"Unimpressive" is a polite word. From NewsHour:
ROLAND BURRIS: Take for instance, Ray, if the bill that he has signed as the governor. He's exercising his constitutional responsibilities and authority. One other example is with my good friend, President Clinton, was also impeached. He was still carrying on the duties and responsibility of the presidency. ...
RAY SUAREZ: But, again, Mr. Burris, the very complaint made against Gov. Blagojevich by the U.S. attorney for northern Illinois involves the appointment for this seat. Does that change the legal landscape at all for you?
ROLAND BURRIS: Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with it. The governor -- let me ask you this. Is he still the governor?
RAY SUAREZ: Well, I guess -- not that it's a legal opinion for me, but he appears to be very much the governor at this point, yes.
Right. The fact that there's a criminal complaint against the governor for trying to sell the appointment he gave to me has nothing to do with the appointment he gave to me. After all, he is the governor! Consider this: Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 02, 2009 06:15 PM | Email ThisOwchhhh, as much as I hate to admit it, you and I are on the same wavelength...
No matter what his qualifications, anyone appointed by the Blago at this time is deeply tainted.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on January 2, 2009 08:36 PM" .... No matter what his qualifications, anyone appointed by the Blago at this time is deeply tainted. "
Unkl Witz:
As tainted as District Chairmen appointed by Michael Young and Lori Sotelo?
Posted by: Brian Thomas on January 2, 2009 09:27 PMNot that everything the GOP does looks good. :-) Just saying, the other Senate Dems can't be fully appreciative (even if they like Kennedy, they have to realize it isn't all roses for them, in appearances).
As Attorney General, Roland Burris tried hard to have two men executed he knew to be innocent. Allowing himself to be used by a corrupt Governor is just another chance for Burris to sell his soul for higher office.
I seriously doubt Murray and Cantwell would suffer any negative consequences for "fraternizing" with Franken. Not with the majority of voters in this state.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 3, 2009 09:24 AMI do not see how the person he selects should not be allowed to be senator and should not be given a decent chance. I doubt he will be good but neither are any of the other senators when judged on whether they support individual liberty or not.
Give the new senator a chance and give blagovich his trial.
Posted by: lysander on January 3, 2009 10:56 AMDo you live in Illinois? No, you say; I didn't think so. You're not writing for Central Mississippi River Politics or South Lake Michigan Politics, you're writing for SOUND Politics.
Posted by: C.G. on January 3, 2009 05:31 PMI wonder if she understands he would work for ALL of us, not just the crooks in Illinois... I know for a fact that point is lost on McDimwit... he won't even take a call without a zipcode to prove the caller is one of 'his'.
I suspect that's why our country is going to hell in a handbag...too many voting without requisite intelligence, discernment or common sense.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2009 06:00 PMOut of curiosity what do you think of changing back to state legislatures selecting senators rather than the people? That would make the senators represent the states again as originally intended. I am strongly in favor of this.
Posted by: lysander on January 3, 2009 06:20 PMI come here looking for interesting ideas, and a different view of the world than what the MSM and other local blogs offer. Instead, I am getting nothing.
I realize that you are in transition. But, really, is there no one who can fill in the void? Is it really necessary to sustain a discussion for two days on one lame concept?
Discussion points:
1. Mayor Nickels wants to spend $7 million of stimulus dollars on solar panels for the football field.
2. The mayor and city council put articulated buses on icy roads. What did they think was going to happen?
3. The union for public workers wants to sue for their pay increase, in the face of massive budget shortfalls.
4. Seattle police shoot a university student dressed in German costume, and brandishing a rifle.
5. Washington Mutual is abandoning a major portion of downtown Seattle. Does this have any implications for the local economy?
I guess I'm just bored, and need to head back to work on Monday.
Posted by: Janet s on January 3, 2009 09:55 PMIt's you.
The fine people that write for this blog have the right to a quiet, enjoyable holiday that YOU had. For you to expect them to keep you amused then whine when your not is beyond selfish when they CONTRIBUTE in their spare time. Frankly, beyond the fact they do this at the expense of their familie, the news has been beyond boring. Further, if you have ideas and thoughts to contribute, write an essay and post it on the PUBLIC blog. This blog is not welfare for the bored.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2009 10:36 PMYou are correct that we all pay their salary and have a vested interest that they not be corrupt. However my point still stands... He is a representative of the state of Illinois and unless he is acceding to his seat illegally we really do not have much of a say in things right now.
