Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has defied his critics and selected Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama. There is now speculation that the Secretary of State will not certify the appointment or that the Senate will use its inherent powers to block Burris. I just finished an interview with CBS stating that I believe both efforts would be an abuse of power. As the sitting governor of Illinois, Blagojevich is entitled to make this appointment.
Burris, 71, also a Democrat, served Illinois as state comptroller and later as attorney general.
In a statement released Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said it was “truly regrettable that … Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety. We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat.”
The suggestion that the Senate might block the appointment is disturbing. The rarely used power to refuse to seat a member is confined to true election controversies where votes were not counted or elections were unfair. There is nothing illegitimate about this appointment. Regardless of how members may feel about Blagojevich, he is the unimpeached, unconvicted governor of Illinois. There is no allegations that Burris purchased this seat. Indeed, it would suicidal for Blagojevich to engage in such a quid pro quo in the face of a federal indictment.
Some have pointed to the case of Theodore Bilbo as an example of the Senate barring a controversial members. It would be ironic if Burris (an african american politician) where to be painted with the same brush as Bilbo, a vile racist and bigot. Burris is no Bilbo and this is not a good case of precedent for his denial. Bilbo was on his third term when there was the fight over his credentials. He was a vile racist who was accused of inciting violence to keep blacks from voting. I consider that to be a legitimate election controversy. There is nothing illegitimate about this appointment; there is no cognizable claim that Burris is not properly a member of the Senate. By the way, the problem is the Bilbo fight is that other Southern senators could have been accused of benefiting from suppression tactics of that kind. Bilbo ultimately died of cancer before the matter was resolved.
A more likely move would be to allow Burris to be sworn in while calling for an investigation to save face for the Democrats.
The same is true with the suggested refusal of the Secretary of State Jesse White to certify the appoint. Such an act would be based on the Secretary’s assumption of corruption. Absent impeachment or a criminal conviction, it is hard to see the authority for such an obstructionist position.
Burris is the next and legitimate senator from Illinois because he was appointed by the current and legitimate governor of Illinois. The rest is political posturing in my view.
The move may have a marginal benefit legally for Blagojevich. At his trial, he will be able to show that Burris was in the running from the start and ultimately did receive the seat without any allegation of corruption. This may strengthen the defense that all politicians explore how the use of political power will benefit them. Bill Clinton pardoned his own brother and a series of campaign contributors. In this conspiracy, Blagojevich will be able to show it was just a type of political trash talk. It will ultimately depend on those tapes and there may be some highly damaging parts since Fitzgerald seems eager to have legislators listen to them.
For the latest on the story, click here.
JT-
“The suggestion that the Senate might block the appointment is disturbing. The rarely used power to refuse to seat a member is confined to true election controversies where votes were not counted or elections were unfair. There is nothing illegitimate about this appointment. Regardless of how members may feel about Blagojevich, he is the unimpeached, unconvicted governor of Illinois. There is no allegations that Burris purchased this seat. Indeed, it would suicidal for Blagojevich to engage in such a quid pro quo in the face of a federal indictment.”
Ok, I’m confused Professor. Why is this case any different than the republican led Senates refusal to seat Theodore G. Bilbo to the Senate in 1946 over being suspected of inciting violence against blacks. He was surely guilty like Blagojevich appears to be, but like Blagojevich he had not been found guilty of anything.
Now I understand this isn’t Burris who is under direct suspicion for corruption but his appointing Governor but still doesn’t the Senate have a right to make that judgment call? There’s the obvious argument for guilt by association, at least the possibility thereof so wouldn’t it be within the Senates right to refuse to seat Burris based on the clear indications of corruption from his Governor?
