I understand that, and they do have to follow their own rules here. But I have no problem with the Senate turning Burris down by whatever means are at their disposal.
I don’t think this is an analogous case, though. Powell was fairly elected, he was just also a corrupt slimebag. The House tried to refuse to seat him on those grounds. The Senate would be claiming that his appointment was illegitimate, so Burris has no right to be in that chamber.
Surely the GOP would stand behind the Dems on this. Maybe I give them too much credit, but I would love to see a 100-0 vote against seating him. If they can’t legally do that, then how about wording it as an “immediate expulsion” so that if Burrus takes the oath of office, he is automatically expelled and lead out of the chamber by the seargant at arms.
What if the IL legislature rushed through a law saying that a Governor under federal charge of XYZ may not fill a Senate vacancy, and any appointment made before this date that has not been seated by the Senate is hereby null and void, ipso facto uno macto, etc.
They wouldn’t have to mention a special election, or any alternate procedure. Just pass that law to keep Blago from picking this guy.
Any potential problems with either of these scenarios?
I’m not sure. I think enough of them would probably choose the integrity of their club over partisan affiliation, but it’s hard to guess.
I don’t suppose Burris would simply take his seat and then immediately resign . . .
Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny . . .
Even if Burris did that, the decision would still just revert right back to Blagojevich.
I still don’t understand what’s so horrible about Burris or why he’s unacceptable as a Senator.
Yeah, that wouldn’t do anything. The obligation Blagojevich spoke of is fictional, he’s just angling for something.
Burris isn’t the issue, it’s about the guy appointing him. Blagojevich shouldn’t have his hands on this in any way.
I don’t know much about Illinois law, but if the governor’s power to appoint a senator derives from the state constitution, then the legislature has no power to pass a mere law restricting it thus.
He hasn’t been convicted of anything. His official actions are all still valid at this point.
If you think about it for a second, you’ll realize why that’s impossible.
Hey, maybe Burris doesn’t like himself much, either…
Exactly. If the Illinois legislature passes a Sears bailout bill, would his signing of it be illegitimate? Why would an appointment any different?
To keep it all morally tidy, couldn’t he veto it and then they override the veto? 
A short bio of the Senator-designate: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/30/blagojevich-pick-has-long-political-history/#more-33858
What’s valid mean, in this context? He’s still the governor and still has the power to make this choice, I agree. That isn’t the point. The point is that he shouldn’t be allowed to have his choice honored, because there is no way to know for sure that he made his choice in an above-board way, and because he shouldn’t hold office at all at this point.
I’m not sure if this is exactly the money that Nate Silver referred to earlier, but here’s an excerpt from today’s New York Times story on the appointment, which discusses the working relationship between Blagojevich and Burris.
99-0
98-0 or 97-0 is more likely. Franken has not been seated yet, and I doubt we’ll see Ted Kennedy for any vote for which his presence is less than critical for passage.
The power to appoint senators also derives from state law.
I didn’t either, until I saw his monument to his own greatness.
I mean, we know just about anyone who makes it to the U.S. Senate has a pretty big ego, but c’mon.
I guess he’ll fit right in…
I saw that on Wonkette yesterday but didn’t want to link to that blog because…well, Wonkette isn’t exactly unbiased. I see it’s made Politico, now.