Posted by: Lysander on January 3, 2009 10:41 PMNo we don't have a say in who Illinois seat, but if I call that senator or any senator with whom I disagree on an upcoming vote, I expect him or his people to take my call and listen respectfully whether or not I am from his district or state.
They may be FROM states, but they work for all of us, are accountable to all of us and are PAID by all of us.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 3, 2009 10:46 PMYes you said it was more prevalent. I said with all the evidence we have, it is ridicolous to say it is concentrated in one party. It is not and saying it is makes you look like a party hack.
Sure it would be nice if all the senators would stop by my house and have lunch with me. They however are fairly busy. Considering they are elected or appointed to represent a particular state it seems reasonable that they concentrate their time on their constituents (the people of the state they represent, not all the states). They have no duty or responsibility to listen to everyone.
Posted by: Lysander on January 4, 2009 09:03 AMYes, the Republican Party has its share of problems also. But nowhere near to the extreme of the Dimocrats. At least not to the point a sane person wastes his vote on Ron Paul.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 4, 2009 09:46 AMIf the Dems let this one go through, they will be setting themselves up for real problems in the next few years in the eyes of the voters. Hope and Change will get a deserved slap in the face in the home district of "The One."
Posted by: Ken on January 4, 2009 10:02 AMAs for your other point, Lysander, about returning to the election of Senators by the State Legislatures rather than by direct election, I agree! I think that direct election of Senators was a mistaken change to the Constitution, just as I think the move to get rid of the Electoral College in order to use the popular vote to elect the President would be an even bigger error!
Posted by: Bill H on January 4, 2009 10:59 AMArticle I, Section 5.
What qualification, you ask? Any that the Senate wants. It's open-ended.
Yes, each house can reject any member for any reason. Yes, it could be a bad precedent, but that's what the Constitution says. That doesn't mean the Senate SHOULD reject Burris, but it has the Constitutional authority to do so.
Take heart, though: if a party DOES abuse this power, the people would likely not look kindly upon it.
Posted by: pudge on January 4, 2009 11:13 AMUnless the Supreme Court does not follow Stare Decisis and overturns Powell v. McCormack, the Senate does not have the authority to exclude Burris from being seated...
It will be interesting to see how this issue progresses, however...
But that precedent does not, in my opinion, fit here anyway. They are not looking at Burris' own qualifications to be seated, but the circumstances under which he was named to the office. Note the first part: "judge of the elections, returns ... ." That obviously means the Senate is able to not seat someone if they gained their seat through a fraudulent election: so too can they reject someone if they determine he was appointed illegally (through bribery etc.). That is the qualification they are judging.
And note that there is no Court review for what methods the Senate uses to make this determination, for the purposes of seating Burris.
If this were about Burris himself, that precedent would hold, but it's about how he was named to the seat, so it doesn't.
What they should have done is just started impeachment right away, based on the partial tape transcripts. If Fitz wouldn't release more info, oh well. If Blago won't defend himself, oh well.
Either they kick him out and it's over, or he is exonerated and it's over. Win-win for the Dems.
However, if they had impeached Blago right away, the Lt. Governor would have ascended to the Governor's office and appointed Obama's replacement...but they didn't. As you say---oh well!
Posted by: Bill H on January 4, 2009 12:10 PMAppropriate of nothing. They go to DC to do "the nations business", not yours in particular or their states. IF they are working harder for their state than for their country, they are lying to and cheating everyone.
And for the record, if Murray or Cantwell invited me to lunch, I'd decline: I disagree with them on everything and while they may pick up the tab, I (and you) would be paying the bill.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 4, 2009 01:35 PMAs for your mention of Ron Paul, I fail to get your point. What does he have to do with anything we are talking about here?
Ragnar:
The reason for my comment is you are saying that all senators and representatives should take your calls. My point is it would be nice if they did but they have a limited time and represent a particular area. To focus on who is paying the bill for the hypothetical lunch I mentioned is missing the point.
Senators represent states, House Representatives represent smaller areas called legislative districts. Their decisions collectively serve the entire US but you should not confuse that to mean that they all serve you and should take your calls. The federalist papers make this quite clear (with the exception that at that time Senators did not even represent people so much as they were the state governments representatives.
Posted by: Lysander on January 4, 2009 02:06 PMBingo. They should. They should be interested and willing to hear the concerns of ANY citizen.
I have 2 (useless) senators who could care less what I, a consevative, thinks, wants or needs. They are dismissive and have told us so. IF I feel the need to communicate with a senator that is closer to my ideology THEY SHOULD LISTEN. And vice versa.
I called McDimwit's office once about something congress was voting on: his phone answering pitbull would not talk to me without knowing my zipcode. That's disgusting. NOW when I email Reid or Pelosi or anyone of them I LIE on their forms, chosing the most expensive real estate in their state or district.... I keep a list of zipcodes (nyah, nyah, McDimwit: you were the impetus). That I have to do that to contact a UNITED STATES congressman or senator is absolutely despicable. AND I know that is the only reason they use those damned forms rather than a simple email. Shame on them.
"Of the people, by the people for the people"
Does that ring a bell?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 4, 2009 04:05 PMBad logic, and contains a flaw too: there's no indictment at all. Blagojevic is under suspicion only, and is presumed innocent. He's the Governor, and it's his job to appoint a Senator per the laws of Illinois.
All the learned righteous commentators and political opponents of Blagojevic are straining at gnats. They can make verbiage indefinitely, supporting their wish that Illinois citizens go half-represented until some long legal process is completed - they're wrong. So are the righteous windbags of the Senate, who seem to have forgotten the 'until proven guilty' stuff they once swore to uphold.
This is the best entertainment since the 60s.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 4, 2009 04:38 PMIf you're not bright enough to "get your point", I fully understand why you're a Ron Paul supporter.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 4, 2009 05:55 PMDid anyone else understand Saltherrings comment @ 29? Could you perhaps explain it to me since Saltherring decided to try and insult me rather than explain his post?
Thanks in advance for anyone who bothers to help me understand.
Posted by: Lysander on January 4, 2009 06:18 PMBad logic
Yes, on Burris' part. I pointed out his excruciatingly bad logic.
and contains a flaw too: there's no indictment at all.
I hope you know that is completely irrelevant.
Blagojevic is under suspicion only, and is presumed innocent.
False. This is a common misunderstanding in America. Only in a court of law do you have a presumption of innocence. Blagojevic has no presumption of innocence in the public or the state or federal legislatures (unless they wish to give it to him).
"Until proven guilty [by a court]" only applies to the courts. Nothing else. One would think you would know this.
He's the Governor, and it's his job to appoint a Senator per the laws of Illinois.
And the job of the U.S. Senate is to make sure that no one joins their ranks as a member through malfeasance, per the Constitution (Article I, Section 5). And they have the full authority under the Constitution to come to such a conclusion without any indictment or court activity of any kind. Such a conclusion would not be binding on the judicial system, of course, but it would be sufficient keep Burris out of the Senate.
Read carefully, I will try to explain so you can follow me.
In post 26, you stated: "There is so much out there showing the corruption of both parties I fail to understand why people would still purport that it is limited to one."
Although it is difficult to follow your run-on sentence(s), I took it to mean that both parties are equally corrupt.
I, in post 29, disagreed, contending: "Yes, the Republican Party has its share of problems also. But nowhere near to the extreme of the Dimocrats."
To this I added a touch of good-natured sarcasm, "At least not to the point a sane person wastes his vote on Ron Paul."
Are you not a Ron Paul supporter? If so, are you immune to a bit of ribbing?
If you are not a PR apologist, I apologize for having you mixed up with someone else.
In either case, not difficult to grasp.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 4, 2009 07:01 PM1. My sentance was not a run-on.
2. The Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats.
3. I guess it would be funny if it were not for corruption within the GOP leadership in many states keeping Ron Paul from getting delagates at the conventions at all levels.
That, sir, is the exact logic of a lynch mob. You should reconsider. Blagojevic isn't guilty until a Court so decrees, and there isn't a speck of evidence that Burris was involved in the alleged Great Illinois Seat-Auction.
Or are you saying that every politician, when someone asserts that he's done wrong, cease all of his duties until judgement is pronounced?
And the job of the U.S. Senate is to make sure that no one joins their ranks as a member through malfeasance, per the Constitution (Article I, Section 5).
