in it and defy laws that it deems inconvenient, then what makes them any better than Richard Nixon? (I really hate using profanity in polite society, but there it is: Nixon Nixon Nixon.)

This is a fuck you to the law. This is strong-arm control-freaking. Is this what we're in for?

[earcandle]

61. you are so right on!

[Usrename]

18. The courts will order White to sign, won't they?

Isn't he being derelict in his duty when he doesn't sign?

Jesse White should either sign or step down as SoS. He has NO legal authority to do this, that I can see.

Even if Burris were accused of gross misconduct or illegal activity (which he is not) White would still have to do his job, wouldn't he?

Why do these guys pick this issue to flout the law? Why not stand up the GOP machine in Alabama that jailed Seigleman?

[WeDidIt]

23. That's entirely up to the ILSC

BTW, I support White in this. I'll definitely donate to his next campaign.

[crimsonblue]

26. The ILSC has no choice but to order the certification of Burris.

Burris was legally appointed to fill a vacancy by Blagoyevich. Until the Illinois legislature changes he appointment process, or Blago is indicted, or evidence of wrong doing by Burris is found, then White has no standing for not signing. Remember, Blago is still the Governor and still has the legal authority to make appointments. Why are democrats so eager to stone their own? If Blago is found to be guilty, then boot his ass. Not a second before. Same goes for Burris.

[WeDidIt]

30. IF they do so, White will sign under protest

You never know, the ILSC might surprise you on this, though.

White is doing the right thing, regardless of how it turns out.

[crimsonblue]

34. he's not doing the right thing.

"principal" is bullshit. following the law matters. The law states he has to sign the certification. Burris was appointed in a matter consistent with Illinois State Law, therefore, the Sec State must sign the certification. Unless you are calling into question the authority of the governor to fill political vacancies. In that case, you're still wrong.

[WeDidIt]

39. You're entitled to your opinion

as fucked up as it is.

[Sebass1271]

44. i agree with crimson on this one..

SoS should certified the appointment. It IS the LAW.

[WeDidIt]

45. Tell it to the ILSC

IF they order White to do it, he'll sign it under protest.

[crimsonblue]

48. you realize you're acting just like a republican, don't you?

"I'll follow the law, only if they make me." Hmm, that's how we got illegal wiretapping, Gitmo, US prosecutor firings, etc. Don't like the law, then work to change it.

[WeDidIt]

49. No, I'm acting like a progressive who doesn't want a criminally tainted

Senator.

And yes, Burris would be MY Senator.

[crimsonblue]

50. he isn't tainted. n/t

[WeDidIt]

51. HE is tainted n/t

[crimsonblue]

52. hmm... in what respect, charlie?

There has been zero allegations of impropriety by Burris. Blagojevich has the authority and duty to fill vacancies. And if (that's a big if) Burris is found to be tainted, then and only then should he be booted. It sucks to be you that you live in a corrupt ass state, but Burris has never been shown to be corrupt.

[WeDidIt]

73. The process itself was tainted

ergo, you cannot have any appointment that is not tainted.

[Usrename]

75. Don't you think White, the SoS, has a duty to comply with the law?

What priciple do you think is so noble that it gives the chief law enforcement officer in the state of IL the right to flaut the law?

Doesn't he have a duty to follow the law? Does his oath of office mean nothing? I don't get it.

Even the case against Blago is suspect at this point. Fitz wants it both ways, a conviction in the press while at the same time the investigation is ongoing. I thought it was improper for him to comment on ongoing ivestigations. Why the big press conferences? This is EXACTLY the way John Ashcroft acted when he was running things. Isn't it?

[bdamomma]

77. not to be flip, but Burris was appointed at the wrong time and by the wrong person?

Burris should have done some homework or research before he accepted. Unfortunate situation.

[crimsonblue]

82. if you want a political leader free of taint

then Washington is going to be a ghost town.

[earcandle]

64. This is not about opinion.

This is about being an educated public servant competent to do his/her job, or lose it.

If not, what is your point?

[earcandle]

63. Why? Please explain your reasoning.

[Usrename]

27. Didn't the legislature give this authority to the governor?

I thought the SoS was duty bound to sign his paperwork to ENSURE that he is seated. A safe harbor statute. "..the SoS shall certify ..."

[WeDidIt]

31. The interpretation is up to the ILSC

LEt's wait and see what the court says.

[Usrename]

33. It's NOT open to interpretation. That's the point.

What are they going to try and interpret? The meaning of the word "shall" in a statute? It isn't open to interpretation.

It shouldn't be. By every law book ever written, he is the senator, and the SoS shall certify this or be derelict.

Where is the wiggle room here that you think exist?

[WeDidIt]

35. All Law is open to interpretation

That's what courts are for.

[Usrename]

42. You think the law is meaningless and that the courts rule by fiat?

That's a beautiful thought.

