Illinois DUers chime in: to seat or not to seat?

[ieoeja]

I vote "not" to seat Roland Burris as the next senator from Illinois.

[Critters2]

1. He should be seated. He's been named by the governor.

Don't like it? Maybe it's time we stopped electing crooks to serve as governor. There's a lesson here.

[mucifer]

2. I'm torn. I don't want mark kirk to be the next senator and that's what I think is

gonna happen now that reid refused to seat Burris. I really believe if we don't get a special election and a dem gets appointed, IL people will be so frustrated with the dems we will end up electing the fake moderate, kirk.

I really want Quinn to make the decision. It would have been great if somehow blago and Quinn could have together appointed Burris, but I know that is ridiculous. It's just my little dream for it all to work out.

[ieoeja]

6. That is actually why I oppose seating Burris.

I believe his appointment keeps this controversy alive through the 2010 election ensuring a Republican victory.

[mucifer]

7. at this point not seating Burris does the same thing. It's a lose lose situation.

[WeDidIt]

9. If Burris is seated the ONLY way the GOP loses in 2010

would be for them to run Keyes again.

[Blarch]

3. I side with the law.

seat him.

[olkaz]

4. Nope. No way, no how.

But, Mr. Burris told me I'm clamoring for him, so I don't know, maybe I'm confused.

[wndycty]

5. Seated. . .

. . .if Rod had been stripped of his powers it would be different, but his legal standing is solid. He has not even been indicted yet.

[WeDidIt]

8. Don't seat him.

Anybody who'd accept an appointment from Blagojevich is one of three things:

1) Too crooked to be a Senator.
2) Too narcissistic to be a Senator.
3) Too STUPID to be a Senator.

[Bucky]

24. Those are arguments not to select him. But having been selected...

... what's the legal reason not to recognize his appointment? I don't see a legal footing here.

[frazzled]

10. I want an election

Seat him temporarily. Have the legislature call for an election. Primaries in April, election in June. Then Mr. Burris can go home.

[WeDidIt]

11. Ahhh, so you want MArk Kirk for Senator

because that is who will win such an election.

[mucifer]

12. it's true. But, we do live in a democracy. See the problem? We are just like the republicans

if we say we don't want an election.

[WeDidIt]

18. 17th amendment and IL law says appointment

then election during next cycle.

Oh well...

[global1]

17. Just Curious - Why Do You Think Kirk Would Win?......nt

[mucifer]

22. He painted himself as a moderate in a liberal leaning district. Dan Seals should have

had Obama's coattails. But, kirk still won.

[WeDidIt]

23. Same reason Blagojevich won in 2002

Crooked politicians end up pushing the Illinois electorate to the other party. George Ryan was the incumbent in 2002 even though he didn't run, and blagojevich became the first Demcrat to win the governor's seat in a quarter century.

If Burris is seated, the incumbent is the equivalent of Blagojevich. This will push the Illinois electorate to the Republican choice who will be Mark Kirk, even if Burris does not run.

same thing happened with this seat in 1998. There was massive scandal surrounding Carol Mosley Braun, and the Illinois electorate was pushed to Pete Fitzgerald.

[frazzled]

21. If we let Burris stay in office for two years, Kirk will certainly win

I would say you are afraid of an honest election here.

Personally, I'd go to work for Jan Schakowsky. I think she could get elected.

[ieoeja]

13. And since the seat expires next year ...

Primary four months from now.
General two months later.
Primary eight months later.
General nine months later.

Might as well wait 13 months for the next regularly scheduled election at this point.

[WeDidIt]

15. Bingo

Or wait another five months and Quinn will make a legitimate appointment.

[nevergiveup]

14. Seat him but be prepared

for a Republican senator from Illinois in 2010. Burris will be Blago incognito running and he wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. The only chance would be if Burris were defeated in the primary and this would be bloody. It really is a sad situation.

[JayMusgrove]

16. I have a solution, Obama can do this

Seat Burris for 6 months, and get rid of that freakin Governor during the 6 months.

And then hold an election......get your state back on track.

Geeze it's so easy, why didn't Harry and Diane sit down and come up with a solution for you folks in IL???

