LIEberman is forgiven, retains leadership position, but Reid cannot seat Burris?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

Someone please explain this for me. Joe LIEberman is a turncoat. His actions against the Democrats and the president-elect were despicable. But the Dems suddenly have this self-righteousness about them that they cannot seat Burris, a man who has done nothing wrong and was legally and *constitutionally* selected by the governor? I am so sick and tired of the cowardly leadership in the Democratic Party.

[AzDar]

1. OR Franken. Harry Reid is a fucking disaster, and needs to GO.

:mad:

[chelsea0011]

2. That's Senator, thank you sir may I have another, Reid to you.

[Doctor_J]

3. Harry's not going to try to seat Franken either

He's either directly collaborating with the enemy, or too weak to do his job, Either way he must be removed from the SML job.

[w4rma]

4. Burris should *not* be seated and the debate we are having over it is just one more reason why that

opportunist shouldn't be seated.

[lazer47]

6. Absolutely correct!!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. Why? The same argument could be made about Caroline Kennedy.

Is she an opportunist? Is Obama an opportunist? If the governor of Illinois is acting within the parameters of the state constitution, then there is no reason why he cannot appoint Burris. Regardless of what you think about Burris and his intentions, the bottom line is that he was lawfully selected to represent the state of Illinois.

[lazer47]

9. I thought we were talking about Burris, not Caroline Kennedy

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. The same argument applies because Burris is accused of being an opportunist.

Likewise, Caroline is accused by some of being an opportunist. However, if the good governors of Illinois and New York, respectively, make appointments they want, they are acting on behalf of their state constitutions. Again, there is no constitutional grounds on which they should not be seated. On MTP Sunday, even Reid conceded that the Senate Dems may have to find a compromise. He knows that what he is doing is wrong by not seating Burris.

[w4rma]

15. I'm accusing Burris of being an opportunist for trying to kill an innocent man because he was

running for office.

He prosecuted an innocent man (the actual criminal confessed) against the recommendation of his deputy attorney general because he didn't want to appear soft on crime.

While state attorney general in 1992, Burris aggressively sought the death penalty for Rolando Cruz, who twice was convicted of raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl in the Chicago suburb of Naperville. The crime took place in 1983.

But by 1992, another man had confessed to the crime, and Burris' own deputy attorney general was pleading with Burris to drop the case, then on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court.

Burris refused. He was running for governor.

That deputy has a lot to say about the case:

Deputy attorney general Mary Brigid Kenney agreed and eventually resigned rather than continue to prosecute Cruz.

Once Burris assigned Kenney to the case in 1991, she became convinced that Cruz was innocent, a victim of what she believed was prosecutorial misconduct. She sent Burris a memo reporting that the jury convicted Cruz without knowing that Brian Dugan, a repeat sex offender and murderer, had confessed to the crime. Burris never met with Kenney to discuss a new trial for Cruz, Kenney told ProPublica.

"This is something the attorney general should have been concerned about," Kenney, now an assistant public guardian in Cook County, said in an interview. "I knew the prosecutor's job was not merely to secure conviction but to ensure justice was done."

Kenney was not alone in her beliefs. Prior to Cruz's 1985 trial, the lead detective in the case resigned in protest over prosecutors' handling of the case, according to news reports at the time.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/burris_wanted_death_penalty_fo.php

[lazer47]

17. During this mans tenure as Attorney General of Il. the state went thru.

22 death row convictions that were overturned, all of which he opposed,, he is useless

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Useless to you. Legally appointed to the U.S. Senate by a sitting governor.

Seat him!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

19. He is unable or unqualified to be a U.S. Senator? If the answer to these questions is NO...

then seat him. Just because you may not agree with his stance on certain issues does not render him incompetent.

[w4rma]

10. You're kidding, right? I hope you aren't really comparing the two unidentical situations. (nt)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. Explain why they aren't identified. Two governors appoint their choice.

It is constitutional. If Paterson's choice is constitutional, then so is Blago's. Simple as that.

[w4rma]

16. Blago is being impeached for selling Burris? that Senate seat. (nt)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

18. Blago is being impeached because the IL Dems feel that he is incapable

of acting as governor. He has been accused of alegedly attempting to sell Obama's Senate seat. He has not been formally charged, nor has he been convicted. And he has NOT been impeached. There haven't been any hearings as of yet. Blago made an appointment to the U.S. Senate that was lawful, legal and constitutional. Burris ought to be seated, especially if he has done nothing wrong. It's really that simple.

[peaches2003]

30. But right now he is NOT being impeached

Until the IL legislature votes for impeachment proceedings Blago is not being impeached yet. He has not been indicted by the Federal Prosecutor yet either. Blago called everyone's bluff and appointed Burris as he has the perfect right to do at this time as Governor.

Harry Reid opened his big mouth and now his foot has been stuck in it. Under the Constitution the Senate has no legal reason not to seat Burris. Reid is an idiot. Caves into Bush for 8 years and now causes this storm as the inaugural is about to happen. Reid is going to have to cave and again make the Dems in the Senate look like idiots. Why is he Majority Leader and why the hell doesn't the Dem Caucus kick him out of that position. I hate that Obama is publically backing him.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

39. Exactly. That's what I've been trying to explain. Blago hasn't even been

formally accused (indicted) yet. He has not undergone impeachment proceedings. And as long as he is a sitting governor, he ought to be able to appoint Obama's successor.

[WeDidIt]

11. BINGO! n/t

[amoreena]

5. Agree., Burris should be seated...

I am sick of this holier than thou crap. All Fitzgerald had on the gov was some profanity, like everyone isn't using it. Granted he should not have been shopping around Obama's senate seat but I bet this kind of thing goes on a lot more than we think.

