What? Is there any secret document that the liberals WON'T pull out of thier asses when they aren't getting their way?

I guess Dubya didn't take his crayon to that part of it.

This whole thing is monumentally stupid. From a literalist perspective (which I know none of the democrats take, but bear with me) and SCOTUS precedent the guy has to be seated. You'd need to argue that his 'election' was tainted and seeing as he was appointed, I can't see how you can argue that this non-event was tainted by fraud.

The smarter, and actually possible, thing to do is say, "We are legally bound to admit this person, but understand that the first order of business for the Senate will be expulsion proceedings against ANYONE appointed by a man credibly accused of trying to sell the appointment. If Mr. Burris so desperately wants to represent his state, he should renounce his appointment and await appointment by Blago's replacment."

There are essentially no meaningful legal checks on the Senate's power to expell members, why don't they use the power they've been given instead of trying to make up a new power for themselves?

/oh, right, this way their body gets one more power point in the beltway pissing contest

Why would he look at a goddamn piece of paper? Bush sure as hell didn't.

It's always been clear that the Senate can seat him then immediately vote to expel him because "we don't want your kind around here" or any other reason they care to make up. What Reid is looking for is a reason that doesn't sound so stupid and also doesn't require a supermajority. There isn't one. The best way they've thought of so far is to have the Illinois Secretary of State refuse to sign a piece of paper he is legally obliged to sign.

ZAZ: It's always been clear that the Senate can seat him then immediately vote to expel him because "we don't want your kind around here" or any other reason they care to make up. What Reid is looking for is a reason that doesn't sound so stupid and also doesn't require a supermajority. There isn't one. The best way they've thought of so far is to have the Illinois Secretary of State refuse to sign a piece of paper he is legally obliged to sign.

But any reasonable adult, certainly those in Illinois know this isn't a race thing, even if that Black Panther guy tries to make it one. What's wrong with the reason,'the guy who appointed you is on tape trying to sell the seat'?

ZAZ: It's always been clear that the Senate can seat him then immediately vote to expel him because "we don't want your kind around here" or any other reason they care to make up. What Reid is looking for is a reason that doesn't sound so stupid and also doesn't require a supermajority. There isn't one. The best way they've thought of so far is to have the Illinois Secretary of State refuse to sign a piece of paper he is legally obliged to sign.

Is he legally obliged to, though, when he's the guy tasked with presenting the state's case for expulsion of the person who issued the order?

This whole Blagovich disaster is going to end up in multiple courtrooms, and it's going to be some downright bizarre shiat.

bimalc: ZAZ: It's always been clear that the Senate can seat him then immediately vote to expel him because "we don't want your kind around here" or any other reason they care to make up. What Reid is looking for is a reason that doesn't sound so stupid and also doesn't require a supermajority. There isn't one. The best way they've thought of so far is to have the Illinois Secretary of State refuse to sign a piece of paper he is legally obliged to sign.

But any reasonable adult, certainly those in Illinois know this isn't a race thing, even if that Black Panther guy tries to make it one. What's wrong with the reason,'the guy who appointed you is on tape trying to sell the seat'?

oh, forgot to add: who cares if expulsion requires a supermajority. How many senators would seriously vote AGAINST expulsion?

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Okay they have some authority to do so. But exactly how are they going to determine to exclude Burris on his merits that don't exist to other members? Being appointed by a governor under investigation hardly seem reason enough.

Occam's Chainsaw: ZAZ: It's always been clear that the Senate can seat him then immediately vote to expel him because "we don't want your kind around here" or any other reason they care to make up. What Reid is looking for is a reason that doesn't sound so stupid and also doesn't require a supermajority. There isn't one. The best way they've thought of so far is to have the Illinois Secretary of State refuse to sign a piece of paper he is legally obliged to sign.

Is he legally obliged to, though, when he's the guy tasked with presenting the state's case for expulsion of the person who issued the order?

This whole Blagovich disaster is going to end up in multiple courtrooms, and it's going to be some downright bizarre shiat.

