LOL: Blago to Appoint Fmr. AG to Senate Seat

[muon2]

I think it's pretty clear this guy has to be seated.  Reid would have to be a complete idiot to not seat him, and even if he didn't, the law is on Burris's side.

Are you kidding? Why?

Blago should just be impeached. If the Constitution only allows those Governors who have committed a crime to be impeached, why not just amend the Constitution? Or why not just impeach him anyway, let him appeal it to the state Supreme Court, and have the State Supreme Court stall indefinitely?

The impeachment is moving forward following the IL constitution. The chair of the special committee suggested yesterday that there may be articles ready sometime next week. That would be consistent with the return of the General Assembly on Jan 12 for two days of lame duck session and the swearing in on Wed 14th for the new GA. Either the old or new House could take up the articles. After the 15th the Senate won't be in session for a trial until Feb as many will be in DC.

However, even if Blago is impeached and removed from office that doesn't change Burris' appointment. That appointment is lawful since Blago was Gov at the time it was made. It can be cut short only if the IL legislature schedules a special election.

[Lunar]

I wonder if, after Quinn is seated, if he could "reappoint" Roland while Roland is still serving in order to grant him legitimacy

[Lunar]

Oh, and the person who has the most to lose by Bobby Rush's injection of race into the issue (using words like "lynching" "hanging" and saying no United States Senator could refuse to seat the one African-American in the Senate), Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a person friend of soon-to-be-gov Pat Quinn and likely the frontrunner for the position, has gone out of her way to condemn Bobby Rush's comments:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16945.html

Hilarious politicking, but it all fits together pretty obviously. 

I'm not sure if Bobby Rush (who, like I said, sounds like a 90 year old stroke victim) is enough of a tool to be completely used by Blago for racial ends.  He might be agreeing to only be partially used as a tool to inject race into the issue so that Quinn feels forced to keep Burris in the Senate rather than choosing Schako instead.

[muon2]

I wonder if, after Quinn is seated, if he could "reappoint" Roland while Roland is still serving in order to grant him legitimacy

I don't see that that would have any legitimacy unless Burris resigns first. Quinn can't fill a vacancy that doesn't exist. I don't think the theater of a paper appointment helps matters.

[Sam Spade]

In the face of Powell v. McCormick, Harry Reid's argument is pretty laughable.  So there.

[Lunar]

I wonder if, after Quinn is seated, if he could "reappoint" Roland while Roland is still serving in order to grant him legitimacy

I don't see that that would have any legitimacy unless Burris resigns first. Quinn can't fill a vacancy that doesn't exist. I don't think the theater of a paper appointment helps matters.

Well, I mean Quinn can simply state that he would have appointed Roland/endorses Roland.  Thus granting Roland some committee assignments at that point.

Or, I wonder if Quinn could tomorrow preemptively state that he intends/intended on appointing Burris.  That might end some of the circus right there.  But that'd be boring

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Expulsion is a lot harder to do.  No Senator has been expelled since the civil war and Burris himself has done nothing wrong.

I've rambled quite a bit in a thread no one responded too about why Obama has to be *VERY* friendly to Blagojevich right now because if things get heated Blagojevich can just start making crap up about all of the things Barack Obama offered him in exchange for the seat.  Well, at the very least, I'm sure this is the type of guy who can and will start naming names when the time is right.   He's very clearly vindictive to the point of delusion.

I think Blago's danger to Obama, should Blago feel slighted by the president-elect, is underestimated by the MSM

It looked like it was going to happen in 1982 until Harrison Williams decided to resign.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This the same Burris with an electoral record worthy of Myrth York [qm]

[Mr. Morden]

Pay-Rod is attempting a chess move of some sort, but I cannot figure out what his game plan is. 

Blago's goals with this would be:

1) Create sympathy for himself in the black community, so that he has at least *one* group of political allies.

2) Try to convince the jury in his eventual criminal trial that the stuff he said on the tapes was just idle chatter.  ("See!  I wasn't selling this Senate seat.  I appointed a well respected elder statesmen who offered me nothing in return.")