Stretching the idea of 'malfeasance' to remove the focus from the prospective Senate member to someone who's exercising his rightful appointment powers as Governor is something like a red herring. No one has shown that Burris is morally or legally unqualified to act as Senator. No one has shown that Governor Blagojevic was acting improperly by appointing him.
Senate toadies of Harry Reid had better treat a Burris entry with enormous respect - they haven't got a leg to stand on, calling Burris unqualified, and would pay a huge political price among certain hyphenated-Americans for the premature lynch-mob conviction of Blagojevic by Senators, Illinois officials, Democratic Party operatives or tabloid public opinion.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 4, 2009 07:40 PMRe:
1. It would read better as two sentences or with a comma between "parties" and "I", but suit yourself.
2. You state this as fact. In truth, It is merely your opinion, and one not shared by most conservatives.
3. If you want to throw your ballet in the toilet voting for Ron Paul, that is your business. I am no fan of Dr. Paul, but would have just as soon voted for him as the RINO the Republicans did put on the ballot. I guess I consoled myself voting for Sarah Palin.
Take Care
Posted by: Saltherring on January 4, 2009 08:05 PMI am sorry to hear you are not a fan of Dr Paul. I hope you would agree he is an honest politician though? I did not get that feeling from any of the other 9 guys that ran, nor from Palin.
Posted by: Lysander on January 4, 2009 08:19 PMThat, sir, is the exact logic of a lynch mob.
Yours is the exact logic of a damned idiot.
Give me one single reason why I shouldn't consider Blagojevich guilty of corruption. I defy you to come up with one. There's no principle, no rule, no statute, no logic that says anyone but a court should not presume him to be guilty.
A HUGE majority of Americans believe O.J. Simpson murdered two people. But the Court does not. Was O.J. ever lynched? Nope. Are the people wrong to believe he is guilty? Nope. Not at all.
Blagojevic isn't guilty until a Court so decrees
According to our judicial system, that's true. What's that got to do with anything I'm talking about?
and there isn't a speck of evidence that Burris was involved in the alleged Great Illinois Seat-Auction.
Sure there is: Blagojevich nominated him. It's not proof, but it's circumstantial evidence.
Or are you saying that every politician, when someone asserts that he's done wrong, cease all of his duties until judgement (sic.) is pronounced?
No, I am not saying that at all. Try to think before you type.
Stretching the idea of 'malfeasance' to remove the focus from the prospective Senate member to someone who's exercising his rightful appointment powers as Governor is something like a red herring.
Maybe you just don't understand the argument, so I'll type slowly:
The Senate has the authority under the Constitution to decide whether a prospective member is legally qualified. THAT INCLUDES whether or not the election or appointment was legal. It is not a "red herring" to look at Blagojevich, it is the POINT. The Senate has the authority to conclude -- even without direct evidence, because the Constitution allows the Senate to makes the rules -- that Blagojevich abused his power and got some sort of compensation for this appointment.
No one has shown that Burris is morally or legally unqualified to act as Senator.
Don't need to, because this is not about Burris.
No one has shown that Governor Blagojevic was acting improperly by appointing him.
Don't need to. They only have to presume it. The Senate has that legal authority.
Senate toadies of Harry Reid had better treat a Burris entry with enormous respect
Why?
they haven't got a leg to stand on
Other than the fact that the Constitution gives them the authority to reject Burris.
calling Burris unqualified
That's their right.
and would pay a huge political price among certain hyphenated-Americans for the premature lynch-mob conviction of Blagojevic by Senators, Illinois officials, Democratic Party operatives or tabloid public opinion.
That is as good a reason as ANY to reject Burris.
A threat that rejection of Burris will be treated as racism SHOULD be responded to with a rejection of Burris. The best way to deal with the evil race-baiting of people like Bobby Rush is to shove it right back in their face. Bobby Rush is a huge part of what's wrong with this country, and he can go to hell, along with anyone who would do the same as he.
Good one on the "ballet"...still laughing.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 5, 2009 06:15 AMHmmm, what Democrat isn't deeply tainted?
How about someone like that monument to seditious stupidity like Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois?
What about the pinko parasite and ex Senator of Illinois?
What about that incredible hunk of quasi-humanity called Rep. Jim McDermott?
