# Roland Burris Denied Obama's US Senate Seat - Now What? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 6, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105 "2009-01-06T17:09:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/21 "2009-01-06T20:06:27Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > He sounds qualified and capable, from what I’ve read. Not from what I’ve read, he doesn’t. > [@](#): > > [http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news\_columnists\_ezorn/2008/12/burris-failed-his-only-major-test-in-office-as-ag.html](http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/12/burris-failed-his-only-major-test-in-office-as-ag.html) > > . . . > > But six years ago, when Burris had the opportunity to be very careful when faced with a flimsy death penalty case, he failed. > > And it was not so much that he failed–everyone makes mistakes–but how he failed and how he explained it away that told me all I need to know about his leadership qualities. > > On Valentine’s Day 1992, Mary Brigid Kenney, the assistant attorney general whom Burris had assigned to fight the appeal of Death Row inmate Rolando Cruz, sent Burris a memo identifying numerous errors in the investigation and trial that had put Cruz on Death Row for the 1983 murder of 11-year-old Jeanine Nicarico in DuPage County. > > The memo concluded, “I cannot, in good conscience, allow my name to appear on a brief asking . . . to affirm this conviction.” Rather than re-examining the case, Burris took Kenney off it. > > She then resigned with a stinging letter to Burris. “I was being asked to help execute an innocent man,” she told him. “Unfortunately, you have seen fit to ignore the evidence in this case.” > > The evidence he ignored included apparent “perjured testimony” and “fraudulent investigations by local officials,” to use Burris’ words from last Thursday. > > . . . > > But when reporters asked him about Mary Kenney’s allegations, the state’s then-top law enforcement official said: \*\* “It’s not for me to place my judgment over a jury, regardless of what I think. . . . A jury has found this individual guilty and given him the death penalty. It is my role to see to it that it is upheld. That’s my job.”\*\* Actually, no: “A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate,” according to the American Bar Association’s rules of professional conduct. A prosecutor’s proper interest “is not that (he) shall win a case, but that justice shall be done” the U.S. Supreme Court said in a 1935 opinion. > > . . . > [@](#): > > [In 90s, Burris Sought Death Penalty for Innocent Man — ProPublica](http://www.propublica.org/article/in-90s-burris-sought-death-penalty-for-innocent-man-1231) > > . . . > > While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983. > > But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris’ own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court. > > Burris refused. He was running for governor. > > “Anybody who understood this case wouldn’t have voted for Burris,” Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, told ProPublica. Indeed, Burris lost that race, and two other attempts to become governor. > > Burris’ role in the Cruz case was “indefensible and in defiance of common sense and common decency,” Warden said. “There was obvious evidence that [Cruz] was innocent.” > > . . . Not only did Burris’s Deputy Attorney General resign over this case and how it was handled, so did the County Sheriff’s office’s lead detective on the case. Although eventually acquitted themselves, 7 members of the local law enforcement community were tried in criminal court on charges of conspiring to frame Mr. Cruz. > [@](#): > > [Rolando Cruz case - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolando_Cruz_case) > > . . . > > During his third trial, a sheriff’s lieutenant reversed his testimony, DNA tests showed that neither Cruz nor his co-defendant, Alejandro Hernandez were the contributors of the semen found at the crime scene. On November 3, 1995, a DuPage County judge acquitted Cruz on the basis of recanted testimony, the DNA evidence, and the lack of any substantiated evidence against Cruz. He was fully pardoned by Governor George Ryan in 2002. > > . . . > > Seven law enforcement officials were indicted in 1996 of 47 counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, framing Cruz and resulting in his spending ten years on death row for the Nicario crime. In April of 1999, the trial of the “Dupage Seven.” began, and ultimately all seven officers were found not guilty by Judge William Kelly. However, a civil suit brought by Cruz, Hernandez and Buckley was settled by DuPage County for $3.5 million in autumn of 2000. > > . . . Frankly, I don’t want that man anywhere near the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/22 "2009-01-06T20:31:45Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Is the process de-compromised, all of a sudden? Not necessarily. He’s still under a federal criminal complaint in connection with the appointment. In the unlikely event that the US attorney eventually fails to win indictment or conviction, I might consider the process de-compromised, but I’ll cross that bridge if we come to it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/23 "2009-01-06T20:36:52Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > When a governor auctions an appointment to the highest bidder, he doesn’t get to take a Mulligan and make another appointment. _The process has been compromised_. > > The Senate is completely correct and within its constitutional powers to refuse to seat Burris–just as you wouldn’t seat the winner of an election if there was evidence that half of the voting machines had malfunctioned–and I hope it continues to do so. When it is _alleged_… and that’s the critical thing. Allegations and charges are easy to make. This is a bad precedent. There’s always\* allegations \*of fraud or malfeasance. Let us assume someone makes _allegations_ about Obama (which, in fact, they have\*)- would you agre he doesn’t get to be President then? “No Oath for you, someone made some allegations!”:dubious: - that he’s not a “natural born citizen” for one. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/24 "2009-01-06T20:37:51Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Frankly, I don’t want that man anywhere near the Senate. Alright, I’d like to revise my opinion to “fuck this vainglorious bastard.” ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/25 "2009-01-06T21:13:02Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Alright, I’d like to revise my opinion to “fuck this vainglorious bastard.” LOL 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/26 "2009-01-06T21:21:05Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Let us assume someone makes _allegations_ about Obama (which, in fact, they have\*)- would you agre he doesn’t get to be President then? Not comparable. The Senate’s only role in determining who gets to be president is the mostly ministerial function of tallying the electoral votes. In contrast, the Senate is the sole constitutional judge of the “elections, returns, and qualifications” of its members. (In this unusual case, office is vested via appointment instead of election, but the principle is the same.) Substantial and credible evidence has been presented that the process of appointment in Illinois was fatally flawed. This isn’t a mere “allegation”, it’s a criminal complaint and accompanying evidence produced by a United States attorney. At the very least, the Senate has the responsibility of holding hearings and conducting its own investigation before seating anybody. A similar process occurred in 1975, when the Senate refused to seat “Landslide Louis Wyman” because of concerns about the election process in New Hampshire. ---
**Author:** ![buttonjockey308](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@buttonjockey308](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buttonjockey308)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/27 "2009-01-06T21:25:52Z")
Burris is half schmuck, half empty suit, always has been. Despite that and the fact the Bobby Rush cough, asshole supports him and continues the cry to replace Obama with any black legislator as opposed to any \*qualified \* one, regardless of race they should seat him. He’s a dumbass for taking the appointment under these circumstances and it will come back to haunt the senate AND Illinois, but Blago has the lawful authority. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/28 "2009-01-06T21:33:32Z")
> [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](#): > > This isn’t a mere “allegation”, it’s a criminal complaint and accompanying evidence produced by a United States attorney. Which defines _"allegation_". When get conviction, come back. Besides, no one is saying that Burris had _anything_ to do with the dudes Blago was trying to get favors from. There’s no complaint or allegations about \*Burris. \* ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/29 "2009-01-06T21:36:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Which defines _"allegation_". When get conviction, come back. The Senate doesn’t require a conviction. > [@](#): > > Besides, no one is saying that Burris had _anything_ to do with the dudes Blago was trying to get favors from. He gave campaign contributions to Blagojevich, and if he’s not listed among the candidates who were asked for favors, at this point I think that only proves Blagojevich got smart enough not to ask Burris for a contribution _over his tapped phone_. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/30 "2009-01-06T21:48:48Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The Senate doesn’t require a conviction. > > He gave campaign contributions to Blagojevich, …\*. Of course not, which is why they could refuse to seat someone of the oppsoing party also, given this precedent. Someone makes allegations, no conviction or proof required, they don’t seat. It’s going to be hard to find many Ill Dems who didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/31 "2009-01-06T21:50:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Of course not, which is why they could refuse to seat someone of the oppsoing party also, given this precedent. Someone makes allegations, no conviction or proof required, they don’t seat. This is an absurd use of a slippery slope argument. There’s a very credible criminal complaint against Blagojevich. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/32 "2009-01-06T22:03:01Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Hey, this is great! Now all the Senate Majority Leader has to do is “refuse to seat” any members of the Opposing party, and no more worries about super-majoritys or dissenting views! > > He has no right to do so, Blago or no Blago. As noted the Senate refused to seat Burris because his paperwork was not in order and it was true. He lacked a required signature. Now can the White refuse to sign that piece of paper? My guess is no and a court will make him. Then again what is the point of requiring a signature if it is mandated and amounts to a rubber stamp? Just a useless waste of time so maybe White does have some power here. Will be interesting to see what the courts make of it. Nevertheless the Senate acted perfectly within its powers today whether it was dumb or not to do so. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/33 "2009-01-06T22:17:09Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > There’s a very credible criminal complaint against Blagojevich. Excellent, so now we have the “very credible” test- who decides that? :dubious: Maybe we could get 12 dudes together and let them decide what’s “very credible”, we’ll call them, oh, I dunno, how about “a jury”? 😛 \*Then again what is the point of requiring a signature if it is mandated and amounts to a rubber stamp? \* So, then, for what reasons can he refuse to sign? Criminal complaint? Allegations? Doesn’t like him? Wrong political party? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/34 "2009-01-06T22:17:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This is an absurd use of a slippery slope argument. There’s a very credible criminal complaint against Blagojevich. Further, isn’t that why courts issue injunctions? Even though an allegation has not been proven a court will often stop whatever it is because till the case is decided letting the issue continue will be a Bad Thing[sup]tm[/sup]. Isn’t this similar? That seating a Senator under these conditions is insupportable in light of the allegations? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/35 "2009-01-06T22:19:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Further, isn’t that why courts issue injunctions? Even though an allegation has not been proven a court will often stop whatever it is because till the case is decided letting the issue continue will be a Bad Thing[sup]tm[/sup]. > > Isn’t this similar? That seating a Senator under these conditions is insupportable in light of the allegations? So, did a Federal Court issue such an Injunction? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/36 "2009-01-06T22:19:44Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Excellent, so now we have the “very credible” test- who decides that? :dubious: Maybe we could get 12 dudes together and let them decide what’s “very credible”, we’ll call them, oh, I dunno, how about “a jury”? 😛 Again I would say when a formal charge (e.g. you’ve been arrested) has been leveled at the person. Works for the courts when they issue injunctions. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/37 "2009-01-06T22:21:03Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So, did a Federal Court issue such an Injunction? No. I am just pointing out that what you are arguing against (something being stopped before something has been legally proven in court) does happen all the time. It is not a new concept. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/38 "2009-01-06T22:26:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Excellent, so now we have the “very credible” test- who decides that? :dubious: You’re right: common sense should play no role in this process. An appointed Senator should be seated even if he’s accused of murdering 50 people, because if he’s excluded prior to his conviction, that would set the stage for frivolous exclusions on the basis of party affiliation. Do you have a more serious argument than this? It’s not even a particularly good slippery slope. Your contention appears to be that if a Senator is excluded for any reason, such as tape recorded conversations of the guy who appointed him saying he wanted to get a bribe or campaign contributions from his appointee, then in the future, the Senate might exclude people for stupid reasons. Not to put too much stock in the intelligence of the Senate, but the precedent here is not going to cost me any sleep. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2009, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/39 "2009-01-06T23:42:55Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > You’re right: common sense should play no role in this process. An appointed Senator should be seated even if he’s accused of murdering 50 people, because if he’s excluded prior to his conviction, that would set the stage for frivolous exclusions on the basis of party affiliation.. I’ll state my opinion as “An appointed Senator should be seated even if he’s \*accused of \*anything at all”. Once he’s convicted, the Senate can remove him. And, if we’re talking slippery slope, there is a tiny difference between a mass-murderer and a politician :eek:peddling:eek: influence:eek:. :rolleyes:Blago just did it blatantly, apparently. Whack-a-Mole; Of course, if a federal Judge _did_ issue an injunction, then that’d be different.\* But one hasn’t\*. So the point is moot. Of course, if Martians abducted Blago, then… ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/40 "2009-01-07T01:52:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > I’ll state my opinion as “An appointed Senator should be seated even if he’s \*accused of \*anything at all”. Once he’s convicted, the Senate can remove him. I’m fine with that solution, too. > [@](#): > > And, if we’re talking slippery slope, there is a tiny difference between a mass-murderer and a politician :eek:peddling:eek: influence:eek:. That’s the same thing I said: there’s a large gap between soliciting bribes for a Senate seat, which Blagojevich is accused of doing by a federal prosecutor, and inventing an excuse not to seat someone because he’s in the wrong party. Apparently the slippery slope’s okay if you’re employing it, but you won’t extend the same slippage to others. 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105.md?page=3)