Harry and Diane are grandstanding as much as Burris is, that's why!

[WeDidIt]

20. That would be unconstitutional.

Sorry, but if Burris is seated, he's there until 2010 under the Constitution and Illinois law.

To change it after the fact would be an ex post facto law, which is unconsitutional.

The choices are, Burris seated or Burris not seated. There are no other choices as other choices went out the window the moment Blagojevich appointed Burris and he accepted.

[blueladybird]

19. Seat Him.

[Bucky]

25. What is the legal basis for denying this appointment?

I'm assuming you believe in the rule of law. Where is the legal standing to keep the innocent-till-proven-guilty governor's appointment from going through?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

27. The Senate has the authority to not seat if they feel there is a cloud over...

....the election or, in the this case, the selection.

1). There is evidence Blago was trying to sell the seat.

2). Burris was against Blago before he was with Blago. His sudden change of heart is very suspicious.

3). Burris knew, going in to this, the Senate majority said they wouldn't seat a pick by Blago. Any injury sustained by Burris is self inflicted at this point.

4). It's not a court of law so "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't apply here. Like an impeachment, this is a political process. The Senate gets to vote on it and THEY are the supreme judge of what constitutes acceptable "evidence."

It's not as if the Senate didn't put the warning out they wouldn't seat ANY Blago pick. The Senate majority has both the legal AND moral high-ground here.......

........not to mention all what was said up-thread about the self-promoting huckster tainting the seat all the way to 2011 and handing it to the rethugs.

[kevsand]

28. "Cloud" is not a legal standard.

Any attempt to define it as such inevitably results in creating new "qualifications" for the office, and the SCOTUS has already said that's a no-no.

The only way to block the appointment is to prove it was actually illegal, and that's not going to happen. I'm not entirely happy with it, but the law says Burris is the junior Senator from Illinois.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

29. If the Senate refuses to seat it won't be a legal proceeding.

Like I said, it will be much like an impeachment - a political process held up to a vote... and the majority will decide what constitutes acceptable proof.

The Senate can't add additional qualifications to the individual as this has already been spoken to in The Constitution (age, residence etc.) but it most certainly CAN judge what it deems to be a fair election/selection process.

[kevsand]

30. But in making such a decision, they have to define it.

In order to say the appointment is "tainted," they still have to say why, even if it's not a legal proceeding. Anything they say in that regard automatically becomes subject to judicial review. At that point, it does become a legal proceeding. A really good lawyer could say that their reasons are actually unreasonable new "qualifications."

[Radical Activist]

32. The rule of law says you don't sell a Senate seat.

JFC!

[MadBadger]

34. Do you have proof that Burris bought the seat?

[davsand]

26. I don't think OUR opinions mean much in all this.

If you think the voters have ANY say in this at all, I think you are fooling yourself. This is all gonna sort itself out in the courts and what the voters of Illinois want is completely not part of the process.

Check out Marbury v. Madison and see how many similarities YOU can find:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury-v.-Madison

I seriously doubt that Burris will be kept out of the Senate, and Blag's conviction (or non-conviction just to pacify the innocent until proven guilty folks out there) will not be a factor in any of it.

I think Jesse White will get told by the IL Supremes to sign the form and then we'll have another round of debates when the Senate has to face a Burris with his papers in order. In the meantime we are all gonna spend a shitload of time on here worrying about this crap while the important stuff goes unremarked.


Now if we had held a special election--THEN we'd have had a voice...Oh--WAIT!! Our legislature never acted. THEY set this mess up every bit as much as Blag did.

Happy days in Illinois!


Laura

[Radical Activist]

31. Seat him after Blagojevich is impeached.

Force Pat Quinn or the General Assembly to confirm the appointment first. When the appointment is made by someone legitimate he should be seated.

[mikekohr]

33. Seat Him, Impeach and Imprison HotRod, and Let Pat Quinn Clean Up in Springfield

mike kohr

[ibegurpard]

35. No idea

But Burris has shown himself to be an idiotic, opportunistic fool with this debacle and it's too bad that's what you'll be stuck with...although he may just fit right in.