Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roland Burris not legitimate enough for Senate?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Roland Burris not legitimate enough for Senate?

    Roland Burris turned away by Harry Reid and Senate

    Why are they not allowing Mr. Burris in? Blagojevich is the legal governor of Illinois. He has not been impeached. He has not been indicted. He has not been removed at all. He is the acting governor - legally.

    Also, I believe the attorney general of Illinois, Jessie White, is saying he's refusing to sign any papers declaring Mr. Burris as the legal Illinois Senator who is taking over President-Elect Barrack Obama's Senate seat.

    Who does Mr. Reid think he is? He is NOT the law of the land. Mr. Burris is the legitimate pick of the legitimate governor of Illinois. Are the Democrats afraid that by allowing Mr. Burris in, they're giving legitmacy to Blagojevich?
    Oh Holy Trinity, the Goddess Caffeine'Na, the Great Cowthulhu, & The Doctor, Who Art in Tardis, give me strength. Moo. Moo. Java. Timey Wimey

    Avatar says: DAVID TENNANT More Evidence God is a Woman
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Blagojevich is poison right now. Reid knows this and to avoid giving any ammo to other parties, is wisely choosing to not seat Burris.
    If Burris had any brains in his head, he would have told the governor "thanks, but no thanks" and waited. He could have been chosen by another method and served out his term far more peacefully. If he was seated under the circumstances that we have now, he would be nothing but controversy for the party and Obama, which is something that the Dems don't really need right now.

    Further, Blagojevich was told quite clearly not to pick anyone at this point in the game. He blew off the party leadership and did it anyways. At this point he's showing himself to care more about himself than he is about his constituents or the reputations of anyone around him. His own lieutenant governor hates his guts.

    Comment

    • #3
      Well, I just heard on CNN that Feinstein is calling for Burris to be seated - provided he can get the paperwork from the Illinois Secretary of State.

      Blagojevich...oooozes corruption, and Burris definitely should have turned down the appointment. The whole thing just STINKS. That said, Burris does seem to be qualified, it is technically a legal appointment, and we've got much bigger fish to fry right now. It'd only be two years, then the people of Illinois (let's be honest, Chicago) can decide whether or not to keep him.

      Comment

      • #4
        The Senate (or House) reserves the right not to seat someone. From Article I, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution:

        "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."

        There are still a few questions as to the validity of Burris's appointment. His certificate of appointment did not have Illinois's Secretary of State, or the State Seal of Illinois. This certificate does not comply with Rule II of the Senate. This is an issue that needs to be sorted out in Illinois. Of course, the Senate could break their own rules and seat Burris without the proper credentials (citing Article I, Section 5), but given the circumstances, I agree with not seating him right now.

        Comment

        • #5
          Basically, once a senator gets into the seat it is next to impossible to remove them. As such, because of Blagojevich's corruption, there is going to be more scrutiny on anyone he picks than usual because it's going to be seen as getting in someone he can influence should he lose his political power.

          Given the above, the person for the seat in this case must be beyond reproach and have as little contact with Blagojevich as possible. Burris might have not passed this scrutiny. Don't forget that Blagojevich's short list before his arrest was completely influenced by payouts and potential buyouts later on.

          Comment

          • #6
            Illinois has basically had one Senator for the last two years anyway. Another two won't hurt. But, like someone else said, Chicago would get to elect that person.

            Comment

            • #7
              Originally posted by IDrinkaRum View Post
              Why are they not allowing Mr. Burris in? Blagojevich is the legal governor of Illinois. He has not been impeached. He has not been indicted. He has not been removed at all. He is the acting governor - legally.

              Also, I believe the attorney general of Illinois, Jessie White, is saying he's refusing to sign any papers declaring Mr. Burris as the legal Illinois Senator who is taking over President-Elect Barrack Obama's Senate seat.
              You give the answer yourself. It is listed that the Secretary of State for Illinois sign the papers giving Mr Burris legitimacy. This has not been done. It is currently being decided by the Illinois Supreme Court. Until that has been decided, the paperwork is incorrect and so Mr Burris should not be seated.

