Why the Senate can't block Blago's nominee

News Type: Opinion — Seeded on Fri Jan 2, 2009 2:06 PM EST

Article Source: majikthise.typepad.com

politics, blagojevich, burris, senate-appointment

The main argument has two key premises. The authors, Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz, argue that the Senate has always had the power to refuse to admit the "winner" of a fraudulent election. They also cite language in Section 5 of the Constitution that appears to cover fraudulently appointed senators as well.
These premises are plausible, but they don't establish the conclusion, namely, that the Senate could refuse to accept Roland Burris because he was picked by Rod Blagojevich. Why not? Because Roland Burris wasn't appointed through a corrupt process.

Published to:

Redruby's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Open Mic, Political Analysis, Psych, Soc, Philos
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

4.6

{"commentId":4635025,"authorDomain":"redruby"}

Redruby

Excerpt:

Would I say the same thing if the Republicans controlled the Senate? You bet. I think rejecting Burris would set a terrible precedent, in the unlikely event the Supreme Court decided to go along with it. If the GOP had the upper hand, they'd probably be using this "corrupt process" argument to screw someone who I actually respect--as opposed to using them to thwart a governor who should have been impeached already and his C-list appointee.

{"commentId":4635025,"threadId":"458770","contentId":"2267414","authorDomain":"redruby"}

1 vote

#1 - Fri Jan 2, 2009 2:06 PM EST

{"commentId":4638540,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

jfxgillis

Ruby:

I generally agree. However, I think Harry Reid would be within his rights to delay a little while as he determines this himself:

Because Roland Burris wasn't appointed through a corrupt process.

It's not as if there's no cause at all to investigate that possibility a little more carefully.

{"commentId":4638540,"threadId":"458770","contentId":"2267414","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

1 vote

#2 - Fri Jan 2, 2009 6:08 PM EST

{"commentId":4638584,"authorDomain":"redruby"}

Redruby

Evidently his name did not appear on any list of those allegedly involved with Blago...and we do still have a rule of law. Blago while contemptible has not been convicted of anything, so is innocent until proven guilty. Admittedly, lots of gray here but I agree with Lindsay, we have to be careful to stay withing a legal process.

{"commentId":4638584,"threadId":"458770","contentId":"2267414","authorDomain":"redruby"}

3 votes

#2.1 - Fri Jan 2, 2009 6:11 PM EST

{"commentId":4639256,"authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

jfxgillis

Ruby:

As I said, I generally agree. HOWEVER, just because a possible bargain wasn't in the earlier transcripts, doesn't mean a possible bargain doesn't exist, and given Blagovich's known actions, I think it's reasonable to surmise that closer examination is warranted.

For the record, methinks this is simply intra-Dem, intra-Illinois, intra-Cook County payback. It's no accident that the three principals involved (Blags, Burris and Bobby Rush) either are, have been or have become enemies of the President-elect.

{"commentId":4639256,"threadId":"458770","contentId":"2267414","authorDomain":"jfxgillis"}

2 votes

#2.2 - Fri Jan 2, 2009 6:55 PM EST

{"commentId":4643437,"authorDomain":"Jerry611"}

Jerry Verlinger

Admittedly, lots of gray here but I agree with Lindsay, we have to be careful to stay withing a legal process.

In the first place, I don't like this Burris guy ....at all. Don't like him, don't trust him and I think he will make a very bad Senator, from any State. I don't have much use for Blago either, I think he's a wise guy and obviously has questionable ethics (to put it mildly).

However, at this point, the only thing we know about the allegations against Blago, is what Fitzpatric, the Federal Prosecutor who brought the charges, told us, in an highly unusual public reading of those charges. As of today, Blago has yet to be indicted, and Fitzpatric has asked the court for a 90 day extension to bring that indictment. (if his case is so strong, why does he need 3 months to put it together?)

Now, keeping the Constitutions ""innocent until proven ...." thing in mind, at this point, Blago is the legally sitting Governor of the State of Illinois, who has the obligation, under the States Constitution, to appoint, in a timely manner, a replacement for any U.S. Senate seat that may become vacant. So, he did.

Now, maybe almost everybody did not want him to do it, but he had the legal right and an obligation to do it ....so, on what legal grounds do the Senate Democrats base their intention to physically block a legally appointed Senator from entering the Senate?

If Paterson appoints Caroline K. the be Senator from NY, can a group of Senators block her entry to the floor because they think she is not qualified? Of course, Paterson is not under any charges by the U.S. Attorneys office, but then either is Blago, right now they are only allegations.

{"commentId":4643437,"threadId":"458770","contentId":"2267414","authorDomain":"Jerry611"}

2 votes

#2.3 - Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:11 AM EST

{"commentId":4641174,"authorDomain":"alcamara"}

alcamara

Clearly this guy is an opportunist, others like Danny Davis had been approached and turned it down on MORAL grounds. They have more guts than he does. Guv. Blago. could'nt find anyone else in any community to take this Job, as evidence of the Black ministers that paraded into the Governor's to sell OUR souls, they are that shallow.

That seat does not belong to us African- Americans as evidenced by Burris, and others who have been elected several time into statewide office in IL. If America had felt the same way as these self serving African-Americans, we wouldn't have had a President Obama. The Latinos , Asians and other ethnic groups did not say it was theirs , when are we going stop and start being like Americans as Obama said. This could back fire on us , and turn people against us.

I hope Harry Reed and the Democrat leadership will have the fortitude to throw this idiot (Burris) out . Race has no place in this as evidence of this last election.

{"commentId":4641174,"threadId":"458770","contentId":"2267414","authorDomain":"alcamara"}

3 votes

#3 - Fri Jan 2, 2009 9:32 PM EST

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"458770","isPrivate":false}

US gives Israel free reign on whether to invade Gaza	Chicago Sun-Times	Fri Jan 2	1
Do As I Say	Takimag	Fri Jan 2	8
Allen: Burris selection a victory for black empowerment	The Daily Voice	Fri Jan 2	0
Senate Democrats yield to Obama, retreat on Burris	Associated Press	Fri Jan 2	21
Black ministers support Burris in Chicago	Associated Press	Wed Dec 31	0

REDRUBY

Backyard

Why the Senate can't block Blago's nominee

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: