Should Burris be seated?

[MoonRiver]

Poll question: Should Burris be seated?

Yea or nay. There is no middle ground.

[WeDidIt]

1. A big ole NAY from me

Even if you spelled it wrong.

[bigwillq]

2. Yes.

Seat and move on, and work towards electing another DEM in 2010.

[olkaz]

6. Never going to happen with Burris.

I'm curious as to the scenario you are envisioning however.

[bigwillq]

26. He gets seated.

And then another DEM runs in 2010 in the primary against Burris, assuming Burris will run. Pretty simple. Another DEM will likely challenge whomever gets the seat now in 2010 anyway.

[olkaz]

35. Okay, yeah, not gonna happen.

That would be an insanely bloody primary, and a Republican wins.

[bigwillq]

38. Someone will most likely run in the DEM primary

no matter whom is seated now.

[olkaz]

39. That's what I was saying.

The Dem primary would be a bloodbath, and whoever "wins" it will get smoked by Mark Kirk.

[bigwillq]

41. And what is your solution? (nt)

[olkaz]

43. Delay as long as possible, impeach Blagojevich, let Quinn appoint.

If that worked out, the 2010 election would be much more winnable.

[JFKfanforever]

71. Agreed. (Best post of this thread!)

"Seat and move on..."  Exactly!

[grantcart]

3. I would be curious to see a poll of IL Duers

[WeDidIt]

5. I'm an IL DUer

I say nay.

[hfojvt]

8. Why not? Supposedly you want any Dem. So why not B & B? n/t

[WeDidIt]

11. The appointment process that ended up with Burris was CROOKED

That's why.

Oh, and I want a Dem in 2010. If Burris is seated, MArk Kirk will be the Illinois Senator come January 3, 2011.

[Captain Hilts]

15. The process is fine. The governor is not. But until they do something about him, it is what it is.

[WeDidIt]

19. No, the process was not "fine"

Legitimate candidates were rejected for consideration because they wouldn't cross Blagojevich's palm with cash.

No appointment after that can be legitmate.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Then charge him with a crime. nt

[WeDidIt]

23. He's been charged with a crime

All that's left is an indictment.

[Captain Hilts]

24. He's still the governor. It sucks. But he is. nt

[WeDidIt]

28. But a crooked process can be overturned by the Senate

At least, that's Reid's interpretation of Article 1 Section 5 of the constitution.

And that specific argument has never been tested.

[Beausoleil]

50. In most jurisdictions

the charging instrument is an indictment. How is IL different in that he's been "charged" but not indicted? AFAIK he's only been accused.

[hfojvt]

27. What is a legitimate candidate?

Is there an Illinois version of Caroline Kennedy? If Burris is that bad, then beat him in the 2010 primary.

[olkaz]

36. Don't worry, the Republicans will do just that.

We'll try to run somebody in the primary against him, but it'll be a bloody race, and the winner will be the loser to Republican Mark Kirk.

If we had gotten somebody free from all this, we would have had a chance.

[rpannier]

33. Illinois voter

No

[Captain Hilts]

4. Yes. Gov. not indicted or jailed. He named Burris. SoS has no right to deny appt. Seat him.

It's the way the dominoes of this procedure fall.

Until IL does something about Blago, this is how it works.

The only person allowed discretion in this equation is Blago.

[Bucky]

7. It sucks, but it's the law.

Sadly, inevitably, the appointment went to whoever was best able to ignore the indignity of accepting an appointment from a crook.

Sorry, I mean "alleged crook."

 

[SteppingRazor]

9. Yes. Law's the law.

Of course, he could be seated and then quickly expelled. :shrug:

[DailyGrind51]

10. He's 71, to let him stand is just plain rude!

:sarcasm:

[sui generis]

12. what's the hurry

provisionally yes though.

The issue is we didn't move fast enough or with enough authority to prevent it from happening. This is what happens.

The only argument I really despise is the "sense of urgency" as a reason to

1. fast track a senator
2. close down vote recounts in Florida in 2000 and 2004
3. do anything in government that requires an irrevocable appointment to result

Because if THAT were the case, Obama should appoint every open bench during legislative recess, due to "urgency".

[MoonRiver]

16. Is it urgent?

I don't know, except that we might want as many Democratic votes as possible to pass the very quickly coming progressive legislation. Other than that, let's just lay back and take a snooze.

[sui generis]

30. if it were up to me

I'd have mounted a special legislative session to unseat the governor effective immediately. But that's because sweet gentle type-A assholes like myself don't snooze, or mischaracterize ourselves as anything but.