He IS legally obliged to sign the paper without exception, according to State law. That he might be in court next week trying to get the guy removed from office is immaterial. On the other hand, he could stall and force Blago to take him to court to force him to do his job and hope he can get Blago ousted before the court rules against him. THEN you'd see some bizzare shiat.

bimalc: This whole thing is monumentally stupid. From a literalist perspective (which I know none of the democrats take, but bear with me) and SCOTUS precedent the guy has to be seated. You'd need to argue that his 'election' was tainted and seeing as he was appointed, I can't see how you can argue that this non-event was tainted by fraud.

The smarter, and actually possible, thing to do is say, "We are legally bound to admit this person, but understand that the first order of business for the Senate will be expulsion proceedings against ANYONE appointed by a man credibly accused of trying to sell the appointment. If Mr. Burris so desperately wants to represent his state, he should renounce his appointment and await appointment by Blago's replacment."

There are essentially no meaningful legal checks on the Senate's power to expell members, why don't they use the power they've been given instead of trying to make up a new power for themselves?

/oh, right, this way their body gets one more power point in the beltway pissing contest

Oh, come now. You are viewing the situation with a rational and intelligent view. These are politicians we're talking about. Rational and intelligent have no place in their little worlds.

It's a trap! If the Repubs refuse to seat Franken, the Demoncrats are going to refuse to seat anybody, including returned Senators from the new class...even Demoncrats. Even with the two extra vacant seats crated by Biden and Obama, they will still have 3/5ths of sitting Senators. Mow down a bunch of filibusters; repeal Taft-Hartley and make union membership mandatory; railroad through tax increases, mandatory abortions and flag burning laws; appoint young activist uber-liberal pot smokers to the Supreme Court to replace retiring old activist uber-liberal pot smokers; vote Castro a medal and Osama a pension.

Then seat the new class.

/didn't actually count the seats so may all be bullshiat

ZAZ: The best way they've thought of so far is to have the Illinois Secretary of State refuse to sign a piece of paper he is legally obliged to sign.

Negative. That is only a matter of routine and is not legally required.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Okay they have some authority to do so. But exactly how are they going to determine to exclude Burris on his merits that don't exist to other members? Being appointed by a governor under investigation hardly seem reason enough.

They aren't/can't really go down the qualification road; SCOTUS ruled on that years ago saying the only qualifications are age and citizenship, not fitness to serve or being liked by people or anything. I believe there is also room to wiggle there on a fraudulent election, but this guy wasn't elected.

The real power is the power to expell.

Under the Constitution, Reid said, "We determine who sits in the Senate. And the House (of Representatives) determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to do. This goes back for generations."

?????

bimalc: He IS legally obliged to sign the paper without exception, according to State law.

Okay, so his dick is in a vise. The only option is to punt...

That he might be in court next week trying to get the guy removed from office is immaterial. On the other hand, he could stall and force Blago to take him to court to force him to do his job and hope he can get Blago ousted before the court rules against him.

...which you covered.

THEN you'd see some bizzare shiat.

To the tune of Blagodicks continuing to pursue the suit even after being unseated, since the order would have been valid and legal when issued? The parched, barren tunnel that is Nancy Grace's nethers just had a moist wind blow through it.

bimalc: The real power is the power to expell.

True.. and they have no legal reason to do so.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Okay they have some authority to do so. But exactly how are they going to determine to exclude Burris on his merits that don't exist to other members? Being appointed by a governor under investigation hardly seem reason enough.

Regarding the qualifications of Burris. IF this is the direction they wish to head in trying to deny him his seat, it's the wrong one. Cripes, this guy has a farking granite mausoleum with his accomplishments etched. Suffice it to say, he is *slighty* more qualified than say, a Caroline Kennedy.

I'm tired of this partisan bullshiat.

Occam's Chainsaw: bimalc: He IS legally obliged to sign the paper without exception, according to State law.

Okay, so his dick is in a vise. The only option is to punt...

