DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,728
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 30, 2008 13:48:39 GMT -5
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Dec 30, 2008 14:42:44 GMT -5
That precedent was handed down by the SCOTUS in 1969. In 1975, the Senate Democrats refused to seat Louis C. Wyman, lawfully elected Senator from New Hampshire. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_C._WymanIn 1984, the House Democrats refused to seat Rick McIntyre, lawfully elected Representative from Indiana en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_McIntyrePowell v. McCormack just doesn't seem all that binding to me.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 30, 2008 15:03:20 GMT -5
It is rare that I would agree with Harry Reid, but how could anyone in good conscience seat a man who has donated to Obam, Biden, Durbin and Jesse Jr. Good for you harry, keep this scumbag out of the Senate.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Dec 30, 2008 17:34:04 GMT -5
It is rare that I would agree with Harry Reid, but how could anyone in good conscience seat a man who has donated to Obam, Biden, Durbin and Jesse Jr. Good for you harry, keep this scumbag out of the Senate. Um, WTF? Is there any evidence Burris is corrupt at all, and if so, do you mind linking to it? Or is he just a scumbag because he's a Democrat? I agree with Reid, but the decision's not about Burris at all, just the man who's appointing him.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 30, 2008 18:17:59 GMT -5
So easily baited. It was a joke.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Dec 30, 2008 18:18:06 GMT -5
The fact that he accepted a nomination from Blago makes me question him. Seriously, I understand being a Senator is a huge jump and an amazing promotion, but even if you aren't corrupt, this ain't a smart or ethical move.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 30, 2008 18:21:18 GMT -5
But what a great way to play the victim...
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,728
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Dec 30, 2008 18:22:42 GMT -5
The Powell case indicated that Congress couldn't bar a member who was duly elected and met the minimum criteria (age, citizenship, etc.); of course, Burris would be appointed so that's a slight gray area. But even if he was sworn in, the Senate could then vote to expel him thereafter with a 2/3rds vote.
Obama annoucned this evening that Burris should not be seated, so that carries some weight, though I don't know how much.
All in all, Constitutional Law (both I & II) were among my favorite classes at Georgetown. (Of course, the pesky LSAT made sure I would never go beyond that.)
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 30, 2008 18:24:27 GMT -5
Written as one who endured many a class and probably a Redskins game with Walter I. Giles.
|
|
C86
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 230
|
Post by C86 on Dec 30, 2008 22:07:35 GMT -5
Illinois politics get curiouser and curiouser. . . .
My thoughts:
1) Burris is singularly unimpressive. He has had a series of state offices, leading to an undistinguished single term as Illinois attorney general. Subsequently, he ran against Daley for mayor and against Blago(!) for governor. Burris got trounced in the primary both times. Burris strikes me as a man of extraordinary ego, even for a politician. His two children are named Roland and Rolanda. If memory serves, Burris has already erected his tombstone, which lists in detail (and in glowing terms) his accomplishments, going back to college. There is space at the bottom where he wanted to add "Governor of Illinois." "Senator" is his next choice. If Burris somehow were to be seated, I have two predictions based on his track record: He will revel in being called "Senator" and he will get beaten in the primary.
2) Blago is more and more acting like a petulant child. This pick is not about advancing the interests of Illinois -- if it were, he would have stepped back and allowed a senator to be chosen who actually would be seated. It's not even about helping Blagojevich in his current legal troubles. Blagojevich's defense lawyer assured the House impeachment committee that Blago would not appoint a replacement for Obama. Blago has now made his lawyer look like a fool, which is not usually conducive to mounting an effective defense. This stunt is all about Blago grabbing attention and asserting his importance. It's a temper tantrum.