[WeDidIt]

43. I think all courts intepret the law

oh wow, that's reality.

[Usrename]

74. What specific LAW do you think is open to interpretation here?

The use of the word "SHALL" in a statute? Do you think the word "SHALL" is open to interpretation?

Are you are incapable of understanding any laws, until a court tells you what it means? Is that what you are really saying here?

[earcandle]

65. No it isn't. If that were true we could not be a united country.

We'd all be picking around about who wants what, instead of
following a national rule of law upheld by every court in the
land.  We don't have different rules for different courts, and
if we do, then that is a function of what Bush and his monkies
changed, and it will be changing back as soon as we have a
president who respects the rule of law, and not popular
opinion. 

[earcandle]

62. why? You don't respect the constitution and the

rule of law either?

Or what?

[firedupdem]

2. Fuck Off Burris! You don't have your "permission" slip signed so

why you toted your dumb ass to Washington is beyond me. Go sit your ass down somewhere!

[earcandle]

66. rather uncivilized verbiage your tossing about there, mate

[Ian David]

3. If only Democrats were as good at standing up to Republicans as they are to standing up to Democrats

[berni_mccoy]

4. Sad and true.

[Sultana]

6. Dems are good at tearing each other down

it seems to be our nature x(

[firedupdem]

8. I agree. Just look at some of the threads around here...

however, Burris knows that he is not certified as a senator from Illinois. Traveling to DC was a publicity stunt and a stupid one at that. He's an idiot.

[Cha]

9. And, sadly, one that seems

to be in following his MO as in articles posted on DU.

[earcandle]

67. See Tocqueville for some answers on that....

[Blue_Tires]

76. [phone]

[Sultana]

5. Alhamdulillah!

Take that Blago and Burris.

[SuperTrouper]

7. Holy Cow! Roland BURRO thought he could just parachute in DC

and a Senate seat would be available? WTF is wrong with Illinois politicians? Why don't they just impeach Blago and have QUinn name Obama's replacement?

[terisan]

10. That is a good question.

[earcandle]

68. You too would discount the rule of law in this land?

[ProSense]

69. Do you know

what the rule of law is? I don't think it's what you think it is. The Senate has the Contstitutional authority to refuse Blagojevich's appointment.

[Sebass1271]

11. I agree he shouldn't have parachuted himself to D.C. but

why can't he be confirmed? Blago is still the governor and has not been convicted of anything. So, he can legally appoint whoever he wants. Why are throwing these ppl under the bus and not wait for due process? What ever happened to us Democrats?

What is wrong with REID? I SAW HIM YESTERDAY ON MEET THE PRESS AND HE MADE ME SICK TO MY STOMACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

Yes, i am screaming, iam OUTRAGED! at the last minute cojones of Reid and the Senate Democrats against this appointment......:grr: ,

[Fire1]

20. I agree. Just threw the man under the bus and he had NOTHING

to do with Blago's mess. I am really disappointed in Obama not supporting Burris.

[genna]

12. I'm looking forward to seeing how far the Senate goes in its negotiations

and what the courts say the law actually is on seating Burris.

I don't think Blagojevich or Burris is stupid nor do I think Illinois' politicians are anything to sneeze at. While I like the band wagon effect in roundly criticizing Illinois or Chicago, I must say if Barack Obama cut his teeth in this laboratory...why isn't it important to see how Democrats conduct their business in this state?

When I lived in Chicago, I had never witnessed politics play out like it does there. If Obama was able to duck and dodge this place and not get hampered by all the stuff that goes on in full public view, why not see what the Justice Department can do with Blagojevich and Reid can do with Burris?

Sure, it is a spectacle and a distraction. But if the system doesn't work to wash out those politicians who are corrupt, our system needs to be reformed. The media didn't shine too many lights on Bush or Republicans during this past 8 years. They went to town on anyone associated with the Clinton administration.

If Obama could overcome Chicago politics and stand up, why can't he show Democrats how to overcome and stand up under the Washington echo chamber?

[NashVegas]

28. ABC News Spoke of a Compromise in the Works

1. Burris has to agree he won't run in 2010.

2. Illinois SoS has to certify

3. I forget but don't think it was a biggie.


Harry Reid and company need to find a way out of this without looking like idiots.

