The bill dies on the table if it’s not resolved by noon Wednesday. If they don’t convict quickly, the 96th Assembly will have to reimpeach him.
The Senate is scheduled to be in session Monday at 9; there is no other pending business before the Senate so this is the only thing that they could be discussing. They’ll take it up.
No, it doesn’t. Impeachment isn’t a bill. It doesn’t require concurrent action. We went through this on the federal level when Clinton was impeached by the House and tried by the Senate of the subsequent Congress.
I just saw a news report that the Illinois Senate is expected to begin the trial on January 26, with the trial lasting at least two weeks.
As I recall that required some procedural sleight-of-hand (easy enough to do because the Republicans controlled the House at the time). Impeachment is a bill (procedurally, it’s actually called a “bill of impeachment”), and I’ve already seen several lawyers experienced with Illinois procedure say that the bill will die with the session, and will require some sort of procedural maneuver to reinstate if not disposed of.
Well, true, but Burris hasn’t been sworn in yet. I think it’s an open question as to whether or not Blago’s successor could rescind the appointment if Burris had not yet actually taken his seat in the U.S. Senate. Once he’s sworn in, of course no one could revoke the appointment.
Writ of Mandamus, DENIED!
But the IL Supremes also said that White’s signature isn’t required on the appointment, giving the ball back to Harry Reid…
The Illinois Supreme Court said that Illinois law doesn’t require the signature; they’re not qualified to opine on what federal law or Senate rules require.
Also, on the “impeachment dies at the end of the session” issue, they’ve already announced that the House is preparing to “revote” the impeachment at the start of the next session, which means Blagojevich will likely get the distinction of being the only governor to be impeached twice.
And I’ll say again if the GOP is listening: Here is a chance for the 41 GOP Senators to find 10 Democrats to stand together in refusing to seat Burris.
Take step one towards putting ethical scandals behind you…
Blago has officially lost it:
Fight for families? Yes, I’m sure that the legislators have met in back rooms and said, “We can’t have a Governor fighting for families! Let’s get him!”
The fact that they caught you on tape trying to sell a U.S. Senate seat is of no import.
I’m going to take the day off work when this guy gets lead away in handcuffs to federal prison.
The Democrats have a motivation to get rid of Burris. Republicans don’t. They might if there’s an open election for that seat, but even then they probably don’t have much of a chance to win it.
That’s just too funny.
Or should I say painful. 
Well, if anyone deserves the “honor”…
That’s my point. If they had a chance to pick up a seat, then it would be dismissed as political opportunism. Since it will be a Dem in the seat no matter what, here is a chance for them to stand up for ethics, and no one could pin an ulterior motive on them…
Republicans have a motivation to accept Burris. Burris is old and this circus puts him in a disfavored position to win. Illinois had a republican senator not that long ago, and if Burris is seated and stays, we might well again.
I would think less of the republicans if they chose to seat Burris because the putative reason he is not being seated is his nomination has not met the requirements as set forth in the Senate rules. The senate could either vote to change the rules, or reinterpret the rules so that his nomination meets the requirements, but neither fits in with the idea of what a conservative is.