That he might be in court next week trying to get the guy removed from office is immaterial. On the other hand, he could stall and force Blago to take him to court to force him to do his job and hope he can get Blago ousted before the court rules against him.

...which you covered.

THEN you'd see some bizzare shiat.

To the tune of Blagodicks continuing to pursue the suit even after being unseated, since the order would have been valid and legal when issued? The parched, barren tunnel that is Nancy Grace's nethers just had a moist wind blow through it.

I could have lived my entire life without being subjected to that visual. You are a bad, bad man.

Occam's Chainsaw: This whole Blagovich disaster is going to end up in multiple courtrooms, and it's going to be some downright bizarre shiat.

And very public. I just wonder who all the skeletons are that will be coming out. Blago looks like he wants to drag everyone he possibly can down with him and that list is long and distinguished. Fitzgerald has said many many more people have come forward. Wouldn't surprise me if he turns up dead at some point.

More on the Jesse White authority:

A spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (D) confirmed to Election Central that White knows he does not truly have the authority to stop the appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate, but he withheld his signature from it earlier today in order to make a statement. But the door does appear to be open to some legal ramifications.

"His feeling is we studied the constitution of Illinois, we looked at the statutes, and there was nothing there that said he had to sign the paperwork," said David Druker, White's press secretary.

"We don't believe he has the authority to hold up the appointment or veto it, to put it that way," Druker added. "How the U.S. Senate views the action, that would be for the U.S. Senate to determine."Link

His signature is in no way required, only that it gives the Senate the flimsiest of excuse to try to unseat him.

BunkyBrewman: I'm tired of this partisan bullshiat.

This issue is getting tainted with the usual omnidirectional spray of partisanship that is American politics, but the real issue here is the ability to check a runaway executive. The last eight years have been an exercise in futility and limp-wristed defeatism in the face of unchecked powers. This is almost one step worse: the Feds are holding the smoking gun, they play Blago's own words on national television, and yet he still says, "So what? I'm governor, until you figure out how to do something about it, and so long as I drag my heels the process will take a long, long time. In the meantime, I'm going to use my fecal version of Midas' Touch to turn everything to shiat, including the senate seat you caught me selling." It's malfeasance on top of blatant graft.

The problem for all of us who value a balanced system of governance (and not a series of contested power grabs) is that Harry Reid is a docile, milquetoast little dick-dribble who would roll over and "compromise" when faced with his own shadow.

FTFA:

Asked if there was room for a possible settlement, Reid said, "I'm an old trial lawyer. There is always room to negotiate."

Code for, "Hey bud, where's my bribe?"

First thing I thought of when I read that.

BunkyBrewman: I'm tired of this partisan bullshiat.

His qualifications don't matter. the manner in which he obtained his appointment does.

But I guess corruption doesn't bother you much.

As a matter of legality, it seems the Senate can use 'Tits or GTFO' as a standard if it wished.

As a matter of practical politics, and since Senators hate the idea of anybody questioning any Senator's legitimacy, they're probably going to end up seating Burris. To avoid a special election, if for no other reason.

After Obama and Blagobiatch, why do Republicans think Illinois voters should get MORE opportunities to vote?

Snowflake Tubbybottom: bimalc: The real power is the power to expell.

True.. and they have no legal reason to do so.

they don't actually NEED a legal reason to expel the guy. However, in the real world, things get a bit more complicated. If they seat the guy, then try to vote him out, it'll be a public relations mess. If they can avoid seating him, then it avoids the cat fight in public.

I'd be desperate to avoid seating this guy too.
At first, I thought he was just a guy who was caught up in the mess, and felt bad for him.

Then I heard him speak, and realized he may not be under indictment, but he's almost as bad as Blago.

bimalc: If Mr. Burris so desperately wants to represent his state, he should renounce his appointment and await appointment by Blago's replacment."

Don't you know the penalties for being rational in a politics thread?

Aside from that, this twit has TRIED to represent the people of Illinois several times, but they kept throwing him back. Appointment may be his only path to higher office. Better to let him ferment in his own unappreciated greatness.

