OK, which is it? Is Blago's senate choice of Burris...

legal and binding or not?

Last night as I was driving back from Texas to Virginia following Christmas, I was listening to Terri Gross' Fresh Air (I think, but NPR nonetheless) and she was speaking to former Illinois governor Gov. James R. Thompson who said that there is nothing anyone can do to stop the seating of Burris, according to Illinois Constitutional and statutory law.

But, as I'm watching MSNBC, their talking heads are saying that the Burris seating can be denied.

Which is it?

PS: I've been on the road for two days so I've missed any previous DU conversations that may have cleared this up.

. . .they could reject him or her too. Remember Rod has not even been indicted yet, he has only been arrested, and he has not been stripped of any power so there is no legal justification for them not to accept Burris. At this point if they can reject Rod's choice they can also reject Patterson's choice.

according to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec. 5: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."


The Constitution does not limit the reasons for expulsion. Thus, it could be that even though Burris' nomination is technically legal, he could still be expelled by the Senate.

Every Republican will hop on board, hoping to throw the seat to a special election, which gives the GOP at least a chance at the seat. Couple that with the fact that Democrats have vowed not to seat anyone nominated by Blago, and I wouldn't be surprised if an expulsion vote got 80 or 90 yeas.

I haven't been following it that much.

It is kinda scary the ability to unseat someone for no reason.

Say (no matter how unlikely) Republicans some day get 67 votes in the Senate.
The move to unseat every single Dem.

I know unlikely and not something to worry about but kinda makes you think.

who were willing to replace the Dems with Republicans. And in any case, it wouldn't happen. Politics has consequences, and such an undemocratic move would mean hell to pay come the next election cycle.

. . . that question would come first and the criteria is basic and specific.

I think what is going to happen is some sort of delaying process. In hopes that a new governor will be in place and they can start fresh. There is precident for this. Congress delayed the seating of a House member for 2 1/2 years and when it went to court Congress lost but in the mean time the person was not a member of Congress.

:rofl:

they've got no "standing" for doing this sort of thing..and for harry to try it now, would smack of oddness to the nth degree.

Instead of making a big to-do of this, they should just seat the guy, and start talking to people who plan to run against him in the primary in '10...anyone coming into the seat now will be "tainted" anyway, so why not just seat the guy, and let him end his career on a senatorial note...

The IL legislature screwed up, by not immediately impeaching Blago....they pussy-footed around and let it escalate, and get worse by the day..

It did not take the house all that long to impeach clinton, did it?..I think they thought Blago would quit.. he's not gonna quit, and the more people "mess" with him, the bigger shit storm he's going to stir up..Impeach him, or STFU, and seat Burriss.. it's too late to impeach him now anyway, to affect the appointment..he already DID that.. but he may need impeaching anyway.

If they impeach him, and the new gov tries to pick his own appointment, then we have this drag on for months ..in court..to decide which appointeee is the legitimate one..

Do we want Scalia making the choice?..MONTHS down the road?

The Senate is saying they are adament he will not be seated, but it is not clear how far they can go:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2008/12/maybe_the_senat.php


But scroll up and down TPM and you will see that the Secretary of State is now suggesting he won't file the paperwork to push through the appointment, so there are all kinds of ways that this will not happen.

Just imagine what that would portend: a partisan congress manipulating majorities because it has the power to "expel" members for whatever reason........?

Really think that is what the Founders intended?

on this issue. You expressed it well.

had Howard Fineman on a panel and asked that same question...CAN HARRY REID ACTUALLY REFUE TO SEAT BURRIS. The gist of his answer was that he spoke to every legal beagle he could find and there's doesn't seem to be a clear cut concensus of opinions on the issue. He did say that all agreed that the Senate CAN withold confirmation of any nominee, and there is a precident where a House nominee confirmation was witheld for 3 1/2 years. He believes Harry is trying to kick this can down the road just long enough to see what happens to Blogo with the Fitz issues. He also said that Fitz has 30 days after filing that complaint to either issue an indightment or cancel the complaint, and that 30 days is up next week.

The only "confirmation" required by the Senate to seat a nominee from a state is the certificate of election/appointment by the state.

So many dumb pundits. So many lazy people who cannot take the time to read the Seventeenth Amendment and a USSC decision: Powell v McCormick.

Powell v McCormick, wherein the USSC said that the houses of Congress cannot add qualifications for its members to what the US Constitution mandates: age, citizenship, and residence.

"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such 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."

If the Illinois legislature wants to it can repeal that authority granted to its governor to make such temporary appointment.

Go ahead, Illinois legislature! Do it! Repeal that authority! Make my day!

If the Illinois SOS doesn't sign off on it, it doesn't go through. I can't remember where I heard that, so I have no links.

Until all legal challenges are exhausted.