3) Blow up the senate seat selection process as a giant f you to everyone else involved.

On another topic.......I concur with those who are suggesting that Reid would be on shaky ground to deny Burris the seat.  However, what about the Illinois Secretary of State?  He's refusing to certify the appointment.  Is he legally within his rights to do so?  Can they block Burris's appointment just by having the SoS refuse to certify it?

[emailking]

On another topic.......I concur with those who are suggesting that Reid would be on shaky ground to deny Burris the seat.  However, what about the Illinois Secretary of State?  He's refusing to certify the appointment.  Is he legally within his rights to do so?  Can they block Burris's appointment just by having the SoS refuse to certify it?

Sounds like he has to certify it for it to count, but he has no business not certifying it if it was a legal appointment.

[Mr. Morden]

On another topic.......I concur with those who are suggesting that Reid would be on shaky ground to deny Burris the seat.  However, what about the Illinois Secretary of State?  He's refusing to certify the appointment.  Is he legally within his rights to do so?  Can they block Burris's appointment just by having the SoS refuse to certify it?

Sounds like he has to certify it for it to count, but he has no business not certifying it if it was a legal appointment.

What happens if he simply refuses to certify it?  It goes to court, and Burris certainly prevails?  Then Reid tries to block his being seated, and it goes to court, and Burris wins again?

Why not simply pass the special election law today?  Maybe by the time Burris is able to force his appointment through the legal process, the special election will have already occurred, and his appointment will be moot anyway.

[Mr. Morden]

Actually, yeah, thinking about this some more, that may be the only way for the Democrats out of this mess without things getting really ugly: Just pass the special election law.  Even if Burris is forced upon the senate, it will only be for about two months, at which point, whoever wins the special election will replace Burris.  Bobby Rush can try all the race baiting he likes, but if it's the Illinois voters who are pulling the Senate seat out from under Burris rather than Harry Reid, there won't be the same sting.

[Flying Dog]

Oh, come on. That statement by Bobby Rush was so obviously staged.

[emailking]

Reid's office put out a statement that is horribly, horribly, horribly, wrong and they're going to lose, but here it is:

I guess your point is that it is irrelevant whether the seat was sold (worst case scenario) or not, it's still a legal appointment?

I would assume the "elections and returns" part of the clause would empower the Congress to judge whether or not a person actually received a legal appointment or not.

If there was evidence that the seat was sold, then that would be different.

But here's the thing, doesn't Article 1 give the Senate full authority to determine whether the seat was sold or not (if that is the factor which would disqualify this "election")? What does it matter if there is evidence or not?

[emailking]

What happens if he simply refuses to certify it?  It goes to court, and Burris certainly prevails?  Then Reid tries to block his being seated, and it goes to court, and Burris wins again?

If all of that happens, I assume Burris is then seated by the Senate.

Why not simply pass the special election law today?  Maybe by the time Burris is able to force his appointment through the legal process, the special election will have already occurred, and his appointment will be moot anyway.

Here's from the 17th Amendment: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each 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."

I guess the problem is that the legislature empowered the governor to make an appointment, no legislation revoking this power was ever passed, and an appointment has now been made.

Perhaps the law empowering the governor has a provision that the legislature has a window to nullify the appointment, but I don't know if that is the case or not.

[Mr. Morden]

I guess the problem is that the legislature empowered the governor to make an appointment, no legislation revoking this power was ever passed, and an appointment has now been made.

Perhaps the law empowering the governor has a provision that the legislature has a window to nullify the appointment, but I don't know if that is the case or not.

OK, gotcha.  So, if Reid tries to throw up roadblocks, to prevent Burris from being seated, and the courts ultimately rule in Burris's favor, then it's impossible for the Illinois legislature to cut Burris's term short by passing a special election law (maybe)?  It presumably wouldn't matter if they passed such a law as early as today, because Blago has already made the appointment.  If Blago's appointment of Burris is found to be legally legitimate, then it's already too late for the IL legislature to act, I guess.

