# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/41 "2009-01-07T02:03:11Z")
> [@Spiff](#): > > The reason given to deny Burris (no Illinois Secy. of State signature on certificate) sets a precedent that will come back to bite Democratic Senators in their arses when they try to seat Al Franken later today or tomrrow, as Al will also show up without a signed election certificate. > > Today’s move was very dumb move, IMHO, for that reason. [Not really, as Nate (538 fame) explains.](http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/can-franken-give-burris-his-daily.html) > [@](#): > > … it really does the Democrats no good to have just one of Al Franken and Roland Burris seated – they only gain ground if and when both get sworn in. > > This is why. Presently the Democrats have a 57-member caucus, counting neither Burris nor Franken. However, because there are currently only 98 senators, this reduces the number of votes required to break a filibuster from 60 to 59. (Vacancies are not counted when calculating the number of votes needed to break a filibuster; three-fifths of 98 is 58.8, which rounds up to 59). Therefore, the Democrats would need two crossover votes to pass a cloture resolution. > > But now, suppose that Franken gets seated but Burris doesn’t. The Democrats add a member to their caucus, brining them to 58 members. However, with 99 senators rather than 98, the filibuster threshold goes back up to 60 votes (three-fifths of 99 is 59.4, but the rule in this instance requires rounding up). Thus, the Democrats remain two votes shy of breaking a filibuster. > > Once the Democrats get senators seated in both Illinois and Minnesota, however, they’ll have 59 votes out of the 60 they need, leaving them just one vote shy – and Sens. Specter, Snowe, et. al. ripe for the picking. IMHO the Senate knows that Burris will win a legal battle but they can legally stall it out for a while - meanwhile the hope is that either Blago will be impeached by then (they are trying to move fast) or, minimally the public will have seen that this seat was taken by a Democrat under Democratic protest and with Democrats having fought against the tainted process - while still getting a good enough Democrat in the position to placehold and be the vote they need when they need it. Oh Noes! We lost and now have the extra vote! Well we tried not to! The Pubbies made us! Win win for them relatively. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/42 "2009-01-07T04:51:17Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m fine with that solution, too. > > 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. 😉 I agree I had a slope, no doubt,:smack: but yours was covered in oil _and_ ballbearings.😛 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/43 "2009-01-07T05:35:33Z")
Is it true the legislature balked at ordering a special election because the Dems are afraid of losing it? I’ve seen that alleged, in this forum I think. ---
**Author:** ![ricksummon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ricksummon/32/3333_2.png) [@ricksummon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ricksummon)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/44 "2009-01-07T07:11:59Z")
Even if Burris can get a court order mandating a signature on his appointment papers, how does he think he’s going to get a court order mandating that the Senate seat him? The Senate can expel its own members for any reason or no reason, so long as they have enough votes. The Supreme Court will say “political question” before the ink is dry on the court papers. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/45 "2009-01-07T17:18:08Z")
> [@Markxxx](#): > > Burris would be a good Senator, not like Obama who basically just did nothing but run for president. > > Illinois has gone two years without a Senator since Obama was too busy running for president to devote any time to doing his job. You’ve said this before, and been debunked. Put up or fucking shut up. Otherwise, I’ll see you in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/46 "2009-01-07T17:38:43Z")
> [@ricksummon](#): > > Even if Burris can get a court order mandating a signature on his appointment papers, how does he think he’s going to get a court order mandating that the Senate seat him? By requesting a writ from the federal courts. I really doubt, however, that when push comes to shove, the Senate will refuse to seat him once the technicality is cleared up. If they do, it will be an interesting Supreme Court case. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/47 "2009-01-07T17:51:19Z")
> [@ricksummon](#): > > The Senate can expel its own members for any reason or no reason, so long as they have enough votes. . _so long as they have enough votes._ It requires a two-thirds majority vote. Note the the Federal Prosecutor, as of todays paper, has not yet _Indicted_ Blago. > **[Opinion: How 98 senators plus 3 = 100](https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/top-of-the-ticket/story/2009-01-06/opinion-how-98-senators-plus-3-100)** > > This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. \*Trouble is, despite the protective bluster and Democratic denunciations and stalled impeachment threats and defunct special election bids back in Springfield, Blago remains the legal governor with the ability (he says, the duty) and the all-important Illinois political chutzpah to nominate someone to fill the Obama Senate vacancy. To be fair, Blagojevich hasn’t even been legally charged, as the federal prosecutor now says he needs extra time to formulate charges. Not a good sign for the G-men.\* ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/48 "2009-01-07T17:52:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > As noted the Senate refused to seat Burris because his paperwork was not in order and it was true. He lacked a required signature. Which is actually a perfect case of where the Senate SHOULD have seated him, despite the lack of signature, or at least not used that as the reason, because the Sec’y of State is the one acting ilegally and the signature is a formality. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/49 "2009-01-07T17:59:13Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Which is actually a perfect case of where the Senate SHOULD have seated him, despite the lack of signature, or at least not used that as the reason, because the Sec’y of State is the one acting ilegally and the signature is a formality. I think they needed some time to research the Constitutional issues, get opinions from the fine legal minds around the country, look up prior times this has happened, and figure out what to do. So they bought time with the signature thing. But, when push comes to shove, they’ll seat him. It’s an interesting legal issue though. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/50 "2009-01-07T18:25:17Z")
The letter of the law is that the signature needs to be there. The law may end up (probably will end up) requiring the Sec of State to affix it but a court needs to decide that. Until that process has played out he is not our Senator. If a different Governor (current Lt Gov. Quinn) is in office before it has played out then a different Senator can be appointed by him and this unconsumated appointment aborted. ---
**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 7, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/51 "2009-01-07T18:34:02Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > If a different Governor (current Lt Gov. Quinn) is in office before it has played out then a different Senator can be appointed by him and this unconsumated appointment aborted. I’ve wondered about this. Say Quinn does get in before Burris gets the court to force the signature (assuming the court will force it). Can Quinn un-nominate Burris and pick someone else? I am sure Burris will say he is the appointed Senator and no one can undo it. The paperwork just being a formality. Not sure about this at all. These will be some interesting legal cases coming if everyone does not come to a settlement. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/52 "2009-01-07T18:35:58Z")
So it’s basically in the hands of the Illinois courts. Presumably they can take their own sweet time if they want in which case a new governor will be appointed and make his/her appointment though I would imagine that would also be a matter of legal dispute. Any chance this could go to the Supremes? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/53 "2009-01-07T18:48:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The letter of the law is that the signature needs to be there. The law may end up (probably will end up) requiring the Sec of State to affix it but a court needs to decide that. Until that process has played out he is not our Senator. If a different Governor (current Lt Gov. Quinn) is in office before it has played out then a different Senator can be appointed by him and this unconsumated appointment aborted. Actually that [doesn’t appear to be the case.](http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Illinois_Secretary_of_State_backs_Burris_downplays_own_role.html) > [@](#): > > “They could have seated him without my signature,” White – previously seen as a key opponent of the pick – told WGN Radio, saying his signature was purely “ceremonial.” The fact is that the Governor has the power to appoint Senators only. The Sec’y of State does not have the power to veto that and the Senate has no grounds to deny seating Burris based on the inaction of the Sec’y of State. Now they could try to deny him for their own reasons, legally or not, but to pin it on the lack of Sec’y of State signature is pretty much hogwash. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/54 "2009-01-07T19:25:31Z")
Well that’s White’s opinion and interpretation but it seems like there is enough of an argument about that to allow a court to decide it. Probably he’s right - but the court will have to say that - and time will tick. It is a legal way to stall. IANAL but I do know that when the various experts were discussing the revoking of pardons it was a big deal if it had been already “received” - if the pardon had not been accepted by the warden yet it could be revoked, but not if it had been. It makes sense to me that the courts would take the same position for a Senate appointement. Until he is sworn in as Senator, or at least has had his papers accepted, a sitting governor can revoke the appointment and appoint someone else. I think. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/55 "2009-01-07T19:34:51Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Until he is sworn in as Senator, or at least has had his papers accepted, a sitting governor can revoke the appointment and appoint someone else. I think. I was thinking about this and it seems to me that if a court were to rule that there was no legal reason to deny sitting Burris, but in the interim a new Governor came in and tried to revoke that appointment that that might not fly. IANAL, but it seems to me that if the rulikng is that Burris shuld have been seated on Tuesday except for illgal hinderances imposed by Reid or others, then it cannot be revoked simply because their illegal action caused him not to be sworn in. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/56 "2009-01-07T20:25:22Z")
What I don’t get is how Reid thinks he can get away with not seating Burris. I’m no fan of Burris from the one thing I’ve ever heard about him before this (he organized a gun “turn-in” day, but didn’t bother to turn in his own), but otherwise I have no dog in this fight–I don’t care who gets seated. But I don’t like Reid ignoring a Supreme Court decision ([Powell vs McCormack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack))where the Supremes point-blank said that Congress does not have the power to develop qualifications other than those specified in the Constitution (No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.)-assuming I understand the case properly. Frankly, Reid’s actions seem blatantly illegal and I don’t like the precedent (of ignoring the Supreme Court) that it seems to be setting. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/57 "2009-01-07T20:42:26Z")
