Why would the case take even 3 months?  There's an on-point Supreme Court ruling, the Senate action (if it happens) would be in direct defiance of it, and the rights of the people of Illinois would be immediately affected by not having their senator seated.  Burris should be able to go directly to the Court for a very prompt ruling.  Playing games with the representation rights of the people is no joke.

Burris would just need an injunction against the Senate, which wouldn't be that hard to get from a federal judge seeing the Senate and Harry Reid don't have a leg to stand on. The political fallout too would be "problematic" for the Democrats who already have a US Congressman (Bobby Rush) calling them racists if they don't accept African-American Burris.

The Burris appointment is a done deal.

FR: "Delay, delay, delay" -- may be the best way to describe the Senate Dem strategy at this point regarding this Senate seat.


Justice delayed is justice denied. Of course, what do the Democrats care, it's all about power anyway. The heck with the People.

Democrats aren't even seated yet from the past election, and the stench they produce already is all around Washington. And the biggest stench is that the criminals from Illinois are now the Executive branch of the US government.

This was great Great!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/zbigniew-brzezinski-calls_n_154211.html

To the individual that referenced the Consitution and what the Senate can't do ...you should read up on the case of Senator Reed Smoot(UTAH), of the famous Smoot-Hawley Act. The Senate held up him being sworn into the body for about 3 years, with him only holding a provisional seat for this time.

Cary Lindsay Texas (Sent Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:12 PM)

That will be an interesting event when the all-White Democratic Majority Senate rejects an African-American from holding the seat. That would take some explaining on their part, don't you think?

However, if they deny Burris the senate seat,the democrats in illinois can kiss the black senatorial vote goodbye unless of course he's replaced by a black candidate

great analysis Domenico!
What was Burris thinking?

whats the big fuss what do you think the senate do in washington they sell them self to lobbyist. they just hide it better. look what has happen with the banks.
even obama sold himself to the super delegates.the american people did not vote him in with the votes needed the super delegates screw us and gave it to him.
he did not win fair and square.he did not get the amount needed.so lets cut the bolongne.

The Burris appointment is commendable.  The governor of Illinois has made a thoughtful selection, which reveals far better judgment, despite any negatives, than does Obama's invitation to the so-called Rev. Warren for the inaugural invocation.  To paraphrase Lincoln at Gettysburg, the world will little note nor long remember what this fat ass blabbing skunk may say in his sham prayer; but none can ever forget what he's done to smear, villify, deny constitutional freedoms & persecute the millions of GLBT citizens---to whom Obama really owes his wonderful success and his genuine goodwill.  I say let Burris go to the Senate & valiantly serve, but rescind Rev. Warren's invitation to further stab multitudes in the back.

   

The Burris appointment is commendable.  The governor of Illinois has made a thoughtful selection, which reveals far better judgment, despite any negatives, than does Obama's invitation to the so-called Rev. Warren for the inaugural invocation.  To paraphrase Lincoln at Gettysburg, the world will little note nor long remember what this fat ass blabbing skunk may say in his sham prayer; but none can ever forget what he's done to smear, villify, deny constitutional freedoms & persecute the millions of GLBT citizens---to whom Obama really owes his wonderful success and his genuine goodwill.  I say let Burris go to the Senate & valiantly serve, but rescind Rev. Warren's invitation to further stab multitudes in the back.

   

All Burris has to do is politely and politically correctly thank the sitting governor profusely for the chance to be appointed to the Senate seat, then decline the nomination, graciously.  All other paths open to him lead to implosion or destruction or tainting of his own career in politics.  And yes, Burris has his political future resting in his own hands now.

Blagojevich just won the chess match. He appointed Burris, whose law firm has supported his campaign to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. He's made the appointment racially charged by having congreesman Bobby Rush say it's a "lynching" if Burris is not seated in the currently all white US Senate, and Blago has shown that at least someone in Illinois politics is doing his job.

