Burris' Status Still In Flux
(CBS)
In a late morning press conference, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said that no decision had yet been made.
Reid said that three steps need to be taken before Burris can, potentially, be seated. The first involves that fact that the Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White, did not sign the certificate that would have allowed Burris to enter the Senate.
Burris showed up in Washington for yesterday's Senate swearing-in session, but Senate Democrats refused to seat him, citing the lack of signature.
"We have a situation here, that we've had a rule in effect since 1884 in the Senate, that for a person to be appointed by a governor, you have to have the signature of the governor and the secretary of state," Reid said.
The question of whether White must sign the document is now before the Illinois Supreme Court; Reid and Durbin predicted a resolution soon.
If the court rules that White's signature is not needed, it will cause problems for the Senate, as it would be highly unlikely Senate would waive their rules to accept a certificate with only one signature.
Interestingly, White told a radio station that the Senate could "have seated him without my signature," insisting that his signature was simply a "ceremonial" one.
If White signs the document, Reid said, the next step involves clearing up whether Burris had any improper involvement with Blagojevich, who has been charged with effectively trying to sell the seat. Hearings are soon to be held in Illinois over impeaching the governor, and Senate Democrats had previously vowed not to seat anyone appointed by him.
Durbin noted that Burris "has submitted...an affidavit that explains most of the circumstances" and noted that Burris will answer questions from Republicans and Democrats before the Blagojevich Impeachment Committee tomorrow afternoon at 3 pm.
"The other issue that I think is important is that Roland Burris appears to be candid and forthright," Reid said. "...he's not trying to avoid any responsibility, and trying to hide anything."
Once those two steps are taken, Durbin said, the Senate Rules Committee will review the situation. That could take weeks. If the process gets that far, the full chamber would then likely debate the matter and then vote on whether Burris should take the seat.
Mr. Obama was asked about the Burris appointment during his press conference this morning. The president-elect did not take a position, saying it was "a Senate matter."
Mr. Obama noted that knows Burris, adding: "If he gets seated, then I'm going to work with Roland Burris, just like I work with all the other senators to make sure that the people of Illinois and the people of the country are served." (.)
Both Reid and Durbin stressed during their press conference that Burris had played down the race issue. Burris would be the only African-American in the Senate, and when his appointment was announced Illinois Rep. Bobby Rush suggested that senators would not want to oppose him for that reason.
"A lot of people tried to make this a racial issue, but Roland Burris has not, and will not," Reid said.
"He obviously is a very engaging, extremely nice man. He presents himself well," added Reid, who met with Burris for the first time this morning.
A senior Democratic Congressional aide, meanwhile, told Huffington Post that aides to Mr. Obama "contacted senior Senate Democrats and suggested that they reverse course and accept Gov. Rod Blagojevich's controversial appointment."
It is not a matter of black or white, democrat or republican--it is a matter of right and wrong. Burris was appointed by the governor under the correct authority and power. Lets respect the laws if we hope to be protected by the laws.
Why don''t we just move the WH to Chicago, already. Good grief, all we have had is Chicago politics since the chosen one won the election. With all this drama going on, and all the crooked Chicago politicans coming out are we still to believe that the chosen one is above the fray?? Just a thought.
Also, how nice of ried to say that burris is "clean and articulate", very condescending of him. Didn''t biden say the same thing about the chosen one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by ddhinnyc at 12:58 PM : Jan 07, 2009
and yet, you used the word "dumbocrats"........
not really helping to prove your party''s case of higher intelligence or superiority
WOW did he seriously make that comment with a straight face?
I understand why people like the idea of blocking Burris, but do people approve of Reid and the way he''s going about doing it?
Maybe it''s just me that has this as a pet peeve, but it really bothers me when people use the letter of the law as a weapon, perverting intent to suit the situation - Burris is sort of doing that here, but Reid is REALLY doing it in a BIG way. They''ve needed a Secretary of State''s signature since 1884? To satisfy what social purpose Reid?
You think the longer this drags on, the greater the chance he might win the battle (to keep out Burris), but lose the war (to maintain a high number or Demcrats in the Senate when he loses his own seat to a Republican)?
Posted by craigh9
But don''t you agree that if there''s been a breakdown of democracy due to apparent corruption from politicians, then the proper remedy would be to furnish voters with the voice of democracy via a special election to fill the Senate seat in question, rather than force on them the political will of politicians WHO ARE THEMSELVES apparently on tape evidencing an interest in a particular outcome?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 03:19 PM : Jan 07, 2009
Yes, I agree, but the bottom line is that there is a huge cloud over Blago and his actions - therefore I feel it appropriate to DO NOTHING until such time as he is ousted or back in good standing. Illinois is represented, it would''t kill the state to only have one Senator for a few months
Given the option of choosing to champion the remedy which would remove the taint, when Democrats choose to champion the different remedy that ignores the law so that they can remove the taint AND still maintain the seat, they''re not advocating principle in it''s purest form.
Didn''t the majority of the people of Ill. already say they wanted a special election, and didn''t the majority of the people of Ill. already say they''d likely choose a Republican in that special election?
So when somebody advocates them going without for months so that they can impose a Democrat on the people of Ill., who''s interests are they championing, the people of Ill. or their own?
Next best though, under the principle that in some instances it could perhaps be shown that the intent of the voter at the time of the election was voting for the party as much as the individual (like in the wake of the Republican *** scandal that helped push an unknown Barack Obama into office), Harry Reid could perhaps have made the argument that in the specific instance of Governor being accused of attempting to sell a Senate seat, he ought not be able to CHOOSE who he appoints given that the public has no way of being certain no matter how upstanding the choice that the choice has not made some sort of a deal where there''s been a breach of trust associated with that seat. And that therefore if the Ill. Senate approved of a particular alternative, the Sec. of State agreed to sign off on that alternative, Harry Reid agreed to accept that alternative, if Blago agreed to approve of that alternative, then he''d be okay with that.
But Harry Reid didn''t go that route - when social order breaks down, I think people want to see leaders exhibit an exercise of the law that''s as close to intended in both letter and spirit. That Harry Reid didn''t know how to best do that I think alters the outcome because it deprives him of the principled stand that he would need to have avoided accepting Blago''s appointment (?)
Burris is fine just have some one esle besides that crooked Govenor do the appointing like the Lt. Govenor
Burris is a sham.
The man is a pathetic
hollow body.
So sad to see sooo many waste time
and energy because Burris has
done the wrong deed.
of course they should absolutely
positively seat him because
he is BLACK.
Give burris the seat BECAUSE
he is BLACK and that would help
undo ALL the injustice to the
poor black slave of the past.
Get real.
He is a total scam artist.
Despite the leak to the press, there is no crime without results and leaking phone calls where the gov. spouted off in no way proves a pay to play scheme was actually acted upon. By acting precipitously, the Dems have demonstrated a scared, knee jerk reaction and they and Obama have political egg on their faces. IN matters of state vs Federal, the gov cannot supercede or override the Constitution on matters of indiv. states. Reid tried to do this--and now after Feinstein says what we, and many others have said for weeks--even Obama realizes he and the dems were treading a very dangerous and slippery slope. Seat the man, if Illinois does not want him, they will have their say in 2010.
Posted by peace4321 at 12:59 PM : Jan 07, 2009
Afghanistan is NOT a place men will die--it is a place men have and will continue to die in. As for war and lies--the sad truth is, the war in Iraq WAS/IS based on lies and greed and NOTHING said or done now can replace or bring back the men, women and children destoryed by that war. NOTHING. Which means before you push for or defend any war--learn the consequences and NEVER start a pre-emptive war. YOU need to wake your own fvcking self up.
Posted by mydiatribe at 06:07 PM : Jan 07, 2009
It''s that pesky Constitution.
1. People are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. With no charges, and no indictment and only a phone call and no actual proof--Blago remains INNOCENT until proven guilty--because he is still the gov. and has not been convicted, impeachment on hearsay or wishful thinking will be a very long, and legally fraught process.
2. They can''t convict based on a conversation with no proof--so they hope to wait until Fitzgerald can find some. Hearsay from Blago''s enemies is not enough to bring charges--at stake are malicious prosecution charges against Fitzgerald and the State of Illinois if they have no real case.
You may not like it, but saying one would commit a crime is not the same as commiting a crime. there has to be a bribe, or favors or something. Ever say you''d like to kill someone? Would you like to be charged for murder even though you never killed them? Would you like to lose your job over you saying that? Think, then post.
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 06:00 PM : Jan 07, 2009
Unfortunately for you and Reid, there is something called State''s rights. Unless otherwise indicated by the Constitution, those in federal positions cannot supercede state authority, and purview just because it suits them politically. Just like Alaska allows convicts to be Senators, there is nothing in the ILlinois Constitution about a governor abdicating his responsibility to appoint, just because he is accused of a crime. There has been no charges, no conviction, and no indictment--the appt is legal.
Further, in NO STATES bylaws is the federal gov given the job or right to supercede the judgement of a State or their duly appointed gov. Reid and the Dems were out of their jurisdiction--we do not re-write the Constitution for wars, for illegal immigrants nor for political parties with embarrassing members.
Posted by spinproof at 08:10 PM : Jan 07, 2009
This is why rule of law MUST trump emotionalism. YOu can''t convict a man on a tape alone with no trial unless you want there to be no more laws for anyone.
He is under investigation. There are NO indictments--in fact, Fitzgerald has asked for an extension because he does not have what it takes to get an indictment--yet. what we have are incriminating tapes and a lot of knee jerk, enraged, reaction. The sort of thing lynch mobs rise to the occassion for. IN the meantime, until it is proven in a court of law, Blago has a job, and he can appoint whomever he likes--if that appointment is questioned, it should be hashed out in a vetting process not in an ultimatum showdown where the federal gov tries to override the perogatives of a state or that state''s governor.
Posted by harbinger09 at 10:01 PM
It is official, you are stupid.
People are asking for the head of
Madoff, and guess what?
Madoff is not investing anyone''s
money right now.