              Originally posted by IDrinkaRum View Post
              Are the Democrats afraid that by allowing Mr. Burris in, they're giving legitmacy to Blagojevich?
              Frankly, if they do let him in, they ARE giving legitimacy to Blagojevich.
              Also quite frankly, the fact that Burris accepted the appointment does not speak well for him. He may be shiny up front, but his acceptance shows a corrupt core. Only corrupt individuals accept appointments from those indicted.
              Regards,
              The Exiled, V.2.0

              "The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind."
              - H. P. Lovecraft

              Comment

              • #8
                But see ... that's my question. Has Blagovich actually been indicted? I don't remember hearing about it, but it could have slipped under my radar so-to-speak.

                And is there any truth in the story Blagovich is saying that Harry Reid called him back in December to discuss candidates and that Harry Reid was opposed to any and all black candidates and only wanted whites and/or women in the position?

                And did Burris actually pay or promise to pay money to Blagovich for the seat? Or was he one of the ones who wasn't part of the pay-for-the-seat crime?
                Oh Holy Trinity, the Goddess Caffeine'Na, the Great Cowthulhu, & The Doctor, Who Art in Tardis, give me strength. Moo. Moo. Java. Timey Wimey

                Avatar says: DAVID TENNANT More Evidence God is a Woman

                Comment

                • #9
                  He did get impeached today on a 114-1 vote. I think whether Burris was involved in the alleged crimes or not, it shows remarkably poor judgment to accept the appointment. As far as the rumor about Reid not wanting any blacks appointed, I think it's just that. A rumor.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by IDrinkaRum View Post
                    But see ... that's my question. Has Blagovich actually been indicted? I don't remember hearing about it, but it could have slipped under my radar so-to-speak.
                    The feds investigating him have stated that they WILL indict him and they're being right public about their investigation.
                    However, he was voted to be impeached today overwhelmingly by the IL legislature. Pretty much tears it right there.

                    Originally posted by IDrinkaRum View Post
                    And is there any truth in the story Blagovich is saying that Harry Reid called him back in December to discuss candidates and that Harry Reid was opposed to any and all black candidates and only wanted whites and/or women in the position?
                    Haven't heard that one, but I'm pretty sure it's a load of hokum. If he did, it would have been recorded by the federal investigators tapping Blag's phone - and probably leaked to the press by now. Since it was known in December publically that Blag has been tapped, I'm sure Reid would have been aware of it (and not that stupid).

                    Originally posted by IDrinkaRum View Post
                    And did Burris actually pay or promise to pay money to Blagovich for the seat? Or was he one of the ones who wasn't part of the pay-for-the-seat crime?
                    As far as the first question: So far as is known, no.
                    For the second: No.
                    I still think there's a deal somewhere in there, but that's me speculating.
                    Regards,
                    The Exiled, V.2.0

                    "The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind."
                    - H. P. Lovecraft

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Props to Obama for whipping his party into shape on this issue and making sure Burris was seated. Blagojevich unquestionably had the right to appoint a US Senator at the time he did so.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Saydrah View Post
                        Props to Obama for whipping his party into shape on this issue and making sure Burris was seated. Blagojevich unquestionably had the right to appoint a US Senator at the time he did so.
                        But boo to everyone who said "We will not approve any person Blagojevich picks." Way too cave in.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by daleduke17 View Post
                          But boo to everyone who said "We will not approve any person Blagojevich picks." Way too cave in.
                          That was a really bad political move on their parts. Promising to be resolute makes one look like a real jackass when they later fold like a cheap suit.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Blagojevich unquestionably had the right to appoint a US Senator at the time he did so.
                            Yeah but it's the fact that he already tried to sell the seat in the first place that's the issue.

                            Frankly, I don't think it's a bad decision to question anyone he picks after that.
                            Why? Because he says, "Well I didn't break the law - *this time*"?

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...
                            X