At the threshold, Mr. Todd, Mr. Murray and Mr. Montanaro all appear to be OVERREACTING TO AN APPOINTMENT BY A sitting-not-CONVICTED Governor. In case, all three of you have forgotten the US Constitution, any and ALL defendants are INNOCENT UNTIL ALL OF THE ELEMENTS OF A CRIME CHARGED HAVE BEEN PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!!!!!!!!!!!
As of today, there is not even a trial date for US v. Blagojevich.
Also, all of you need to peruse both the US Constitution and the Illinois constitution-the governor can appoint and must appoint a congressman whose seat has been vacated due to an election.
Significantly, I noticed that the LT. Governor's demeanor is one of A) piousness, B) arrogance, C) ignorance of the very law he seeks to remove a sitting governor, and D) jealousy.
I guess, the Lt. Governor forgot that the Illinois Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the Attorney General to remove the Governor.
For the Illinois Secretary of State to assert, the Secretary will not "sign off" would be ridiculous and probably illegal.

I must observe, the sanctimoniuos nature of the Illinois legislature who are now as opposed to months before, the Governor's arrest, are endeavoring to impeach him.
I am mystified as to the precedent for such an action that in all probability will be decided by the Illinois Supreme Court.
There is a necessary observation, too , that if Mr.Blagojevich is impeached, his case could reach the US Supreme Court on various constitutional issues

I checked that as of today the US Attorney has not even indicted the Governor!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps his "airtight " case is A) leaking, B) devoid of substance, and C) doubt maybe manifesting itself as well.
Additionally, as a prospective juror, based upon these meager facts, specious allegations, deficient evidence, an incomplete criminal complaint, "tainted" witnesses, there exists reasonable doubt, so I would not convict! Neither would a reasonable juror-assuming that A) there is a trial and  B) such a trial would be a jury trial.
Along these lines, could the US Attorney find impartial jurors??????????
Moreover, consider that this US Attorney was able to obtain a conviction of Louis Libby; yet, President Bush commuted his sentence.

Of note, gentleman, President -Elect Obama is from Chicago, this is his senate seat,  and as the President subsequent to his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, he could very well PARDON  before or IF SADLY, the Governor is convicted, President Obama could commute his sentence or PARDON the Governor. It is possibility. Again, a perusal of the US Constitution would disclose the absolute right of a President. More importantly, ALL US PRESIDENTS either pardon or commute sentences. Even a sitting Governor can pardon or commute sentences.

Regarding the blowhards and sanctimonious US Congressman, they too, should read the US Constitution.

Mr.Burris seems knowledgeable, able, distinguished, lawyerlike and diplomatic and deserves an opportunity to be heard.

I must disagree that the US Senate is delaying the inevitable.

The Dems in the IL legislature should have stripped the Governor of the power to make appointments.  They didn't because they didn't want to call a special election instead.  What they didn't realize is that they could have had both!  Simply strip the governor of the power, but don't specify an alternate method of temporarily filling the vacancy.  Just plan to leave it vacant until 2010.

If for some reason in the future the legislature should change its mind about leaving the seat vacant (say, after Blago resigns/is removed), they could then restore the governor's power to appoint a replacement.

The Senate is overstepping it's bounds. Mr. Burris doesn't deserve to be a scapegoat for Blago's troubles. If senate democrat's want to pull a power play they'll just create more problems for themselves since Burris would likely sue the senate for wrongful exclusion from the chamber. I say let him be seated. With all the problems this country and the world are facing, now is not the time to pull such a petty power play. As a democrat, I don't like Blago anymore then anybody else but he does have a legal right and responsibility as the governor to make sure that our incoming president's vacated seat is filled.

It's appearing more & more likely that the Senate Dems won't need to fight this battle: the IL Sect of State is making loud noises that he will not certify Blago's appointment of Burris (or anyone else) and thus, block the appointment in what appears to be a fully legal maneuver.

Gov Rob has done it again . He has pulled the pefect screen pass . He got the republicaan appointee, The Madigan cast and crew father and daughter to look bad and then pull aperfect end around . The Republican attorney General arrsted Gov Rob for forcing a republican church  or as you see them a Bank of America to spend money as the congrees wznted to spend money on Main Street Instead of Wall street. The Madigan crew and the US senate are faced with the unpleasent task of attacking the Illinois political  equlivant of the Pope. Gov Rob also sides and defends the advantage of demanding State's Right and not Federal interferance. Unfortunately The House of Reps in Illinois caved to Federal interferance . The Attorney General  can only show the weakness in their case by not have a open independant investigation by the Illinois House of Reps and turning over all of your data to the House of reps.the attorney has all but confessed that he has no case but is relying on honor assasatiion just like Joe Mccarthy did in his attack with the House Un Americian Committee.        

Mr. Burris should not have accepted the appointment.  He should have foreseen the blowback from the Senate and should have steered clear of Blagojevich.  The  Governor is forever tainted whether he is convicted or not.  We did all hear the tapes of him ranting about his "not giving the seat up for nothing."  Burris' acceptance was short-sighted.

Ditto Geoff Landtbom.  I would also like to point out that I see you Democratic haters are back.  I do believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it irks me to know end when you blame it all on the democrats.  Look where this nation is today.  You wanna tell me Dubya had nothing to do with it.  Your right, he didn't because he didn't know how to do his job as CIC.  All he knew how to do was go to war, be arrogant, say I'm the decider, when he really didn't know what the hell he was deciding on.  
I watched Mika and Michelle Bernard interview Mr Burris yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it.  Michelle especially.  She asked the questions I thought we important.  Mika, well she loves to start gossip doesn't she.  Not a fan, I'll leave it at that!  Happy New Year to all!!!!!!!!!!!!          

once again its party against party while the american people are losing jobs homes, health care while politicians argue over who going to be able to have control of congress......As far as im concerened its till a do nothing except take care of themselves and keep throwing the bones to the american people...When will there be change, when were all broke and have the same amount as the other fellow....fat chance of that.....still frustrated not be able to do the best for my family because washington continues to NOTHING.

The Supreme Court case that is cited refers to a gentleman who was elected by his constituents in a free and fair election.  In that regard this situation is entirely different.  In that case, the people knew of the corruption charges and voted for him anyway.  The people had spoken.  In this case, ONE man, with a cloud of suspicion over him, decided who would take this seat.  That's entirely different, and not a slam dunk.
Ultimately I think the court will come to the same conclusion, but to say that it's exactly the same situation is not correct.
The dems should have seen this coming though.  Pat Quinn and Sen. Durbin should have sent Gov. Blago a list of qualified and untainted candidates, and dared him to pick someone else.
Clearly he thought the race card could help him with this pick.  Why else would Rep. Bobby Rush be there playing the card before anyone had reacted?

TO l in Los Angeles,CA
 Just so you know, our judicial system is screwed up like the rest of our government. I know someone who was convicted of a crime without any evidence being submitted.The jugde didn't think this person was guilty but since the prosecuter was such a good friend they went ahead and declared my friend guilty.
If you look on the records, you can see that there was no evidence and there were a ton of letters from people who knew this person telling the judge that they had the wrong one!  In this day and age, the Constitution means absolutely nothing to the people who have power and authority. And Yes, the politicians from Illinois (all of them) have serious issues.

THERE HAS BEEN NO CRIME BY THE GOVERNOR -- HE IS GUILTY OF "TALKING BIG" BUT NO ILLEGAL ACTIONS WERE TAKEN TO HIS TALKING!  WE HAVE ALL SAID STUPID THINGS WHICH WE WERE LATER ASHAMED OF -- THE MAN WAS TRYING TO IMPRESS HIS EMPLOYEE!!

LET THE APPOINTMENT STAND -- IT IS LEGAL AND THE SENATE AND OBAMA SHOULD STAY OUT OF IT.  WHERE WAS OBAMA'S VOICE DURING THE CLINTON APPOINTMENT, THE REV. WARREN APPOINTMENT, THE SARAH PALIN ENDORSEMENT AT THE GOVERNOR'S MEETING LAST MONTH?

OBAMA SAYS HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF ALL THE PEOPLE AND IS REACHING ACROSS THE ISLE (E.G.,WARREN AND CLINTON) -- SO REACH TOWARDS THE BURRIS APPOINTMENT AND SHUT UP!!

I HAVE SUPPORTED OBAMA FINANCIALLY AND I SAY GREAT CHOICE FOR THE GOVERNOR!!!

Two things... yes, Mr. Blago is innocent until proven guilty... he certainly shouldn't be thrown in jail without his day in court... that said, given the nature of the tapes, it is well within reason for him to be impeached.

