Wow…just…I can’t believe the balls on Blago. He must need two aides to help put his pants on in the morning.
However I wish that Bobby Rush would just shut the fuck up.
Harry Reid says the Senate won’t accept Burris.
It’s obvious what Blago is trying to do here: Pretend nothing has happened. All is as it was. He is simply proceeding with his ordinary constitutional duty to appoint a replacement for Obama.
I recall a scene from the 1967 comedy A Guide for the Married Man, where Robert Morse gives Walter Matthau lessons in getting away with adultery. One important rule: “Deny everything! Deny, deny, deny!” “But what if she actually sees . . .?” “Deny!” “But what if she . . .?” “Deny!” Morse proceeds to tell a story of a friend of his.
We cut to a scene with different characters. We see a wife walking in on her husband and some floozy. She’s astonished and outraged: “Harry, what are you doing?!” And he calmly says, “What?” She keeps protesting and he keeps saying, “What?” Like, “What are you talking about?” 
This continues while the floozy gets dressed, he kisses her goodbye and she leaves. Husband settles into his easy chair and starts to read the paper. Wife says, “But I just saw you and her . . .” “What?” Finally, with an utterly baffled look on her face, she says, “Harry?” “What?” “What would you like for dinner?”
Almost never works IRL, I’m sure, but it sounds just like the angle Blago is playing.
Yeah, he’s got chutzpah by the boxcar load. I’ll give him that. His lawyer had told the state legislature’s impeachment committee a few weeks ago that the governor would refrain from making an appointment; guess that statement is now, um, inoperative.
I doubt the U.S. Senate will exclude Burris, much tempted though they would be. But he’ll be politically DOA and a mere placeholder for two years. Wonder if President Obama welcomes him to the White House…?
I’m just wondering what phone calls are being made right now.
Blogojevich is nuts but he’s not stupid. This was a clever ploy. Burris would, under other circumstances, be a fine enough placeholder.
But what is in this for Burris and how will he hold up to calls from Team Obama that his accepting this appointment is a tremendous handicap for his administration?
What’s Nate’s source on that? I couldn’t track it down.
“Elections” and “returns” are different aspects of the same process. In seating a new member, Congress may inquire into whether the election was conducted in a legal manner free from fraud and intimidation, and whether the “returns” were reported accurately by the state.
When Senators were elected by state legislatures, the Senate on several occasions refused to seat members-elect whom it judged to have secured election via bribery.
In Burris’s case, even if we assume that he personally didn’t bribe anybody (although with Blagojevich, we can never be sure), the process of appointment has been sullied by bribery. Other candidates were excluded through no fault of their own because of Blagojevich’s dash for cash.
The Senate would, IMO, be both constitutionally and morally justified in refusing to seat any Blagojevich appointment. The case of Powell v. MacCormack was different, because the House didn’t raise any objections to Powell’s election, only to Powell himself.
Politically, however, 99 non-black Senators will now be in the position of refusing to seat the only African-American member-elect, and their discomfort will no doubt cause Blago cackles of glee.
Ordinarily this would be a non-starter, but it may give the Senate some extra cover in refusing to consider the appointment.
Since when? He wouldn’t be in this mess if he hadn’t been so stupid. The guy knew the feds were investigating him and warned people his phones might be tapped, but he continued to discuss his plans on the same phones!
I do not like the ad hockery of the Senate denying the selection of a sitting, elected Governor. If Illinois doesn’t want him as Governor then they should do something about it, but I am not comofrtable with the Senate acting like this.
There’s nothing ad hoc about it: it’s a power the Senate has always had. What makes it look ad hoc is that the system is apparently not intended to respond this quickly.
If Blagojevich was being investigated for some other type of corruption, it’d make sense to let this investigation run its course because it wouldn’t inherently affect the appointment he made. But here, he’s accused of misdeeds involving the Senate seat; he even considered taking the spot himself to improve his legal standing. For that reason, it’s important he not be the one that fills the vacancy. Whether that’s done by removing him, refusing to seat Burris or seating Burris and then making him leave doesn’t matter as far as I’m concerned.
He’s not stupid, he’s a Ted Bundy level psychopath. He clearly does not believe that he’s done anything wrong and that he’s going to be free to go any minute now. There are no repercussions for Hot Rod, no other people, only an ego to feed.
I agree with this. An argument could be made that several of the best qualified candidates for this seat had to be passed over because of the Governor’s actions.
I’ve never heard of Burris before today, but he is a total jackass to his home state for accepting this Senate appointment. If he would have defiantly turned it down, it might have put him first on Pat Quinn’s list.
What is the legal principle I am looking for where even thought it may say you have to do X on paper, since X would be a horrible miscarriage of justice, you do Y?
I’m a lawyer and I’ve never heard of any such principle, unless it be Fiat justitia ruat coelum (“Let justice be done though the heavens fall”).
I don’t know.
I do see Bobby Rush has done exactly what Blagojevich might’ve asked him to do in touting Burris’ race - and he might’ve even gone a step beyond in asking the Senate not to “lynch the appointee” by sticking to their principles. Nicely done, jagoff.
Exactly. He gives other narcissists a bad name.
Psychopath? Maybe. But I think it’s more reasonable to blame his environment – that is, the Chicago-political environment in which he learned his trade, and in which everybody knows this is simply how things are done.
RTFirefly mentioned this above - while this is a power it isn’t an absolute one.
From my reading of the Powell case, the Senate can kick out a member, but they can’t refuse to seat him - and they certainly can’t kick him out without holding a vote. Said vote has to carry by two-thirds, and that is a higher standard to meet than the Democratic delegation merely saying they won’t take him.
Isn’t it possible that he really is innocent? Isn’t it possible that he truly is wrongfully acc…[snerk]. Nope couldn’t do it. Tried to keep a straight face. Fail.
The problem with things that “everybody knows” is that they often are a shorthand way to say ignorant shit that have no basis in fact.
But do you hate punks? [/D.M.]
Or simply to excuse oneself on “But everybody does it!” grounds.