> **[How the Senate can stop Blagojevich.](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2008/12/how-the-senate-can-stop-blagojevich.html)** > > Does the Constitution allow the Senate to refuse to seat Roland Burris, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's surprise appointee? In a word, yes. Here's... A Slate article by Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz which argues that the Senate does have the authority to block Burris. Regardless of the legalility, my sense is that this isn’t where the politics is going. There is already a racial tinge to the whole issue particularly because Burris would be the only black senator if his appointment goes through. If he can sort out the signature issue in Illinois my hunch is he will be through. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/58 "2009-01-07T23:07:28Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > But I don’t like Reid ignoring a Supreme Court decision ([Powell vs McCormack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack))where the Supremes point-blank said that Congress does not have the power to develop qualifications other than those specified in the Constitution (No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.)-assuming I understand the case properly. > > Frankly, Reid’s actions seem blatantly illegal and I don’t like the precedent (of ignoring the Supreme Court) that it seems to be setting. Powell v. McCormack doesn’t apply. The House didn’t want to seat Powell because he was corrupt, but he had been fairly elected; Reid is contending that the Senate can judge Burris’ appointment as invalid. Different situation. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/59 "2009-01-07T23:35:36Z")
Wait–so Reid is arguing that because he was appointed not elected, Powell doesn’t apply? I’m not sure I buy that reasoning. The wiki article suggests the Supremes didn’t accept it either: > [@](#): > > The Court determined in this case that no Congress could exclude a not-yet member (i.e., a candidate member) from being sworn in and taking their seat in the House. The Court found that if the Congress went beyond a determination that a candidate member had satisfied the Constitution’s qualifications for membership (and had been duly chosen by, and through the laws of their state) it could not (under the Constitution) go further in examining and possibly rejecting a candidate member before administering the oath of office, and seating them. “duly chosen by and through the laws of their state” seems to include Burris since Blago is still the Gov and innocent until proven guilty (I think he’s guilty as hell, mind you, but.) ETA: Please note that I’m NOT a Burris fan or a Blago fan either. But this strikes me as shennaigans-the governer is the people’s duly-elected representitive and has been granted the power to appoint a replacement Senator. IMO, the will of the people is still being thwarted. IMO, they should just seat the SOB and then have 2/3ds kick him out. It’s not like they won’t have Repubs lining up to kick him back out. And I don’t think the “The paper isn’t signed the correct way” reasoning undermines the Gov’s pic or it gives veto power to the Sec. of State and again, that’s not a can of worms that should be opened. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105/60 "2009-01-07T23:41:18Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > The fact is that the Governor has the power to appoint Senators only. The Sec’y of State does not have the power to veto that and the Senate has no grounds to deny seating Burris based on the inaction of the Sec’y of State. Now they could try to deny him for their own reasons, legally or not, but to pin it on the lack of Sec’y of State signature is pretty much hogwash. Right and that’s the way it appears to be going: [http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout\_st/2009/01/burris-appointm.html](http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/01/burris-appointm.html) \*Senate leaders want Burris to get Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to sign a form certifying his appointment. White has refused to sign it, saying his signature isn’t legally required and citing his objection to scandal-plagued Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s appointment of Burris to the very Senate seat the governor is charged with trying to sell. Today, White told the Tribune that Washington Democrats are throwing him “under the bus” as a way to prevent Burris from being seated in the U.S. Senate. White also said he did not believe his signature was necessary for Burris to be seated and chastised U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today for using the lack of the signature to keep Burris out of the Senate. White’s comments came as Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan’s office filed a response to Burris’ request that the Illinois Supreme Court force White to sign Burris’ Senate paperwork. Madigan, representing White in her role as the state’s chief legal officer, argued that the court should not order White to sign the appointment papers because Burris has “not identified any law requiring” that White must do so “because there is none.” Further, Madigan asserts U.S. Senate rules do not require White’s signature in order for Burris to be seated, only that he register the appointment. White did that.\* [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUvQkRopntRBnfYyaz06sD89bwnQD95IFICG0](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gUvQkRopntRBnfYyaz06sD89bwnQD95IFICG0) 4 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — \*Roland Burris says he expects “very shortly” to represent the state of Illinois in the U.S. Senate. … Earlier Wednesday, after a meeting with Burris, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Senate is waiting for a court ruling on whether the Illinois secretary of state is required to sign a certification before Burris can take office. \* So the signature of White is not required, thus Reid is wrong. Burris must be seated, like it or no. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roland-burris-denied-obamas-us-senate-seat-now-what/480105.md?page=4)