"Under the Constitution, Reid said, "We determine who sits in the Senate. And the House (of Representatives) determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to do. This goes back for generations."

Well, if that's the case Harry, why do we even bother having elections for the House and Senate in the first place?

/Dumbass

JLShuttle: "Well, if that's the case Harry, why do we even bother having elections for the House and Senate in the first place?

/Dumbass

that was a rather arrogant statement of him, wasn't it? I think he's essentially correct though. the senate CAN choose to kick people out of their clubhouse pretty much on a whim. But there'd be a backlash for doing so, which is what they're trying to avoid. they've already got a very low approval rating. I think they're trying to avoid going into negative numbers right now.

This should have an "Ironic" tag. Reid tends to view the Constitution as an obsolete obstacle to overcome in getting his legislative ideas passed.

TheOther: As a matter of legality, it seems the Senate can use 'Tits or GTFO' as a standard if it wished.

DO NOT WANT

I don't even know why everyone is arguing. A US attorney said Blagojevich is guilty and that should be good enough for everyone.

If there's anything I have learned during the Bush administration is that indictments and trials are completely unnecessary.



Where's Carole Mosley Braun when you need her?

538 came up with a pretty good idea: Let Burris in, but work towards a special election law.SilentStrider: I'd be desperate to avoid seating this guy too.
At first, I thought he was just a guy who was caught up in the mess, and felt bad for him.

Then I heard him speak, and realized he may not be under indictment, but he's almost as bad as Blago.

Look at it from Burris' perspective. He's 71 years old. He was about to retire from politics anyway. This is the only way he's ever getting in the Senate. He's got nothing to lose. Take a shot. Who knows?

Reid is a weenie. He needs to go. Let him keep his Senate seat, but not the title. I can't imagine whose idea it was that this guy would make an inspiring leader of the Democratic Party. His majority leader title should be stripped and given to someone else. I'd nominate Chuck Schumer, but I'm entertaining other suggestions as well. Anyone?

Tommy Moo: Reid is a weenie. He needs to go. Let him keep his Senate seat, but not the title. I can't imagine whose idea it was that this guy would make an inspiring leader of the Democratic Party. His majority leader title should be stripped and given to someone else. I'd nominate Chuck Schumer, but I'm entertaining other suggestions as well. Anyone?

Dodd or Feingold.

The Houses have this power to keep members from not being seated for this very farking reason. Keep him out of the Senate

Lawrence Tribe, superstar constitutional lawyer, has said that the Senate's decision to not seat ANYONE appointed by Wharrgarblvich makes it likely this would survive any legal challenges. They aren't just picking on one insignificant little negro trying to make an end-run around the voters who already rejected him - they are rejecting a possibly contaminated appointment at a time when we have quite enough problems on the Hill as it is.

If Blaggo and Burris would pull their heads out of their egos for a second, they might recognize that the appearance of impropriety is the problem here, and the Senate just doesn't need the extra headaches. Illinois will not be harmed politically if the next Gov makes the appointment, only these two bile-filled douchebags.

This isn't about the constitution, and it certainly isn't partisan. It's about Reid worrying about losing tainted seats in 2010.

Asked if there was room for a possible settlement, Reid said, "I lack a spine. There is always room to negotiate."

BunkyBrewman:

I'm tired of this partisan bullshiat.

You mean this partisan bullshiat where the Democrats are trying to stop the seating of a Democrat Senator appointed by a Democrat Governor? Well, all the players are from the same party so I guess maybe it it partisan.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: More on the Jesse White authority:

A spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (D) confirmed to Election Central that White knows he does not truly have the authority to stop the appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate, but he withheld his signature from it earlier today in order to make a statement. But the door does appear to be open to some legal ramifications.

"His feeling is we studied the constitution of Illinois, we looked at the statutes, and there was nothing there that said he had to sign the paperwork," said David Druker, White's press secretary.