The other thing is, and I guess I should have expected it from republicans... they're crying about how a guy appointed by a clearly corrupted governor is "representing the people" and how awful it would be if the democrats were to try to force the process into the daylight. If they really wanted to look like the party of reform, they would be out there supporting the senate dems in trying to keep as much of the process above board as they possibly could.

The Dems aren't the only ones to use the delay tactic, so there's no need to get your knickers in a twist. And anyway, I don't see how Burris is tainted. His reputation, good or bad, should stand on its own.

But I wouldn't want to be in Blago's shoes even if he never gets indicted or impeached. Talk about being a radioactive lame duck! For the rest of his term as governor, everyone on both sides of the aisle would be trying to distance themselves from him.

Maybe odd but I'm sort of in agreement that the Senate needs to remove some one but from a purely political view I'm think that it should be Harry Reid that is removed from his present position than Burris being denied his pending seat.

Reid couldn't install the wheels on a tricycle and get the number right. An awfull lot of Americans voted to make a change in Washington. We have through 2 election cycles given the Democrats a pretty good working majority to make some changes but an inept Harry Reid has allowed a Republican minority to hamstring the legislative process and thwart and meaningful moves to straighten out any thing in Washington. All the Republican members of the New Confederate States of America have had to do was threaten a fillibuster and Harry has rolled over like a trained dog and given them their 60 vote impasse. Harry grow a set and the next time the Repulicans wave the "We are going to fillibuster if you don't give us what we want flag" make them do it, and do it every time they want to tie up the political process to advance their narrow minded adgenda that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Let the American people see tham for what they are. Stop giving them cover. As long as you keep rolling over they are going to tie this country in knots.

Now with this whole Burris mess. You have done it yet again. Your posturing on this is pathetic. The govonor mess in Illinois is just that a mess. But at this time there is nothing but smoke.The govonor has you you out on the plank and you are dancing to a tune that is going to further tie up congress,deprive the incoming president of some one that might actually work for the good of the people and push the approval rating of the institution into what could at some point be negative numbers. If this goes to the Supreme Court you are going to lose. If the Republicans get what they want yet again because of your ineptitude which would be a special election and turn this into a Republican seat then you need to not be stripped of power but formally flogged in the Great Rotunda. I'm not sure if there is any way at this point to undo what you have already done and said but any more posturing and statements from you are certainly not going to help any more than it already has. Just shut up, let what happens,happen and get on with running the country which up to now you seem quite incapable of doing.

And while we are at it would you media and polling pukes start asking some honest questions? Don't ask for approval ratings of congress as a whole ask what people think of congress by the particular house and by the parties in them. If the Senate Democrats would but make the Republicans pay a price for their obstructionism and let the American people watch it wouldn't take all that long for some of the brighter members of the GOP to figure out that with out the cover the Democrats keep giving them in the Senate they would need to change their ways and work for all of us or have to settle for being lost in the back roads of Dixie for eternity.  

The Senate is overstepping it's bounds. Mr. Burris doesn't deserve to be a scapegoat for Blago's troubles. If senate democrat's want to pull a power play they'll just create more problems for themselves since Burris would likely sue the senate for wrongful exclusion from the chamber. I say let him be seated. With all the problems this country and the world are facing, now is not the time to pull such a petty power play. As a democrat, I don't like Blago anymore then anybody else but he does have a legal right and responsibility as the governor to make sure that our incoming president's vacated seat is filled.
Geoff Landtbom (Sent Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:05 PM)
___________

I don't know if the Senate *is* overstepping.... remember, Blago is being investigated for trying to sell the seat.  Doesn't that automatically cast some doubt on the authenticity of whoever he chooses?

I am not saying don't seat him at all, but perhaps it should, at a minimum, be investigated to make sure there was no illegal deal made with Burris to get this seat.  If they clear him, then they can seat him.

Speaking of delay, when does the trial of Tom Delay start? It seems like it has been 2+ years since Delay had to resign.

I have to agree that there really is no legal standing for the US Senate to refuse Burris the seat.  There were a number of ways that Blagojevich could have been stripped of the appointment power, but he was not. He did not resign, he has not yet been impeached, and he certainly has not yet been convicted of a crime. The current Attorney General of Illionis asked the Illinois State Supreme Court to remove him, and they denied that request. The Illinois General Assembly considered removing the power from the Governor, but they did not do that.