What about that towering intellect pandering Pelosi?
Posted by: juandos on January 5, 2009 11:08 AMYou are welcome, o gracious philosopher, to consider Blagojevic guilty of corruption, or perhaps attempted corruption. That's your choice, in the same way that necktie parties decide to hold the hanging before the trial.
And there still isn't a speck of evidence that Burris was involved in the alleged Great Illinois Seat-Auction. Sure there is: Blagojevich nominated him. It's not proof, but it's circumstantial evidence.
Guilt by association AND circumstantial evidence, all in one large economy-sized package. Again, you are welcome to your own opinion, though heaven help anyone whose trial finds you seated on the jury. If someone can prove that Burris acted improperly to obtain the appointment, I'd reconsider - but the 'proving' would have to be done by due process, and not a media-fueled mass 'act before the facts' action.
Unless all legally mandated pubic acts of the Governor are to be stopped cold, due to this exciting trial-by-media, he must continue to act on behalf of the people of Illinois. Senatorial appointments are part of his job. He just did it, and Burris is appointed.
You are welcome, o gracious philosopher, to consider Blagojevic guilty of corruption, or perhaps attempted corruption. That's your choice, in the same way that necktie parties decide to hold the hanging before the trial.
So O.J. has been lynched? Again, your comparison is asinine. There is no logical correlation between presuming guilt, and punishing someone outside the law based on that presumption. We presume guilt all the time outside the courts. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with it.
Guilt by association AND circumstantial evidence, all in one large economy-sized package.
Why do you pretend this evidence isn't relevant?
Again, you are welcome to your own opinion
As are the legislatures of the United States and Illinois. This is not about me, of course, it's about them.
though heaven help anyone whose trial finds you seated on the jury.
No, unlike you, I can separate the two things. I could be a completely impartial and unbiased juror in his trial. I know the difference between legal burden of guilt and personal opinion, I can separate the two, and I can act differently based on each.
If someone can prove that Burris acted improperly to obtain the appointment, I'd reconsider - but the 'proving' would have to be done by due process, and not a media-fueled mass 'act before the facts' action.
Once again, you're wrong. There is no "due process" required to prove, for the sake of impeachment or refusing to seat Burris, that Blagojevich acted improperly. You are applying judicial standards to non-judicial events.
I bow deeply before your superior wisdom and eloquence.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 5, 2009 12:35 PMYou are the one comparing a personal presumption of guilt to taking action as part of a lynch mob. You're the one saying nonsensical things.
Likewise, two days earlier, one Barak Obama concurred with me. He got on the phone (somehow the 'news' agencies didn't bother to tell us right away) and read Harry Reid the Word: give up on barring Burris from his Senate seat.
And unless the anti-Burris crowd gets some major legal reinforcements and shows some instant activity, it's going to be Senator Burris in a rather short time.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 9, 2009 03:01 PMIt appears that the Illinois Supreme Court has bowed before my own superior reasoning and eloquence, and as of today (Jan 9) Roland Burris dont need no steenkin' Secretary of State signature to head straight for the Senate.
Um. In here, you never talked about the Illinois Secretary of State.
And unless the anti-Burris crowd gets some major legal reinforcements
The Constitution is sufficient "reinforcement."
and shows some instant activity, it's going to be Senator Burris in a rather short time.
Good. He will only hurt the Democrats. I have no illusions ... no matter what happens, a far-left Liberal Democrat will be elected Senator in Illinois, so it might as well be one that's going to make the Democrats look bad, and Burris fits the bill nicely, being a slimy politician appointed by an even slimier one.
There was no need to. Son, when I get to reasoning, the radiations penetrate to the farthest reaches of the country, and that even includes the Illinois Supreme Court. That Secretary of State was the last barricade in the ill-advised campaign to use Blajojevic's trial-by-media as a red herring to prevent the seating of Roland Burris. That Court unanimously made a non-entity of said Secretary in this matter, and the last barricade has properly fallen - or been bowled over.
... no matter what happens, a far-left Liberal Democrat will be elected Senator in Illinois, so it might as well be one that's going to make the Democrats look bad, and Burris fits the bill nicely, being a slimy politician appointed by an even slimier one.
I shall leave it at that, because here we agree in spades.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 9, 2009 05:18 PMAnd you still don't know what "red herring" means.