Democratic leaders seek to resolve Burris saga

[John Q. Citizen]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090107/ap_on_go_co/senate_burris

WASHINGTON – Roland Burris failed to capture President-elect Barack Obama's old Senate seat Tuesday in a wild piece of political theater, but the Democrats' opposition cracked when a key chairwoman said seating him was simply the legal thing to do. Democratic leaders, set to meet with Burris on Wednesday, were searching for a way to defuse the dispute before it further overshadows the 111th Congress.

Knowledgeable Senate officials of both parties widely predicted that the saga would end with Burris being seated. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Seating Burris seemed more likely late Tuesday, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein rejected the reasoning that all of the chamber's Democrats, herself included, had cited in a letter last week — that corruption charges against Burris' patron, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, tainted his appointment.

"Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes," said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, which judges the credentials of senators.

much more...

[Old and In the Way]

1. Until the rules change, I don't know why Reid is doing this.

There is no legal precedent to block this appointment. Seat the guy and let the people of Illinois deal with it in the next election. They give indicted crooks standing "O"s when they leave office, they give a hi-profile former Dem a choice chairmanship after campaigning against the Democratic candidate. So why this circus at the start of Obama's term? Reid ought to be swearing in Burris and Franken and let the chips fall where they may.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. I agree. Reid seems to have realized he stepped into it. I bet it's all over by tomorrow afternnon.

[Mojorabbit]

9. I don't get it either

and I heard Keith say they were going to make a deal to seat him if he agrees not to run in two years. Who are they to tell him whether he can run or not down the road. It makes no sense.

[BattyDem]

10. "Who are they to tell him whether he can run or not"

I don't get that, either. Who cares if he runs in two years? The Dems can bring in someone else to challenge him in a primary, if they choose to. If the people of Illinois want him, he will be elected. If they don't, he won't.

I don't understand why Reid chose to make a big deal out of this particular issue. What's the advantage? What does he hope to achieve? :shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

12. I think Reid saw this as an opportunity to hand pick who he wanted.

[BattyDem]

13. Maybe ... but how did he hope to achieve that?

Since when does the Majority Leader choose a replacement Senator? Reid's not even from Illinois! :shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Don't know if the "we will seat you if you won't run in 2 years " is true, but what does that

sound like to you?

[BattyDem]

17. You're right. He's up to something, but I still don't get it.

How does Harry Reid, a Senator from Nevada, expect to pick a Senator from Illinois? He can certainly endorse someone, campaign for them, help raise money, etc., but I think the people of Illinois have far more to say about it than he does. If they're fine with Burris for the next two years, Reid has no business making threats or cutting deals. The Illinois State Legislature could have done something to prevent Blagojevich from appointing anyone. They didn't. So unless Burris has legal problems of his own or is a complete lunatic, what's the point of blocking him?

[BattyDem]

2. I have no opinion of Burris because I know nothing about him ...

but if Illinois law says that the governor appoints a replacement, I don't know how they can stop him from being seated. Blagojevich is still the governor, whether he's under investigation or not. It's up to the people of Illinois to deal with him, but in the mean time, he's the guy who makes the decision.

[w4rma]

3. So Feinstein undermines Obama and Reid in the same day. (nt)

[John Q. Citizen]

8. And after Obama voted with her on FISA! You just can't trust some people...

Reid stepped into it.

Obama would have been wise to give a heads up to powerful Senators in his own party about his appointment.

So it goes.


I like Obama's Panetta appointment because it's a step in the right direction. But the Senate has to approve his appointment. So what would you do, just spring it on them, or discuss it maybe?


I could care less who is appointed from IL, but between Reid and Fitz they are looking really incompetent. Burris isn't any worse than a whole bunch of curren, Senators, in fact he's probably a hell of a lot better than the guy they just gave Homeland security committee to.

Rule of law is important to me.

[Triana]

4. What is the f*cking point of NOT seating him?

They're making Dems look like a bunch of petty whiners. Reid - UGH! :grr:

[my2sense]

6. Yes - we have bigger fish to fry

They need to get on with seating this man and then deal with putting together legislation to deal with some of the major problems we are facing. I wonder which one of the sitting Senators are not "tainted" by some of their own relations. If the people of Illinois want Burris out - they'll vote him out during the next election.

Enough of the drama.

[JDPriestly]

7. For clarity's sake

The VIIth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

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.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Since the Illinois legislature has empowered the executive of the state (the governor) to make a temporary appointment, Blagojevich, as the current executive of the State of Illinois is empowered to appoint Burris. Unless there is something wrong with Burris (as opposed to something wrong with Blagojevich), then Burris should be seated.

I think the Democrats in Congress have made their point about Blagojevich. Burris should not be made to pay for Blagojevich's failings (assuming there were any) unless Burris participated in the wrongdoing (assuming there was any).

[w4rma]

11. Burris should never have accepted it. He *should* be made to pay for buying? it. (nt)

[jobycom]

14. The rule of law should prevail over any temporary unfairness this appointment brings.

It is unfair and sad that Blagojevich gets to appoint anyone, because in doing so he gets to carry out the threats he made to anyone who would have otherwise been considered for the spot, but who refused to play Blagojevich's game.

But the law allows this, and does not offer an alternative, and if we start jacking with the law over this it gives someone else the precedent to jack with it over other issues. The rule of law must prevail. At worst, it's a two year mistake, and then Burris faces the voters, and they decide whether to appoint him or someone else.

And the Illinois government had the authority to start impeachment hearings, and possibly other legal manuevers to block this, and refused to take them.

I don't see what Reid is doing here other than delaying the inevitable and giving Republicans fuel to try to block future Democrats on their own whims. Maybe even current senators like Franken.

Just my long-winded thoughts.

[BattyDem]

16. "Reid is ... giving Republicans fuel to try to block future Democrats on their own whims."

Yep. He's setting a precedent ... a very BAD precedent! :-(