Blago's To Name Us Senator

What's the over/under on this turkey making it out of Illinois and to the US Senate? Pretty slim I say.
 
kallsop said:
What's the over/under on this turkey making it out of Illinois and to the US Senate? Pretty slim I say.
Click to expand...
The strategy is now clear. Rep. Bobby Rush will lobby hard for Burris, and play the race card for all it's worth.

Who wouldn't vote to seat Burris unless they're a racist?
 
MSNBC had a political reporter on, laughing, saying that the reason he covers Illinois politics is because it's always a zoo...
 
dudalb said:
I like Greenfield, but I question his credentials in Constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Which is why Greenfield cites Nate Silver, who is writing based on his communication with a friend in law school (student or professor is not specified):

FYI. If the Supreme Court took the case, It isn't clear that the Senate has the Constitutional authority to refuse to seat a senator who has been validly appointed under the Constitution.

Art I Section 5 says that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."

In Powell v McCormack, the Court held that the House of Reps couldn't refuse to seat Adam Clayton Powell as long as he met the Constitution's qualifications for membership (age, residency, citizenship.).

I guess, theoretically, the Senate could seat the appointee and then expel him with a 2/3rds vote. The Court wouldn't interfere on Political Question grounds: the Constitution doesn't specify the standard for expulsion so it is properly at the discretion of the Senate.
Click to expand...

How do you make Blagojevich's failings a question of Burris' qualifications? Maybe the $14,000 he contributed to Blagojevich's campaign? Seems awfully skimpy to me as a bribe for a Senate seat.

Burris is 71. He may only be a respected caretaker for the seat until 2010.
 
boloboffin said:
How do you make Blagojevich's failings a question of Burris' qualifications? Maybe the $14,000 he contributed to Blagojevich's campaign? Seems awfully skimpy to me as a bribe for a Senate seat.
Click to expand...
Burris's law firm got quite a bit of state business after that donation.
 
boloboffin said:
Which is why Greenfield cites Nate Silver, who is writing based on his communication with a friend in law school (student or professor is not specified):



How do you make Blagojevich's failings a question of Burris' qualifications? Maybe the $14,000 he contributed to Blagojevich's campaign? Seems awfully skimpy to me as a bribe for a Senate seat.

Burris is 71. He may only be a respected caretaker for the seat until 2010.
Click to expand...

If this was a GOP appointment, I wonder if you would feel the same.
 
dudalb said:
If this was a GOP appointment, I wonder if you would feel the same.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think I've shared my feelings on this matter. I feel Blagojevich shouldn't be allowed to make this appointment. So take your wonderment and locate your fundament.
 
From the press conference I linked to above:
Rep. Bobby Rush said:
"There are no African-Americans in the Senate and I don't think that anyone, any US Senator who's sitting in the Senate right now, want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the US Senate. I don't think they want to go on record doing that. And so I intend to take that argument to the Congressional Black Caucus. I intend to take that argument to the Senators. I intend to start with our own Senator, Senator Durbin who's a friend of mine, and I'm sure he will stand ready to be reasoned with".
Click to expand...
The message to Durbin is clear: Seat Burris or you are a racist.

Oh boy, I can't wait to hear Durbin's response to this!
 
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats on Tuesday vowed not to seat embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill the vacancy left by President-elect Barack Obama, prompting a House Democrat to object to the nation's only prospective black senator being denied a seat.

Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois told reporters that Senate Democrats should not "hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer."
Click to expand...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j-CKHJCHa23Nx7aUCc8v-396YEcAD95D9EFO0

Yes, not seating Burris is the equivalent of "hanging and lynching" him!

How many race cards are in the deck anyway?
 
I am beginning to wonder if Blago is not trying to do as much damage to the Dems as possible as revenge for not backing him.
This appointment is already putting the Senate in a horrid situation: Either Seat Burris, making them look like idiots for their statements of never seating a Blago appointee and look as if they are caving in to having the race card played,in an time when I think most people are sick of it, or doing damage to the Senate's standing with the Left Wing of the party for denying a Afro American a senate seat.
And the whole race card is the last thing Obama wants at the moment.
The more I think about it, the more I despise Blago.
 
Last edited:
Obama comments:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/30/illinois.senate/index.html

Sounds to me as if he is trying to give the Senate political cover to refuse to seat Burris. I think he wants to get this over with as quickly as possible, and that the pain from a quick cut (taking the heat for refusing to sit a Afro American in the Senate) is better then the long pain from dissapointing a lot of people by caving into the race card and giving the GOP a field day.
 
Last edited:
Why haven't we gotten a reality show yet about Washington? Titles like Lobbyist or Take It To The Court or Sausage Making come to mind. Well, I mean aside from the 24/7 news channels. Even something like this Senate seat appointment could be the subject of a series if a production company could afford to wait on this and opportunities like it. If it were done well, and odds are against it, it would be interesting to watch.

Anyway, on another Senate seat front, Paterson interviewed an openly gay NYC assemblyman for Clinton's office. It's not an Yes, but it's not a No either. I like Paterson more and more these days. ;)
 
Last edited:
Should I point out that as a former Illinois Attorney General (1991 to 1995), Roland Burris, was supposed to clean up corruption in his state. Appears he didn't completely succeed at that job. :) Other than that, he might not be such a bad choice since by many accounts he's clean as a whistle. He even ran against Daley for mayor of Chicago and that's got to indicate something good. Maybe the current governor is now just looking to stick it in the eye of democrats for turning on him by picking someone who is squeaky clean that they don't control. Just a thought. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
Should I point out that as a former Illinois Attorney General (1991 to 1995), Roland Burris, was supposed to clean up corruption in his state. Appears he didn't completely succeed at that job.
Click to expand...
You'll never see an Illinois AG do a damned thing to clean up the state.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil seems to be their motto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom