Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat. USA Today blog is updating.
Like what you read? Get updates for free!
Kabuki
January 7, 2009 Print Preview
by Mel on Jan 7, 2009 at 11:36 AM
Senate Democrats plan to accept Roland Burris for President-elect Barack Obama's vacant seat. USA Today blog is updating.
© 2004 - 2010, Blog for Democracy, All Rights Reserved. Subscribe to Free updates!
14 Responses to “Kabuki”
...if the court rules that the Illinois Secretary of State has to sign the appointment. Which I think he/she does; it looks like an administrative duty.
Honestly, I am not sure what the Senate cognoscenti is thinking on Burris. I think the Adam Clayton Powell case is clear on this, and the argument that the Senate has a different electoral history than the House doesn't do anything for me.
They are just dragging this out. That said, I would make sure Burris doesn't cast the deciding vote on anything for the time being.
Roland Burris would have to resign from the Chicago Olympic bid if he is seated.
Although, from my reading, it appears only "elected officials" are banned from serving on Chicago 2016, and RB was not elected. Sure that goes against the spirit but not the letter of their rules.
That's your Olympic news for the day.
I don't know what Adam Clayton Powell case you are referring to, but I think Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution is pretty clear too. "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members".
Personally, I think it would be a mistake to seat him. Once he is in, it would be hard to get him out, and what if he DID pay to get the appointment? Or at least promised something to Blago in return? Would they REALLY kick him out if he promised to leave and didn't? Even if he won his election? There's just too many open flames to be introducing a flammable material.
Yes, and that constitutional phrase you refer was take to mean in Powell v. McCormack that all Congress could do was look at was the standing qualifications (i.e is he over 30, etc.).
(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.
(b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a “potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches” of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.
7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.
If he did pay to get the appointment, I think he would certainly be removed by his peers. They do have oversight there.
OK, that makes sense actually. Can't have the Congress excluding everyone except rich, white guys, for example.
So if the SoS signs that form, they have to seat him, but then they could try to throw him out with 2/3 vote. Unlikely they would actually do that, but it would be easier than if he had been elected.
I still think it says something about Burris' character that he accepted the appointment. It just feels dirty, but MotS convinced me that the Senate does have to seat him once the Illinois SoS is ordered by the courts to verify the governor's appointment.
So, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate, a person who's political skill will help determine the success of the Democratic agenda, has effectively been outmaneuvered by the most corrupt, least popular governor in the United States.
This does not bode well.
As opposed to being outmaneuvered by the most corrupt, least popular President in the United States?
Hopefully, he doesn't go Plaxico with the loaded gun that 58 Senators provides.
I'm no big Harry Reid fan, but it looks like he did the only thing he could; convince the IL SoS to not sign the papers. Buys some time, which allows all the fixers to figure something else out.
Reid could have refrained from threatening not to seat Blagos pick - that he did and is now going back on his vow shows him to be an ignorant, blustering weakling. If he wasn't certain he could follow through on his threat, he simply shouldn't have made it.
And while I'm not forgiving, his inability to stand up to a yet to be indicted president with the power of the veto us forgiveable in comparison.
At this point, it's like Barney Fife is running the Senate.
Reid was fine when we were in the minority. Probably a good choice, even. But now we have to have someone more forceful.
A much more eloquent statement of Reid's pwnage:
http://firedoglake.com/...to-play-poker-with-harry-reid/
I think we need us a big Blue State Senator for Senate Majority Leader. Someone who knows how to survive with piranha.
While Obama's showing the Senate that he's going to be the Alpha Dog (nice move on washing the CIA's hands a little for them), Reid's effectiveness is mirroring that little chihuahua that runs out yipping at you when you come to the door.
Which is too bad ... I think we're going to need a Don Corleone type to force McConnell to play the one card he has (endless filibuster) until it is time for the Day of Reckoning. The Republicans will need a good ol' fashioned union busting.
I wouldn't use the phrase "union busting" around Democrats persay, but I think a Feingold-led Senate might be something other than a conduit for capitulations to special interests.