Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Illinois DUers chime in: to seat or not to seat?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:23 PM
Original message
Illinois DUers chime in: to seat or not to seat?

I vote "not" to seat Roland Burris as the next senator from Illinois.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. He should be seated. He's been named by the governor.
Don't like it? Maybe it's time we stopped electing crooks to serve as governor. There's a lesson here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. I'm torn. I don't want mark kirk to be the next senator and that's what I think is
gonna happen now that reid refused to seat Burris. I really believe if we don't get a special election and a dem gets appointed, IL people will be so frustrated with the dems we will end up electing the fake moderate, kirk.

I really want Quinn to make the decision. It would have been great if somehow blago and Quinn could have together appointed Burris, but I know that is ridiculous. It's just my little dream for it all to work out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. That is actually why I oppose seating Burris.

I believe his appointment keeps this controversy alive through the 2010 election ensuring a Republican victory.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. at this point not seating Burris does the same thing. It's a lose lose situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. If Burris is seated the ONLY way the GOP loses in 2010
would be for them to run Keyes again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. I side with the law.
seat him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
olkaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. Nope. No way, no how.
But, Mr. Burris told me I'm clamoring for him, so I don't know, maybe I'm confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wndycty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
5. Seated. . .
. . .if Rod had been stripped of his powers it would be different, but his legal standing is solid. He has not even been indicted yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
8. Don't seat him.
Edited on Tue Jan-06-09 04:43 PM by IWantAnyDem
Anybody who'd accept an appointment from Blagojevich is one of three things:

1) Too crooked to be a Senator.
2) Too narcissistic to be a Senator.
3) Too STUPID to be a Senator.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. Those are arguments not to select him. But having been selected...
... what's the legal reason not to recognize his appointment? I don't see a legal footing here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
10. I want an election
Seat him temporarily. Have the legislature call for an election. Primaries in April, election in June. Then Mr. Burris can go home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Ahhh, so you want MArk Kirk for Senator
because that is who will win such an election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. it's true. But, we do live in a democracy. See the problem? We are just like the republicans
if we say we don't want an election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. 17th amendment and IL law says appointment
then election during next cycle.

Oh well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
17. Just Curious - Why Do You Think Kirk Would Win?......nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mucifer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. He painted himself as a moderate in a liberal leaning district. Dan Seals should have
had Obama's coattails. But, kirk still won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Same reason Blagojevich won in 2002
Crooked politicians end up pushing the Illinois electorate to the other party. George Ryan was the incumbent in 2002 even though he didn't run, and blagojevich became the first Demcrat to win the governor's seat in a quarter century.

If Burris is seated, the incumbent is the equivalent of Blagojevich. This will push the Illinois electorate to the Republican choice who will be Mark Kirk, even if Burris does not run.

same thing happened with this seat in 1998. There was massive scandal surrounding Carol Mosley Braun, and the Illinois electorate was pushed to Pete Fitzgerald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. If we let Burris stay in office for two years, Kirk will certainly win
I would say you are afraid of an honest election here.

Personally, I'd go to work for Jan Schakowsky. I think she could get elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. And since the seat expires next year ...

Primary four months from now.
General two months later.
Primary eight months later.
General nine months later.

Might as well wait 13 months for the next regularly scheduled election at this point.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Bingo
Or wait another five months and Quinn will make a legitimate appointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
14. Seat him but be prepared
for a Republican senator from Illinois in 2010. Burris will be Blago incognito running and he wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. The only chance would be if Burris were defeated in the primary and this would be bloody. It really is a sad situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JayMusgrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
16. I have a solution, Obama can do this
Seat Burris for 6 months, and get rid of that freakin Governor during the 6 months.

And then hold an election......get your state back on track.

Geeze it's so easy, why didn't Harry and Diane sit down and come up with a solution for you folks in IL???

Harry and Diane are grandstanding as much as Burris is, that's why!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. That would be unconstitutional.
Sorry, but if Burris is seated, he's there until 2010 under the Constitution and Illinois law.

