Not from what I’ve read, he doesn’t.
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.
Frankly, I don’t want that man anywhere near the Senate.
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.
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:
Alright, I’d like to revise my opinion to “fuck this vainglorious bastard.”
LOL 
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.
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.
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. *
The Senate doesn’t require a conviction.
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.
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.
This is an absurd use of a slippery slope argument. There’s a very credible criminal complaint against Blagojevich.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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…
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. 