[earcandle]

70. That's the thing...

It might root out the corrupt up front and personal with Blago
and Burris and now Franken and maybe they just don't want this
to happen.  Why?  I think Democrats have had to be the corrupt
ones in government because they are without bucks and the
Repugs got the bucks and pay them off, so they pay lip service
to all the services we are paying for anyway with our taxes,
but don't seem to get....

let me tell you that the government is required to have two
sets of books:  One is cash basis, budget based by law, and
the other is accrual based, system-wide.  Once banks are
reconciled, these financial statements can be audited easily
with a proper team, which is supposed to be the done by the
treasury,I think.  Or OMB.  I am not sure, but I could manage
a team and get it done for way less than $50 million. That
appointment to Neil Barofsky really pisses me off, and it was
the Democrats that made this appointment.  No one seems to
remember nor heard mention of it, but I watched it on CSPAN
and took notes.  I think I wanted to be Treasurer when I was
in my twenties doing accounting at Johns Hopkins University. 
But I moved to San Francisco instead.  Now this guy, a US
Attorney is being silently paid off to snoop, but not report
to the public at all.  Just to the other crooks. 

[Cha]

13. "Mr Burris Goes To Washington"

<snips>

"Right now I just want to say one thing: I don't know much about this guy or his career thus far, however, he has already started out firmly on my bad side. Maybe he would have been a decent choice for a legitimate governor to appoint, I don't know, but what I do know is that I don't like him, and from what I've seen he is a complete moron. Why? Well...

1) He actually accepted the job (which was turned down by at least one other person first) from a person who is pretty much unanimously seen as illegitimate. Suffice to say, he showed pretty bad judgment. To me, it looks like he wanted power, and this was the only way it was going to happen. Better to accept it from a crook, than to not have it at all, right Burris?

2) He came out of the gate threatening Democrats, vowing to go to court to weasel his way into the Senate, against the wishes of pretty much everyone. Sense of entitlement, anyone?

3) Without skipping a beat, he also claimed that the would be "a major outcry" from the people of Illinois if he wasn't seated, because a corrupt man who Illinois voters overwhelmingly agreed should not be able to make the appointment, made it. Delusions of grandeur, anyone?

4) And as if that wasn't all bad enough, last night he said this, of his epic quest to claw his way into the Senate: "We are hoping and praying that they will not be able to deny what the Lord has ordained." Excuse me? "what the Lord has ordained"?? The Lord? Is that what we are calling Governor Rod "Bleepin' Golden" Blagojevich now? The Lord? I don't know what is worse, that Burris actually seems to think Blago is god or an instrument of god, or that Burris actually seems to think that god gives a shit about him filling this Senate seat. Hey Burris, GET OVER YOURSELF!

Oh yeah, and here comes the bonus round:

5) Hey, Rep. Bobby Rush, STFU!:
At the sendoff event for Roland Burris last night, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) continued to present the controversy around Burris' appointment in strictly racial terms. Rush declared that the resistance of the Democratic leadership to seating Burris was "the last bastion of racial plantation politics in America."

<<<<more>>>>
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/

[Usrename]

15. Who turned down the senate seat?

What is the legal basis for not seating Burris? If Burris doesn't win in court then this country is done for.

[Cha]

17. Oh

please get a fucking grip.

[Usrename]

29. Your post says someone turned down the seat. Who?

What do you mean "get a grip"? It's a pretty straighforward question.

[Danger Mouse]

22. Care to explain how that works?

:crazy:

[Usrename]

32. Every law book in the country says that Burris is the senator.

What will become of this country once the rule of law is totally abandoned? Do you think the country will survive?

[Sebass1271]

38. No due process under the law and we are all doomed

as a society.. I am ashamed at my fellow dems here. I thought we were the party of fairness under the law.. and i am not an attorney nor have any knowledge of legal statutes, but i am fully aware that our current laws and constitution is what has protected this country and its citizens from political extremisms and evil machinery

[jberryhill]

58. I'm an attorney, and agree completely with you /nt

[firedupdem]

40. Agree with you Zidzi....

while Blago may have the authority and all to appoint someone, Burris is a piece of shit. He always has been in my opinion. He had the reputation...at least in my family of being an opportunist and only concerned with himself. He has run for everything possible and never won. One minute he's in front of the cameras saying Blago needs to go away and the next minute he's the senator.

I hate that this is dragging on. The whole thing with rush put a sour taste in my mouth. He is an asshole and only concerned about getting the paycheck and etching another title into his headstone.

Any normal person would wait until they are certified before trotting off the DC. He's doing this for publicity and using racism as a way to get his foot in the door. He will probably be seated but I have no respect for that jerk.

[Sebass1271]

41. whatever your sentinments are for Burris, it is still not

enough to decide on feelings.. the law is the law, he must be confirmed and appointed as senator, whether he is a jerk, ass or whatever...

He is an ass? well, he will have his time to be boot out in 2010, on the meantime, he has been appointed by the Governor Legally.

[firedupdem]

46. I agree with that but why go to Washington knowing you don't have

the proper documentation to be there? Why not wait until the Secretary of State signs off on whatever needs to be signed? I don't know how it all works but his trip to Washington is stupid publicity in my opinion. I think he probably will be seated but the stuff he's doing sucks!