He is the duly elected governor of Illinois, for better or for worse and is obligated to appoint a Senator to a vacant seat. As I understand it, Burris isn't part of the FBI investigation, and therefore there is really no evidence that has been presented that this appointment was tainted by malfeasance.

The US Senate already overstepped its bounds by stating it would not seat a Senator appointed by the current Governor - it is not their call, it is Illinois' right to choose a Senator according to its laws. The US Senate does not really have a leg to stand on, unless someone can show beyond any reasonable doubt that there was some quid pro quo between Blagojevich and Burris.

Because the Illinois government failed to remove Blagojevich from his position or remove this power from him, there really is no legal standing for refusing to seat the appointee. There may be ethical and political onsiderations, but those will not hold up in a court of law.  

I think most people here are losing sight of three very practical considerations in all this theory. (1) Burden of proof. So many folks are talking about what Harry Reid "would have to show or prove." Reid doesn't have to show anything. All Reid and the Senate have to do is refuse to seat Burris. Burris, as the plaintiff, will be the one with the burden of showing he is entitled to that seat, which I assume will require him to prove that he was appointed in an untainted, legally sound process. This is very different from "Powell," where both parties stipulated that Powell had been duly elected in an above-the-board process. In fact, that is one of the assumed facts Chief Justice Warren mentioned in the very first sentence of "Powell." So it's not as if Reid has to go hat-in-hand to a court to ask permission to deny the seat to Burris. (2) Procedural posture. A lot of people here are talking about Burris "going to the Supremes" for a writ of mandamus or other relief similar to what Powell sought. But that ball will only start rolling in federal district court. Burris can't just knock on the door of the U.S. Supreme Court and see whether they've got a few spare minutes to decide his case. Granted, these things tend to move a lot more quickly than most cases that wind up in the Supreme Court, but either Burris *or* the Senate could decide to give up the fight after a federal district court or Circuit Court of Appeals decision, or the Supreme Court could refuse certiorari and effectively leave intact whatever decision the Court of Appeals had reached. (3) Court make-up and tendency. One thing that can't be ignored in all this is that the "Powell" decision came from the Warren Court. Now, as a liberal, I love the Warren Court, but everyone knows it was the most "activist" court in history; "Brown," "Massiah," "Miranda," etc., all came from Warren. Today's court is a very different court, one far less likely to grant certiorari in any particularly case, let alone a radioactive one like this. Remember the hell they caught from "Bush v. Gore," a rare and ill-fated departure from the general separation-of-powewrs principle that each branch handles its own affairs? If the Supreme Court has the opportunity, my guess would be that the court would either refuse certiorari altogether, or use it as an opportunity to drastically limit "Powell" to its own facts, holding something to the effect that the Senate is the sole and unreviewable judge of the validity of the *process* by which its own members are selected. I think the Framers would be mortified at the prospect that an Article III court could second-guess the Senate's judgment about the selection process (as distinct from Burris's qualifications), and compel the Senate to seat someone that the Senate felt was not a duly chosen member of its body. That should resonate with the court. The only thing that gives me a little pause is that the court *could* fashion this as a Federalism argument, to say that the national government has no right to refuse a person duly chosen by State law. That could tilt some of the Republican justices (there are seven) in favor of Burris. So, too, could the fact that any institution is loath to restrict its own power, which the Supreme Court would be doing if it decided that it didn't have the power to second-guess the Senate. But I think judicial restraint, the separation of powers, and the court's still-smarting memories of "Bush v. Gore" would counsel them to leave this matter to the Senate.

I agree with the person who said Burris should graciously decline the appointment.  No one should want to be appointed in a way that casts a shadow over the seat from Day One.  As soon as Blaggy is thrown out of office, the new governor should immediately re-appoint Burris.  Then this good man is not denied a seat to which he's qualified, but he's also not put there under dubious circumstances.

Congressman Davis, also of Illinois, also African American, was offered the appointment first. He was smart and ethical to turn it down. The governor of Illinois should have resigned weeks ago. Now he is just having fun screwing up the process. That would be fine if it only affected political rivals but it is disgusting because of the harm inflicted on his state. I wish Burris had had the good judgment to walk away.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):