Is it urgent? The question is irrelevant. The window of opportunity for "urgency" has passed and it is what it is now.

The sky is NOT falling.

[MADem]

13. He should definitely be seated.

The governor has not been convicted of anything.

The governor has a right, absent his being removed from office, to appoint Burris.

Burris has a good reputation. He has no scandals associated with his name.

The requirement for a countersignature on his documents is not hard-n-fast.

Reid is looking like a bully and an asshole for denying him.

The race factor, like it or not, is a "perception" issue. The pictures look TERRIBLE for the party.

If the DNC doesn't want this guy to keep the seat, they can simply fuck him over by backing a primary challenger, or steer donors in the direction of a primary challenger.

Why they are making such a stink about this, I have NO IDEA. It's a lose-lose.

We ARE about the rule of law. Why are we ignoring the rule of law when it comes to Blago? Simply because we "know" he's corrupt? That's pretty shitty, IMO. We wouldn't go along with that if someone accused Obama of a crime, after all. We don't convict BEFORE the trial, after all.

What will we do if he's exonerated of all charges?

[WeDidIt]

18. If Burris is seated, NO MATTER WHAT, Mark Kirk will be Senator in 2011

That's how Illinois politics works.

If Burris is seated he is a proxy for Blagojevich all the way through the 2010 elections which will result in doing to the IL Democratic PArty what George Ryan did to the IL GOP.

Take it to the bank. If you seat Burris, Illinois goes FULL OUT BLOODY RED come the elections of 2010 and will stay there for at least a decade.

[MADem]

29. Are you suggesting that the President of the United States has no influence over politics in his own

home state?

All that DNC movement to IL is for naught?

Even if Blago is convicted LATER, he's not convicted now.

I think ignoring the rule of law isn't something we should get in the habit of doing. After all, this is how it starts. You shave a little here, you cut a corner there. "Oh well, he was a crook anyway." That just doesn't cut it, to me. It's Bush-esque.

Blago has not been convicted. His powers have NOT been constrained. You don't convict people in the press, with rumor or innuendo, no matter how guilty they may "seem."

I think this could be the first entry in a list of "Democratic Excesses" if we don't get a grip, and realize that it's important to follow the rule of law, no matter how difficult a road it might be.


I don't claim to be an expert on IL politics, by any stretch. I do have a sense of how this is playing on the national level. I haven't spoken to anyone who:

--Doesn't think Blago is a crook or a bum.
--Thinks he should be convicted in the court of public opinion before he is even tried.
--Thinks Reid did the right thing.
--Thinks the "Black Mister Smith Goes to Washington" (honest man appointed by corrupt governor) should not be seated.

I say seat him, and see how it goes. That's just my personal view. I think he'll vote the party line, pretty much. He won't make waves. He'll finish out the term. If he tries to run again, well, that's when an assessment will have to be made. Back him, or fire up JJJr. to challenge him for the Dem nom?

[rpannier]

47. You're definately not an Illinois resident

Because much of Illinois does think Reid and the 49+ other Senators who don't want a Blago appointee seated are correct.
He shouldn't be seated.
My father who has nasty habit of usually voting for the winner (at almost every level since 1964) has said he will NOT vote for the Dem nominee in 2010 if it's the Blago appointee.
Many people in the QC Area of Illinois (a Democratic bastion) are outraged and would consider voting repub in 2010.

[MADem]

53. Well, like it or not, it looks like it's happening.

Funny how Senator Feinstein changed her mind about this. First she was against it. THEN...right after Obama called her to apologize for not clueing her in about the Panetta appointment, she reversed herself.

If you don't think that Obama's hand isn't on the tiller, lightly and through surrogates, with regard to the change in attitude about Burris that has happened in the last day, I have a bridge to sell you.

[rpannier]

61. I have no doubt your correct

But in the long run it's politically damaging in Illinois to do so.
But Blago has been almost nothing but damaging for the state.

[MADem]

62. Blago is an ass, no doubt. And bad for the state, sure.

But the rule of law is the rule of law. You can't convict before the trial, that's my main point.

[rpannier]

69. I understand that

I think I've discussed this with you before -- I did with someone.

And I don't dispute that

[Blarch]

56. You have proven you don't know what you are talking about.

Don't burn your lips on the crack pipe.

[Captain Hilts]

46. Ignoring the law is the Bush Admin. way of doing things. We got to suck on it and like it this time

[uponit7771]

14. I don't trust Fitz since the Blago hasn't been formally charged 30 days after complaint filed. ...

...Fitz had something really actionable he wouldn't need to search for shit.

