Burris writes Reid

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Burris_writes_Reid.html

In a letter to Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein, a lawyer for Roland Burris forwards his formal appointment documents. (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_letter_1_2_09a.html)

"I write to ensure his smooth transition," writes Timothy Wright III, the lawyer, citing Marbury v. Madison as precedent, a case in President Thomas Jefferson tried to stop appointments made by his predecessor, John Adams.

"Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison over 200 years ago, the law of the land has been that an appointment is complete and irrevocable once the last act required by the person vested with the appointment power is performed," Wright argues.

That was a strictly federal case; the intersection of a governor and the Senate, among other factors, may make this one more complicated.

The full letter and documents, provided by a Burris aide, are here. (http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_letter_1_2_09a.html)

But, I can't help feeling suspicious of him, given he took what he had to know would be a contested and potentially tainted appointment. That makes me extremely suspicious of the man and his motives. Flame away Burris fans....

He's in the evening of his life. He wants to make an impression beyond state politics.

Just because people get old, doesn't mean they don't care about their resume and legacy. And it doesn't mean they don't care about continuing to make a contribution.

and that may be very laudible in terms of motives. But, I am not yet convinced.

I also think Burris knows this deep within his heart, and doesn't give a shit. I further think Burris knows full well what Blago is trying to do, but Burris believes he can do some good in the job, and he's willing to take the appointment if he can take it on his own terms. Now, if that's "quid pro quo" so be it. Caroline Kennedy traded her Christmas Card list/fundraising talent in the MILLIONS for a Senate seat. Which "quid pro quo" is "worse?" It doesn't really matter what we think may have been in Blago's nefarious heart--it's, bottom line, what actions he took, that count. IMO.

I think that, what we have here is a "happy coincidence"--for BURRIS. Burris gets a job he wanted, while retaining the freedom to criticize Blago, and Blago gets a bit of cover and "plausible deniability" if you will (Hey, I was KIIIIIIDDDDDDING!! I tell people to pay me bribes all the time...it's a JOKE!!!!).

Anyone concerned with having a seated senator from Illinois would be loath to wait for the legislature to make that happen. Burris already expressed his objections to Blago's conduct. He wants to set things right for Illinois. He's acting decisively - unlike the Illinois legislature.

another is that he is exploiting a very inflammatory situation, given the incompetence all the way around. I don't know which is the truth, in all honesty, but I am certainly NOT convinced that the first scenario is most likely.

No one could condone Blago's conduct.

The voters have rejected Burris repeatedly. They don't want him.

minded man; he is no leader. Seat the senator. Then let Burris run in 2010 if he chooses; others can oppose him in the primary. The Illinois voters can decide. Reid has been out of line in this, calling Blago to oppose Jackson et al and now not accepting the legal appointee of the same governor he called to advise. Idiot should be emblazoned on Reid's chest.

the voters would have done well to have chosen Duckworth. I heard her speak at Emily's List and she is one awesome woman. So maybe Illinois voters will find out they were wrong about Burris too and, if not, they can vote him out in 2 years and perhaps even put Tammy in. Reid had better be worrying about his own election; he looks more and more pathetic and obstructionist than ever now that the Dems should be wielding power.