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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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.*
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)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.
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.
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.
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:
“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.
Right and that’s the way it appears to be going: 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.*
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.