3) I won't try to guess whether the Senate has the authority to refuse to seat Burris. One difference from the Powell case, however, is that Powell was actually elected. It would be true to form for Blago, however, to provoke a senseless controversy, which others will be forced to straighten out.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Dec 30, 2008 22:39:19 GMT -5
3) I won't try to guess whether the Senate has the authority to refuse to seat Burris. One difference from the Powell case, however, is that Powell was actually elected. It would be true to form for Blago, however, to provoke a senseless controversy, which others will be forced to straighten out. I haven't looked into what Powell and the cases rosslyn referenced say, but am I the only person who thinks it doesn't really matter if Burris was appointed rather than elected? Isn't appointment to a vacant seat by an ELECTED official an important part of a functioning democratic system?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jan 3, 2009 19:05:10 GMT -5
I'm trying to figure out why Burris is "unimpressive" and any of these other people are so great. We all know Obama wanted Jarrett. Did she serve a "distinguished" term in the department of planning for the mayor? I mean the guy was comptroller and then Attorney General for almost 20 years. He's 71 this is a two-year abbreviated term. Even if he runs (and who knows if he will) he's likely out anyway.
I say seat him. There's nothing that seems to make this guy unqualified (or certainly any less-qualified than the "preferred" candidate). So let him serve his two years, put it on his tombstone if that's what tickles his ego, and then have the seat up for grabs and Jarrett and the rest can fight for it.
Just because Blago appointed him does not make him a lousy choice or a corrupt one. I'm actually cheering for Blago on this one. He is governor and innocent until proven guilty. His choice is a decent choice for a 2-year term. If I had to sit at home and watch the parade slimeball politicians calling me "corrupt" in their classic holier-than-thou way, I'd keep doing my job too and let them call it a tantrum. What are they going to do, try to oust him?
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 3, 2009 23:09:44 GMT -5
I agree that Burris is unimpressive. I watched the rollout press conference and was wondering whether I turned on some local town hall meeting. However, gone are the days of the Moynihans, John Warners, and other statesmen in the United States Senate. The good people of Minnesota appear to have elected a comedian. The good people of Connecticut just re-elected someone in 2006 who seems to be on a ballot every 2 years and looking for attention in presidential debates or primaries every four years, but at least is bipartisan in his quest for attention and relevance.
So, I do not think Burris should be barred from the Senate on the basis of his lack of apparent qualifications - intellectual, political, or otherwise. One is certainly hard pressed to identify a committee that would benefit from his expertise. But, based on the above, he will find good company if he is allowed to serve.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 5, 2009 14:02:10 GMT -5
I think this situation is different than the others cited because there is a legal reason for not seating Burris (the secretary of state's refusal to sign off on the appointment).
The problem here is that the Blago saga is going to go on for a long time. He's going to fight on to the bitter end, and if the Dems refuse to seat anybody he appoints, Illinois could be a one senator state for a long time. That's not good for anybody. A long-term vacancy would also hurt the Dems, since it means one less vote for them.
That's why I expect the Dems to seat Burris before too long. Maybe not this week, but sooner rather than later. They don't want to be a vote down in the Senate, and negotiating with Blago looks like it's utterly useless. So they'll have to accept Burris.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 5, 2009 14:17:20 GMT -5
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jan 5, 2009 21:27:33 GMT -5
Except that article is factually challenged. The folks at FiveThirtyEight have the fact check.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 5, 2009 22:07:25 GMT -5
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,705
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 6, 2009 0:38:52 GMT -5
Any who would have accepted the nomination from Blago is challenged in my mind. I may be naive, but that win at all costs mentality is not needed in the Senate.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 6, 2009 8:33:48 GMT -5
Any who would have accepted the nomination from Blago is challenged in my mind. I may be naive, but that win at all costs mentality is not needed in the Senate. As usual, what's good for the country and what's going to happen are probably two very different things. It's true that the Dems don't absolutely need an extra vote right away (if the Senate were close to 50-50, they'd seat Burris right away even if Satan appointed him), but I think Blago's ego will last much longer than the Dems' patience.
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Jan 26, 2009 12:07:52 GMT -5
|
|