[emailking]

I think you are correct, just not totally sure. I think it's too late for the legislature to do anything. Even if Blago was impeached/removed tomorrow and then they passed law for a special election which was held while Burris is still in limbo, legally I think Burris would win out (in the courts) over whoever won the special election as being the Sentor-elect up for consideration by the full Senate.

Now whether Reid can succeed on these claims of Congressional sole authority to determine if Burris's "election" was "tainted" I really don't know.

[Sam Spade]

Democrats in IL are not going to pass a special election law because the odds are too strong that they would lose the election.

So, we head to court.  The Senate's position is incredibly weak, unless they expel him after seating him.  I'm not as familiar with the IL state constitution/statute - can the SoS choose to not certify a validly appointed candidate for Senate, or is there any language there which would not make him a validly appointed candidate?  muon2?

[Lunar]

I heard that he's not legally able to do that but don't know the law in question, so a quick court decision should push the SoS aside if I heard correctly

[Mr. Morden]

Democrats in IL are not going to pass a special election law because the odds are too strong that they would lose the election.

Putting the seat at some risk of going to the GOP in a special election might not be as bad as a months (years?) long legal battle that results in Burris being seated as a pariah Senator.....which could just lead to the GOP winning the seat in 2010 anyway.  But it's a moot point if, as emailking suggests, it might already be too late for the IL legislature to act anyway.

[Lunar]

Democrats in IL are not going to pass a special election law because the odds are too strong that they would lose the election.

Putting the seat at some risk of going to the GOP in a special election might not be as bad as a months (years?) long legal battle that results in Burris being seated as a pariah Senator.....which could just lead to the GOP winning the seat in 2010 anyway.  But it's a moot point if, as emailking suggests, it might already be too late for the IL legislature to act anyway.

He won't be considered a Pariah if Lt. Gov. Quinn endorses him in a month or so I imagine.

[Nym90]

Democrats in IL are not going to pass a special election law because the odds are too strong that they would lose the election.

So, we head to court.  The Senate's position is incredibly weak, unless they expel him after seating him.  I'm not as familiar with the IL state constitution/statute - can the SoS choose to not certify a validly appointed candidate for Senate, or is there any language there which would not make him a validly appointed candidate?  muon2?

True, the odds are greater than zero, and thus it makes sense politically for the Democrats to want to avoid a special election.

Can't see how the GOP actually wins the special though, unless the Dem candidate is tied to Blago somehow, and also the GOP would have to, um, come up with a respectable candidate (do they have any in Illinois? Fortner? ) And I can't see any Blago-tied candidate winning the primary, unless it's a 10 way contest and they get 12 percent of the vote or some such (not impossible at all of course, given that anyone and everyone can run without risking giving up the seat they currently hold...).

Would have to think Republican odds in a special here are about as good as Democratic odds in a special in Mississippi would be (or were, as the case was....).

[Lunar]

also the GOP would have to, um, come up with a respectable candidate (do they have any in Illinois? Fortner? )

Mark Kirk has insane fundraising skills, is extremely moderate, has a base in the liberalish suburbs, has shown an interest in running in the special election, and is the person keeping the state Democrats awake at night.

He is the one and only person we talk about when we mention the GOP winning this seat.

[J. J.]

The only ways that I can see out of this are:

Let Burris be a Senator for two years.  Regard him as an untainted compromise.

Let Burris be seated, but say, "On the grounds of a tainted appointer, we are expelling him.  Nothing personal."

I think this qualifies as a "rough patch."

[Lunar]

And our friend Bobby Rush comes back on the Early Show to claim that Senators blocking Burris's appointment are the equivalent of George Wallace standing in front of the schoolhouse door to enforce segregation

"You know, the recent history of our nation has shown us that sometimes there could be individuals and there could be situations where schoolchildren -- where you have officials standing in the doorway of schoolchildren," Rush said. "You know, I'm talking about all of us back in 1957 in Little Rock, Ark. I'm talking about George Wallace, Bull Connor and I'm sure that the U.S. Senate don't want to see themselves placed in the same position."


He's really laying it on thick, huh