"We don't believe he has the authority to hold up the appointment or veto it, to put it that way," Druker added. "How the U.S. Senate views the action, that would be for the U.S. Senate to determine."Link

His signature is in no way required, only that it gives the Senate the flimsiest of excuse to try to unseat him.

Blago or Burris will just get a writ of mandamus from a court and that excuse will be blown to smithereens.

mark_bert: BunkyBrewman:

I'm tired of this partisan bullshiat.

You mean this partisan bullshiat where the Democrats are trying to stop the seating of a Democrat Senator appointed by a Democrat Governor? Well, all the players are from the same party so I guess maybe it it partisan.

No, s/he means the partisan bullshiat where Republicans are just sitting there pointing and laughing while Democrats tear each other new Clymers. It's all so unseemly.

Under the Constitution, Reid said, "We determine who sits in the Senate. And the House (of Representatives) determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to do.

I've rarely seen the law given the finger so nakedly.

jjorsett: Under the Constitution, Reid said, "We determine who sits in the Senate. And the House (of Representatives) determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to do.

I've rarely seen the law given the finger so nakedly.

well it is "just a damn piece of paper"

eddyatwork: Why would he look at a goddamn piece of paper? Bush sure as hell didn't.

what the fark does this have to do with Bush?

thalidomide new and improved: eddyatwork: Why would he look at a goddamn piece of paper? Bush sure as hell didn't.

what the fark does this have to do with Bush?

You new around here?

Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel: Lawrence Tribe, superstar constitutional lawyer, has said that the Senate's decision to not seat ANYONE appointed by Wharrgarblvich makes it likely this would survive any legal challenges. They aren't just picking on one insignificant little negro trying to make an end-run around the voters who already rejected him - they are rejecting a possibly contaminated appointment at a time when we have quite enough problems on the Hill as it is.

If Blaggo and Burris would pull their heads out of their egos for a second, they might recognize that the appearance of impropriety is the problem here, and the Senate just doesn't need the extra headaches. Illinois will not be harmed politically if the next Gov makes the appointment, only these two bile-filled douchebags.

I would bet that Blaggo finishes out his term as Governor. He hasn't even been indicted yet of a crime. I am not too sure what law he broke yet. Evidently, Fitzgerald ( who will be running for governor I imagine ) needs more time to figure out what laws have been broken.

If they do not seat Burris, Illinois will not have a senator for two years.

Note that the Democrats do not want an election because they are afraid a Republican might win.

mcreadyblue: Daddy's Big Pink Man-Squirrel: Lawrence Tribe, superstar constitutional lawyer, has said that the Senate's decision to not seat ANYONE appointed by Wharrgarblvich makes it likely this would survive any legal challenges. They aren't just picking on one insignificant little negro trying to make an end-run around the voters who already rejected him - they are rejecting a possibly contaminated appointment at a time when we have quite enough problems on the Hill as it is.

If Blaggo and Burris would pull their heads out of their egos for a second, they might recognize that the appearance of impropriety is the problem here, and the Senate just doesn't need the extra headaches. Illinois will not be harmed politically if the next Gov makes the appointment, only these two bile-filled douchebags.

I would bet that Blaggo finishes out his term as Governor. He hasn't even been indicted yet of a crime. I am not too sure what law he broke yet. Evidently, Fitzgerald ( who will be running for governor I imagine ) needs more time to figure out what laws have been broken.

If they do not seat Burris, Illinois will not have a senator for two years.

Note that the Democrats do not want an election because they are afraid a Republican might win.

Yeah, right. Also as likely, they are afraid leprechauns are getting ready to take over the Senate.

bimalc: This whole thing is monumentally stupid. From a literalist perspective (which I know none of the democrats take, but bear with me) and SCOTUS precedent the guy has to be seated.

Why the fark do people keep saying that? The only SCOTUS case dealing with Article I, Section 5 is Powell v McCormack...and that case is totally inapposite. It simply is not relevant here.

From my reading of the constitution -- and I suspect the Supremes would agree -- the Senate has a right to bar Burris.