To change it after the fact would be an ex post facto law, which is unconsitutional.

The choices are, Burris seated or Burris not seated. There are no other choices as other choices went out the window the moment Blagojevich appointed Burris and he accepted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueladybird Donating Member (131 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
19. Seat Him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
25. What is the legal basis for denying this appointment?
I'm assuming you believe in the rule of law. Where is the legal standing to keep the innocent-till-proven-guilty governor's appointment from going through?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. The Senate has the authority to not seat if they feel there is a cloud over...
....the election or, in the this case, the selection.

1). There is evidence Blago was trying to sell the seat.

2). Burris was against Blago before he was with Blago. His sudden change of heart is very suspicious.

3). Burris knew, going in to this, the Senate majority said they wouldn't seat a pick by Blago. Any injury sustained by Burris is self inflicted at this point.

4). It's not a court of law so "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't apply here. Like an impeachment, this is a political process. The Senate gets to vote on it and THEY are the supreme judge of what constitutes acceptable "evidence."

It's not as if the Senate didn't put the warning out they wouldn't seat ANY Blago pick. The Senate majority has both the legal AND moral high-ground here.......

........not to mention all what was said up-thread about the self-promoting huckster tainting the seat all the way to 2011 and handing it to the rethugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. "Cloud" is not a legal standard.
Any attempt to define it as such inevitably results in creating new "qualifications" for the office, and the SCOTUS has already said that's a no-no.

The only way to block the appointment is to prove it was actually illegal, and that's not going to happen. I'm not entirely happy with it, but the law says Burris is the junior Senator from Illinois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hassin Bin Sober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. If the Senate refuses to seat it won't be a legal proceeding.
Like I said, it will be much like an impeachment - a political process held up to a vote... and the majority will decide what constitutes acceptable proof.

The Senate can't add additional qualifications to the individual as this has already been spoken to in The Constitution (age, residence etc.) but it most certainly CAN judge what it deems to be a fair election/selection process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kevsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. But in making such a decision, they have to define it.
In order to say the appointment is "tainted," they still have to say why, even if it's not a legal proceeding. Anything they say in that regard automatically becomes subject to judicial review. At that point, it does become a legal proceeding. A really good lawyer could say that their reasons are actually unreasonable new "qualifications."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. The rule of law says you don't sell a Senate seat.
JFC!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Do you have proof that Burris bought the seat?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davsand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 06:10 PM
Response to Original message
26. I don't think OUR opinions mean much in all this.
If you think the voters have ANY say in this at all, I think you are fooling yourself. This is all gonna sort itself out in the courts and what the voters of Illinois want is completely not part of the process.

Check out Marbury v. Madison and see how many similarities YOU can find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury-v.-Madison

I seriously doubt that Burris will be kept out of the Senate, and Blag's conviction (or non-conviction just to pacify the innocent until proven guilty folks out there) will not be a factor in any of it.

I think Jesse White will get told by the IL Supremes to sign the form and then we'll have another round of debates when the Senate has to face a Burris with his papers in order. In the meantime we are all gonna spend a shitload of time on here worrying about this crap while the important stuff goes unremarked.


Now if we had held a special election--THEN we'd have had a voice...Oh--WAIT!! Our legislature never acted. THEY set this mess up every bit as much as Blag did.

Happy days in Illinois!


Laura
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
31. Seat him after Blagojevich is impeached.
Force Pat Quinn or the General Assembly to confirm the appointment first. When the appointment is made by someone legitimate he should be seated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikekohr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
33. Seat Him, Impeach and Imprison HotRod, and Let Pat Quinn Clean Up in Springfield
Edited on Tue Jan-06-09 08:51 PM by mikekohr
mike kohr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ibegurpard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-06-09 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
35. No idea
But Burris has shown himself to be an idiotic, opportunistic fool with this debacle and it's too bad that's what you'll be stuck with...although he may just fit right in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 05:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC