Chicago Sun-Times: Burris selection likely legit -- so seat him

[wndycty]

This may have been posted yesterday, if so I missed it:

Burris selection likely legit -- so seat him

January 2, 2009

Roland Burris is the next U.S. senator from the state of Illinois.

Nothing is going to change that, or should.

Burris was appointed to the Senate by the sitting governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, a man who is in deep legal trouble, but who has been convicted of no crime to date and has yet to be impeached. It was Blagojevich's job to appoint a replacement to complete the Senate term of President-elect Barack Obama, and that's what he has done.

Secretary of State Jesse White, despite what Blagojevich's foes might wish, has no legal or constitutional grounds to refuse to sign off on the appointment. If a secretary of state could kill gubernatorial appointments merely because a governor is an unpopular goof, there would be no end to it. The secretary of state, at least in the realm of appointments, would be de facto governor.

Similarly, it is difficult to imagine a justification for the U.S. Senate refusing to seat Burris. We suspect that the Senate, after some delay, will see that Burris was appointed in compliance with the law, even if the governor who did the appointing is being measured for a prison uniform.

The sole appropriate question before the Senate is whether the process by which Burris was appointed was strictly aboveboard, given the allegations that Blagojevich previously tried to sell the Senate seat. If this appointment was aboveboard -- no matter what games Blagojevich may have played before -- Burris should be seated.
-snip-

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1358750,CST-EDT-edit02.article

[IsItJustMe]

1. I think Harry Reids attempt to pressure Blago into not selecting other qualified AA politicians from

Illinois is going to have an affect on this ongoing saga.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1360191,harry-reid-blagojevich-jesse-jackson-010209.article

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

2. I think the Sun-Times should address their plea to the P-E

Senate Dems have made it clear they will follow Obama's lead. Obama says Embrace Lieberman, Lieberman is embraced. Obama says No Blagojevich appointee, the cops are lined up to keep him off the Senate floor.

If Obama said Welcome Roland, all this nonsense would be settled. But he can't, or won't, because of the investigation. Rod played it perfectly - cynically and ruthlessly - hunting through black IL politicians till he found one willing to join in, and bringing Rush in make sure everyone understood the stake he was playing.

It's all really ugly and infuriating and just plain embarrassing. But it doesn't seem to be affecting Obama's ratings either way, so I think he should just shrug it off, say Welcome Roland, and stop the story in its tracks. Then focus attention on more important issues.

Anyway, that's the way I see it.

[IsItJustMe]

4. I don't think Obama owns this problem at all. I think this is Harry Reids problem, and that Obama

was just playing backup for Reid. Given the new revelation that Reid tried to preempt three other black politicians from Illnois from getting the senate seat completely changes the dynamics of this. We shall see.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

7. Thanks, I hadn't seen that story

Reid is wrong about Jackson, who along with Madigan are the only picks among those five names who could carry the state in '10, IMO. But I would rather see Madigan run for governor than senator in '10. If, as is rumored, she is eyeing the White House in '16, there are arguments in favor of either position as a launching pad. But she would do IL more good as gov, so that's what I want.

But who is letting Reid be wrong about Jackson? Durbin? Obama? Why? Is it just that Durbin wants Duckworth so bad, or is it about the investigation, revelations still to come and their impact on '10? As you say, we shall see.

[Blarch]

3. Yep. Checkmate.

[yourguide]

5. Sorrry, this is an opinion piece.

Don't really see him speaking about any laws.

The senate has a legal path they can take, which means they can parade this idiot, that the people of illinois voted against 3 times, up to the rules committee to make sure he has not been involved in pay for play for this appointment. In the interim Blago will be impeached and this appointment will be null.

[IsItJustMe]

6. Not that simple and the Democrats in the senate need to be very carefull about how this all turns

out. They may be setting some really bad examples here that can come back and bite them in the ass, in the future, when Republicans are once again running the senate.

There are states rights issues here and division of power issues and all sorts of other legal issues.

I predict that if the Dems in the Senate take this issue to stand on, then there is going to be months of litigation and when the circus is all done, the senate dems are going to be the ones with egg on their face.

This is a diversion that this country can not afford.

[yourguide]

8. Please defend seating a scumbag politician

appointed by a dirtier politician?

If there is a legal way out of this I am glad the Senate is taking it.

I predict there will be months of legislation but ultimately Burris will be the one with egg on his face and Blago will land in jail?

The people of Burris' own state voted against him as mayor, state rep, and senator. His own state doesnt want him.

[wndycty]

9. Wow we have someone from Brooklyn telling us that a man who was the 1st African American. . .

. . .elected statewide in Illinois is a scumbag? Focus on the races he lost as opposed to the races he won.

It is so great to have my state's politics analyzed by someone who doesn't know shit about them.

[yourguide]

10. Hmmmmmm

wndy, you might want to settle down.

Burris attempted to execute and innocent man when there was clear evidence in front of him the man was innocent. Someone resigned from the AGs office because she would not take part in executing an innocent man. Burris refused to back off because he was running for governor. He was willing to see an innocent man killed so it wouldnt risk his chance of looking soft on crime for his gubernatorial bid.

Burris condemned Blago, called for him to step down, until suddenly he was offered a Senate seat. Suddenly Blagos unethical behavior is a mere trifle. So when the man has shown he will abandon his ethics when it betters himself whats to say he wont do the same in the Senate?

Not condemning Rush, and his nonsense cries of racism, is indeed racism by proxy. He is illustrating that this nasty race baiting is acceptable by not speaking out against it. He's happy to allow the flames whip when this was never about race. The Senate said they would not seat any appointee of Blago regardless of race religion or creed.

So before you go lipping off about how I dont know shit, back up these three things, explain to me how they arent scummy? All 3 of these examples show that he'd be willing to leave his integrity at the door if it would further his political career. Also known as scummy.

Oh and by the way, check out this poll. Granted it's not scientific but 60% of people responding dont want Burris even if he were appointed by Quinn.

http://poll.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1360615,blago-poll-quinn-010309.poll

[wndycty]

11. Settle down? LOL

I'm not all that worked up, I just think its laughable that you are so worked up in your opposition of Burris.

[yourguide]

12. Considering

I have been a supporter and defender of you on many occasions (with good reason mind you) a statement such as this:

It is so great to have my state's politics analyzed by someone who doesn't know shit about them.

is rude and disrespectful, and also inaccurate. Surprise surprise, I do indeed know "shit" about Illinois politics.

I am opposed to Burris for a number of reasons, those listed above a few of them.

Now again, defend those three points. Else the scumbag statement stands.