[jberryhill]

59. Because he is an idiot - BUT - the lawfully appointed idiot from the State of IL /nt

[jberryhill]

55. I don't care if he is a cup of cold pee

He is a lawfully appointed Senator.

After waiting 8 years to see the rule of law return to this country, this episode is just absurd.

The man was appointed by the governor. End of story.

[Cha]

79. We'll see what happens..

It's so rotten fishy. Here's to blago's impeachment.

[earcandle]

71. I got two possibilities to suggest for you:

1) learn to be a critical thinker so you can ask better questions.

2) listen to this song.
See if you can learn something about what is happening in your country, and maybe,
just maybe, get some heart or empathy in your cold ass.

[Cha]

80. Fuck your suggestions.

[Usrename]

16. Jesse White should step down.

Dereliction of duty.

[wildflowergardener]

19. How does this affect Franken

I wonder how this affects Al Franken - I don't know if there is any hope of him being seated tomorrow - because he will not yet have the certificate of appointment yet either. Maybe there is no hope until the contests are over anyway. Still I was hoping he could be sworn in with the rest.

Meg

[jberryhill]

56. It provides a license and open season for the Senate to henceforth second guess

...every state's lawful process for choosing senators - that's what it does.

[crimsonblue]

21. This whole fiasco is effing retarded....

As long as Blagoyevich remains the Governor, he has legitimate authority to appoint Congressional replacements. There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by Burris. The Senate has no standing in denying the seating of Burris. Reid needs to get the fuck off his high horse (especially since his name has been tossed around as being heavily involved in the pay-for-play scandal). Why is this so important, while stopping the FISA bill, the War in Iraq, passing SCHIP, and other democratic ideals are worthless to him? Seat Burris. If he is found to be tainted, then boot his ass.

[bigwillq]

24. I am with you on every point you said.

:thumbsup:

[Sebass1271]

36. Right on!.. Totally agree with you.. Reid is a coward, he only

has some backbone against Dems and is a jelly fish with Repubs.. totally disgusting.. Reid must go and so the other DEMS whom are playing reid's wild card..

[Still Sensible]

37. I agree as well

why the fuck waste any political capital on this one, there are far more important battles down the road... most importantly, as you said "Seat Burris. If he is found to be tainted, then boot his ass."

[bdamomma]

78. we have alot of battles down the road, first to keep our eye on this

Congress and repigs, they will continue to be our biggest obstructionists. Obama has alot of work to do, alot of these Senators/Reps like the status quo and are not going to be willing to "change".

[ruggerson]

47. thank you. Some of us are acting just like Republicans.

[ProSense]

53. Burris should be kicked to the curb for being a fool

Blagojevich is corrupt and should not have made this appointment.

[jberryhill]

57. Bullpuckey

I suppose when Clinton was accused of wrondoing, he should have just taken the rest of his term off.

Oh... I see... Blago is supposed to plead guilty, resign, and not do the job he gets paid to do.

What is he supposed to do? Stay in bed all day?

[ProSense]

60. Bullpuckey? "What is he supposed to do? Stay in bed all day?"

Obviously, he isn't doing much except exercising his right to be an arrogant jerk.

Blagojevich is corrupt and Burris, who only weeks earlier was in complete agreement with Dems, is an idiot for joining Blagojevich's circus. By accepting Blagojevich's appointment, Burris set himself up as a self-serving hypocrite. Apparently, his principles go out the door when his own interests are at stake.

[earcandle]

72. Critcial reading and thinking are in order here....

Burris takes a stand not to be involved in Blago's world. He is just accepting an appointment, not joining anyone's cause. He is not a self-serving hypocrite, and he is very principled, and all of us have our own interest at stake if we have any brains at all and want to live well.

[Stop Cornyn]

81. Law Professor Jack Balkin's well considered views on the Senate's authority to reject Burris

Balkin described the issue this way:

Article I, section 5 reads: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members."

Hence the Senate may refuse to seat Burris for three reasons: because he is not qualified under Article I, section 3, because the election returns do not support him, and because his election was not properly conducted. ... Section Two of the Seventeenth Amendment modifies Article I, section 5. It states:

"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."

Thus, you might argue, the Senate must treat a person appropriately appointed by the executive authority of the state as duly elected for purposes of Article I, section 5.

But that is precisely is the basis of the Senate's refusal to seat Burris. In the Senate's view, Burris has not been properly appointed by the executive authority of the State of Illinois.... {because}, for starters, it looks like the Governor might be corrupt and was trying to sell the seat.

But, you might respond, the Governor has not been convicted of anything. Surely he is innocent until proven guilty.

True enough. But Article I, section 5 does not contemplate a criminal proceeding. Rather, it contemplates that the Senate will be the judge of the circumstances of election (or in this case, after the Seventeenth Amendment, an appointment.).

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/12/can-senate-refuse-to-seat-ronald-burris.html