Liarman should have been thrown out of his chair by the dems but they were spineless. So instead they'll pick on Burris and make a big show of botching everything up and drawing unnecessary attention to this. In the end Burris will be seated anyway so why make a spectacle out of it? Repubs must be laughing their asses off.

[BobRossi]

8. Reid, Pelosi, et al.

They must all go. Fuck the DLC.

[liberal N proud]

14. Burris and Franken are not part of the CLUB

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. That's the *real* reason, isn't it? The Dems have always had an issue with Franken

Only the Clintons and Klobuchar campaign for him. The other Corporate Dems didn't do much to help Franken.

[AzDar]

22. President Gore campaigned for Al, too.

:thumbsup:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. That's right. But no other Establishment Dems worked for Franken.

[rvablue]

28. So did Hillary, right? n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

31. I mentioned the Clintons. Hillary worked hard for Al.

[ShortnFiery]

23. The Club = Legislative Branch is comprised of ONE Right-Wing Duopoly with TWO sets of Actors.

We have had NO TRULY representative government for decades now. :(

[liberal N proud]

29. Exactly

It is not just at the federal level. Try to go against any city hall or school board. They railroad through their agendas designed to help them or their cronies and to hell with everything else.

Those who try to permeate those organizations from the outside and not through the approved club membership will be denied and pushed aside.

[bdamomma]

37. hmm.. to much fresh blood being infused into the Congress.

too bad Franken should be seated, some complications about certification documents for Burris. Again, they are playing politics, while we get shoved to the back burner.

[Bluzmann57]

24. 100% in agreement.

Enough is enough! I already emailed Reid, likely to no avail since I am not a Nevadan, and am not a rich man either. But it felt good to get it off my chest. Harkin is next. I am going to respectfully request that Harkin introduce some sort of motion that Reid be removed as Senate majority leader. Again, it probably will do no good whatsoever, but at least someone will know that there is growing anger out here about the Democratic alleged leadership.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

26. Reid seems to be folding on this somewhat. He can find no fault with Burris.

The breaking story is that although the Secretary of the Senate has turned Burris away, Reid will meet with him tomorrow to iron out a compromise. He may indeed be seated with the promise that he will not run in 2010.

[peaches2003]

35. Burris says he will make no such promise

and why should he? He was appointed for 2 yrs and has every right to run in 2010 if he wants to. This is an IL matter and Reid has no right to decide who can run for the Senate and who can't. He's about to possibly lose his own reelection in NV in 2010 to begin with. Reid is trying to find a way out of the mess he has caused. Tough sh-- for him. The way out is to take the Majority Leader position away from Hapless Harry and get someone in there with some brains and balls.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. That's what I'm hearing. The voters of Nevada are disappointed with Reid.

He has become a corporatist and a quinessential Washington insider. He hasn't demonstrated much leadership on anything worthwhile. My understanding is that he is facing a very tough reelection battle.

[bdamomma]

44. Thom Hartman just said Reid should have not immersed himself

into this Burris thing.

[rvablue]

27. The selection may have been "legal" but the appointment is not according

to the Illinois state constitution until the Secretary of State signs off on it, which they have refused to do.

Therefore, it would be ILLEGAL for the Senate to seat Burris today.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. Yes. But I would argue that the IL SoS has violated the Constitution.

Again, there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about Blago appointing Burris. That's really the bottom line.

[bdamomma]

34. there is much discussion about this apparently

the IL SOS must sign off on a certification document stating that the appointment is valid. The IL SOS has not done this yet, thus the holdup.

[peaches2003]

33. The signature has been described as only a formality

because it is the Governor that has the power to appoint, not the IL Sec of State. If Burris cannot be sworn in because of the Sec of State signature not being there, then in effect the SofS has been given the real power to appoint or not appoint and that is not the intent of the law when it comes to appointments in IL.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. Per MSNBC...

MSNBC said that they can't tell if Illinois law even requires a certification. The guy says that there's a recommended form which has a blank for the Secretary of State. The Senate is treating is like it's a requirement and supposedly the Secretary of State has a legal duty to sign it. Supposedly the Illinois Supreme Court hasn't ruled on it in a week. All of this is per MSNBC.

[bdamomma]

38. so much red tape, ok that is for Burris but what about Franken not being seated.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. State laws may vary on the process. And especially since Coleman is posing a court

challenge, it may complicate the certification process.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

42. I am listening to C-Span right now and most people agree with me!

What the Senate Dems are doing to Burris is wrong and potentially unconstitutional! Does the Secretary of State overrule the governor? The SoS is part of the Executive Branch, and therefore, subjected to it. Where does the buck stop? With the governor? Or with the SoS? Sounds to me like this goes to the courts on constitutional grounds.

[Politicub]

43. It's the new tone

Get with it ;)

[awoke_in_2003]

45. Can anyone out there with photoshop skills

put Harry's face in this?

[Raineyb]

47. Not my best work but a quicky job

Regards

[awoke_in_2003]

48. That'll work. nt

[onenote]

46. Because the Democratic Caucus wanted to seat Lieberman and they don't want to seat Burris

The reasons for each decision are utterly independent of each other as well. The one thing that they had in common is that each decision reflected the will of the actual head of the Democratic Party -- President Elect Barack Obama.

In the case of Lieberman it was about putting aside the past divisions and focusing on the areas of agreement.

In the case of Burris, it has to do with not setting a precedent of allowing the seating of a Senator where the legitimacy of the selection of that senator is being disputed and all of the formalities have not yet been completed.