Blago is an asshole but that's not illegal in this country

[PurityOfEssence]

17. You mean I can't vote "present"?

The answer is yes. It's the law.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Now, THAT's funny! AND an Illinois senate tradition!

[MADem]

31. I second that chuckle! nt

[MoonRiver]

21. Oh, dear. I forgot to mention I failed Parliamentarian 101.

My bad :spank:

[TheKentuckian]

25. Legally there is little doubt but of course I'd rather it not be

someone appointed by Blagovich.

[rhombus]

32. The man is a joke

Anyone who would take this position under such a huge cloud is not fit for office.

[cyclezealot]

34. Because he won't hold the seats after the next election.

He's a lousy choice. Blogo is really probably screwing with the party, blaming them for having had his corruption .. So why should we reinforce that corrupt lousy choice , which will likely lead to defeat.

[kevsand]

37. The law seems overwhelmingly on his side.

Doesn't mean I like it much, but the law is the law.

[Captain Hilts]

44. We're a nation of laws, not men. That includes Illinois. Right now, it sucks, but that's the -

principle that the Bush Admin violated repeatedly.

We're the good guys.

[rpannier]

48. The case law appears to side with those in the Senate who will not seat him

The Senate apparantly does have the right not to seat him

[kevsand]

52. No, they only have the right to review it and render a decision.

It's splitting hairs, I know, but they do not have an automatic right to reject. They have a right to review, and if they decide to reject, they must justify that decision publicly, and possibly even to a court of law.

Many of us believe that, in order to actually deny it, they would have to make some stuff up, because there is no provable reason for denial. Merely alleging "taint" without any actual fault in the appointment itself or of the appointee is too broad a non-standard to allow to stand as a future precedent.

As a side note, this same governor has now called a special election to replace Rahm, and the Ill. Secretary of State signed that certificate without question. Should the U.S. House automatically reject whomever wins that election, merely because it was called by a "tainted" governor?

Of course not. There would have to be some evidence that the person winning the election did something wrong, or that the election itself was somehow demonstrably compromised. Same thing with appointments. The appointment itself must be corrupt in order to block it, not just the appointer.

They have the right to review it all they want, but eventually they are probably going to have to seat him, and Reid all but said as much this morning.

[Onlooker]

40. Perfect case for the right-wing Supreme Court to decide

I think the Democrats are handling this beautifully. The Senate is trying to set an ethical example, after 8 years of lapse after lapse by the Republicans. So, now let the issue go the right-wing Republican Supreme Court and, when they rule that Burris must be seated, the Dems will be be able to spin it to reinforce the fact that the Republican Party is morally corrupt, regardless of the Supreme Court's reasoning.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. If their "ethical example" were not so utterly contemptuous of law it might go over better.

[Colobo]

45. To seat Burris is to legitimize Blago.

[Marrah_G]

49. Definite No from me.

The Illinois state senate needs to fucking impeach Blago Yesterday.

[andlor]

51. Illinois voter

Yea!

[Uzybone]

54. At this point in the game, YEA

unless we have hard evidence of shenanigans with Blago, he will be seated. And this fucking story will go away.

[depakid]

55. The only place I want to see Burris seated is in federal prison

[Blarch]

57. LOL.

Now you want Burris jailed ?

For what ?

[IndianaGreen]

58. Why prison, because he is Black?

There is no evidence, or even whiff, that Burris was involved in Blago's machinations. The law backs Burris, deal with it! Burris made Reid look like an idiot. Burris is not Blago. Blago called Reid's bluff.

[depakid]

59. That's right- pull the race card

I suspect the guy's corrupt- but more to the point, he attempted to execute a man he had good reason to know was innocent, even after his own Deputy Attorney General and the lead detective resigned rather than pursue the case.

Figure that's worth a few years in Club Fed....

[MADem]

63. He has never been convicted of any wrongdoing or involved in any scandal.

You want to convict the guy based on what you think he may have known and your own opinion.

Doesn't work that way.

[depakid]

64. I guess attempting executing innocent people doesn't bother many folks on DU

(not that I don't also suspect that he's corrupt- but that's run of the mill stuff in Illinois).

[MADem]

65. "Attempting."

Did he succeed, or did that "rule of law" prevail?

[depakid]

66. The point is that he TRIED HARD simply to further his career

and get elected governor. This despite compelling evidence- and the resignation of the Deputy AG.

Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised he wasn't disciplined by the bar.

[MADem]

68. But he didn't succeed.

Like it or not, he didn't get convicted of breaking any laws for trying. And unless you're him, you don't know what he was thinking. There's really not much the bar could do, absent, say, a WIRETAP where he said he was going to kill an innocent man to further his career.

I don't think he is necessarily the best candidate for the Senate seat, but he's the one that the Governor, who hasn't been convicted of anything yet, either, picked. And it looks like he'll be warming the seat for the next two years at least.

[depakid]

70. There's plenty the bar could have done

His behavior violated ethical rules.

Here's the rundown:

Public fury over the governor’s alleged misconduct has masked the once lively debate over Burris' decision to continue to prosecute the wrong man – despite the objections of one of his top prosecutors – for a high-profile murder case.

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 assistant 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.

"Anybody who understood this case wouldn’t have voted for Burris," Rob Warden, executive director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, told ProPublica. Indeed, Burris lost that race, and two other attempts to become governor.

Burris’ role in the Cruz case was "indefensible and in defiance of common sense and common decency," Warden said. "There was obvious evidence that Cruz was innocent."

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

<snip>

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

And rather than argue Burris’ case before the state supreme court, Kenney also stepped down.

"What I took away was that Burris wasn’t going to do anything to seem soft on crime," Kenney said. "He didn’t have the guts."

In her resignation letter, Kenney claimed Burris had "seen fit to ignore the evidence in this case."

"I cannot sit idly by as this office continues to pursue the unjust prosecution of Rolando Cruz," she wrote. "I realized that I was being asked to help execute an innocent man."

http://www.propublica.org/article/in-90s-burris-sought-death-penalty-for-innocent-man-1231

This guy deserves time in Club Fed- not Club Senate.

[MADem]

72. He wasn't censured though. I'd say "displayed poor judgment" is about all you can hang on him,

based on that account. I agree he's no prize, but Club Fed? A bit much. And his poor judgment didn't prevail...

Burris' response at the time: "It is not for me to place my judgment over a jury, regardless of what I think." (We have also left a message for Burris at his office and will post an update if we hear back.)

Local prosecutors carried on with the prosecution, even after DNA evidence in 1995 excluded Cruz as the victim's rapist and linked somebody else—sex offender Brian Dugan–to the crime.

Eventually, prosecutors’ case hit a wall. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed Cruz's conviction and granted him a third trial. (The court declared that the trial judge in the case had improperly excluded Dugan’s confession, and thus compromised Cruz's defense.) In the new trial, Cruz was acquitted. The judge in that case concluded, "I'd hope and pray the person or persons - whoever is culpable - is brought to justice."

In late 1995, Cruz finally walked free after serving nearly 11 years on death row for a crime he did not commit.

A grand jury later indicted four sheriff's deputies and three former county prosecutors for their roles in the Cruz case. They were eventually acquitted. Burris was never accused of any wrongdoing or misconduct. Dugan is scheduled <2> to stand trial for the crime next year, 26 years after it was committed.

[bigwillq]

60. For what?

:shrug:

[rpannier]

75. He was part of the Illionois 'Judicial Establishment' that tried to pressure the Courts

into executing Rolando Cruz, even though the evidence was flimsy at best.

It was 'discovered', through the work of the Innocence Project, that Cruz was not guilty.

Had people like Burris had their way Cruz would be dead now.

For me, this is part of the problem of having made these kinds of cases about the surviving family members rather than about the law.

Burris has never been censured or anything else for his part in the matter.

I'm not sure he belongs in prison.

For me, he is part of what is wrong with the legal system in this country

[truthisfreedom]

67. Yes but conditional on his having no dirty connections to blag.

I don't know how they're supposed to investigate this guy's connections, but seriously, it could be a terrible trap. Blag may know something about this guy that will sabotage the whole deal.

[Phoonzang]

73. I was strongly against at first but now I just want it over and done with.

I don't care anymore just seat the jackass. Also pick Caroline or Cuomo or whoever. Just FINISH all the shit before the inauguration. This stupid party can't even keep it's shit together after winning a major victory. A fucking laughing stock. Ug....I need a drink. :beer:

Ok....that's better. So....we got rid of Bush and we have a new Democratic administration yay!!!!

[Occam Bandage]

74. Yes. But I hate it. nt

[w4rma]

76. No. And noone should be rushing this, either. Especially with Burris set to testify at Blago's

impeachment, tomorrow.

[AZBlue]

77. There may not be a middle ground, but there's a big IF: if he's been ratified by the IL SoS.

If he has, then yea.
If he hasn't, then nay.