The HONORABLE thing to do for the
state of Illinois is for this
gov to resign, or step aside,
but fools like you an burris
egg the man on.
No wonder the country is in
such sad shape.
Grow a brain.
Unfortunately Roland Burris and his supporters are only looking at the rewards and benefits of his corrupt infested appointment and can''t see the disgusting image and damage not to mention the absence of any semblance or morals or Class. This is like thinking corruption and crimes are O.K. as long as you don''t get caught or they can''t be proven, not because crimes are wrong or illegal. It''s one thing to hear about corrupt Illinois Politics and wonder if its really true or not and yet another to see it in action and have it confirmed!
First off, State rights aren''t absolute - there IS a Federal interest in maintaining the trust and integrity of their governing body, which needs to be considered in concert with the other concerns such as the people having representatives which represent their interests, avoidance of the appearance of impropriety, restoration of the rule of law and order, even blacks having a representative replace the one that was just lost because Barack was voted President, etc.
Second off, my suggestion was that Blago accept a delegation of the specific power to appoint a Senate vacancy to to the State legislature, a co-equal branch of Government. It would be the State of Ill. making the choice, not Harry Reid.
So I don''t see how a usurpation of States rights would be a factor (?) Anyways, it''s irrelevant because they didn''t choose to go that route . . .
As for that idea that innocent until proven guilty applies to the Governor''s ability to appoint a Senate replacement in the SPECIFIC instance in which he''s been charged with committing a crime in relation to the making of that appointment, if you watch CNN their legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin pointed out how that standard applies in the case of a deprivation of liberty - for the loss of that specific power, it could be argued that probable cause is sufficient . . . he''s probably right . . .
Also, it''s worth noting that Blago already agreed to abdicate his responsibility for making an appointment to be replaced by the people - so he never specifically argued that the Constitution protected his power to govern absolutely, including his power to appoint in absolute terms . . . he''d have likely agreed to let the Ill. legislature make the appointment if they had just acknowledged that he was still the acting Governor . . .
And then in that vacuum of non-communication, Blago went and made the appointment and now it''s too late to un-ring that bell because the process of trying to deprive that right ex post facto is much more complicated than it would have been to get everybody to agree to the rules in the first place (?)
Before an appointment had been made, all Reid would have had to say to Blago might have been to let the Ill. legislature make the appointment so the people of Ill. could have a rep. And Blago would have been trapped into saying okay.
Now it''s like you''ve got all the lawyers and press conferences, disclosures that Reid didn''t want a black person to get the spot, Reid making up arbitrary rules about signatures when everybody knows he just gave Ted Stevens convicted felon a standing-o, Reid trying to drag Burris'' reputation through the mud, black panthers crying racism, only 1 Senator for Ill., etc.
Posted by spinproof
But once again I ask you, are you advocating that a special election be held so that the people of Ill. have a representative to represent their interests which would be tantamount to advocating that the seat be given to a Republican in the name of justice, or are you showing support for Harry Reid because you too believe that the paramount principle is that Dems be allowed to maximize their power and that Harry Reid ought to be allowed to pick the representative so that power can be maximized for as long as possible because that to you is justice and if it were happening to Republicans that would be a different story?
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 11:31 PM : Jan 07, 2009
This is not about Democrats or Republicans, Blacks, or even Roland Burris, it about Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich forfeiting his authority to decide the successor to Pres.-elect Obama''s vacant Senate Seat because he was caught trying to sell it to the highest bidder. I''m not going to get tangled up into who or what process should decide now, but one thing is clear, until Gov. Rod Blagojevich is cleared on the matter he should not be making that decision. The State of Illinois has already stated they can''t afford and don''t have the money for a special election so another solution will need to be found. If a Republican does benefit then tough luck since Gov. Blagojevich opened that door with his corruption. At the end of the process the Public should feel like "clean government" prevailed, not legal mumbo jumbo.
Posted by spinproof
I said at the outset, that I think the larger message Blago''s act of defiance conveyed is that the black-white world view is overly simplistic and that the world is made up of more subtle shades of grey, and that anybody inclined to want to see the world as they believed it ''ought'' to be rather than how it really is was bound to end up puzzled and frustrated.
I don''t think it''s a realistic worldview to try and box people into ''good'' and ''bad'' . . .
PS The head of the Ill. Congress'' daughter was Candidate #2 to for the Senate seat - as AG she was also pressing HARD for the Lt. Gov. to get into power FAST. I guess one example of an instance in which you seem to see black and white where I see shades of grey is in your assumption that when the head of the Ill. legislature claims a special election in furtherance of the public will would be too expensive that he was being 100% forthright about his motives, and wasn''t factoring that it greatly improved the chances of his daughter becoming a US Senator.
I mean I don''t know that there IS such a thing as ''clean government'', especially not in Illinois (?)
-
by spinproof
January 8, 2009 2:24 AM PST
- SamTheTVCat:
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 39 CommentsI always see the world in shades of grey and use that term often, I''m surprised to see it used with me. :) Pres.-elect Obama brings quite a few Illinois Politicians with him to Washington, hopefully they will leave Illinois style politics home!