And if the argument is that its not Burris but the Senates imposing conditions based on the appointing Governor, then hasn’t that also been done when the Senate stonewalled the Alabama Governors appointment of Henry Clayton to fill a Senate seat left vacant by the death of Senator Joesph Johnston and then by refusing to seat Franklin Glass after Clayton withdrew. Both times the Senate defied a Governors appointment so I’m trying to understand what about this case makes it so different. The evidence particularly the audio seem to point to Blagojevich being pretty much guilty of corruption on a really horrific level, so isn’t it within the power of the Senate to refuse to recognize the appointment of a Governor who they feel is not only corrupt, but corrupt in direct relation to the process they are refusing to sanction?
Please understand I’m not trying to be argumentative here I’m just trying to understand why you see this as different.
Prof. Turley,
I agree with you that if Jesse White refuses to certify that he would be going beyond his authority to do so. I think the reason why Blagojevich chose Burris is to try to take the heat off and to force the hands of the Illinois legislature. I don’t think they will impeach him in time to prevent the U.S. Senate from taking their action to block him. It would be an interesting situation to see how the Senate refuses a duly appointed representative. This will probably end up in the courts and I don’t think the Senate will win. Nor will the people of Illinois.
And my question pivots on the nature of the offense. If Blagojevich had been indicted on some offense not related to the appointment of Senator Obama’s senate seat then I could see the opposition to the Senates refusal to seat Burris. But given that the indictment is in direct relation to Blagojevich actually trying to sell this particular senate seat wouldn’t that just justify him being at least temporarily being refused to make the appointment? At least till his case is adjudicated?
You can play cards with a guy suspected of cheating on his wife. But a guy suspected of cheating at cards would be rightfully so denied a seat at the poker table, much less invited to deal the next hand.
In my view Burris should accept the appointment until Blagojevich either is impeached or resigns and then promptly resign his post in the Senate. That would permit the new governor to make a new interim appointment and would cast Burris as patriot rather than serving under a taint of corruption. It is always difficult to give up power for the nation’s good. But it should be consolation that of all the famous Romans we know, Cincinnatus is still remembered (and honored) for doing just that. Call me Pollyanna.
In just the last six months Democrats have proven themselves to be more corrupt than the Republicans did in six years!
Now we have 700 billion dollars going to Democrat party special interests as payback for campaign support.
British paper cranky at Obama for playing golf while Gaza burns
December 30, 2008
The American media rises above such pettiness, of course, content instead to admire the uber-coolness of his shorts.
He joined a group of friends at a private club near his £6million rented, beach-front holiday home in Hawaii yesterday.
Meanwhile, 9,000 miles away in the Middle East, Israel rejected any truce with Hamas today and said it was ready for ‘long weeks of action’ in the Gaza Strip…
Mr Obama has made the decision to leave all comments to outgoing President George Bush, who has so far chosen only to attack Hamas.
On the golf course, his security team even turned away a letter from pro-Palestinian campaigners urging him to help stop the four-day-old violence.
It’s a further gloss on the boss’s point about how workout regimens magically shift from “creepy” to “disciplined” when it’s Obama doing the push-ups instead of Bush: When Dubya plays a round while bombs fall in the Middle East, he’s lazy and callous, but when The One does it, he’s taking a much-needed break from the rigors of planning to run the free world. Like Geraghty, I don’t begrudge him the respite — after two years of campaigning and with tough times to come, he needs it — but there is of course the tender matter of how the left’s beloved “international community” is perceiving this. Answer, per Reuters’s anecdotal evidence: Not real well.
What have we gotten with Democrats controlling Congress for two years now? We have a trillion dollar deficit for 2009 and a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit for 2010.
If you want to wrongly continue blaming Bush for the deficit, read the US Constitution and the powers of Congress vs the President.
That is, if you can read.
2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
The Daily Telegraph.
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 5:51PM GMT 27 Dec 2008
The first, on May 21, headed “Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts” , reported that the entire Alpine “winter sports industry” could soon “grind to a halt for lack of snow”. The second, on December 19, headed “The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation” , reported that this winter’s Alpine snowfalls “look set to beat all records by New Year’s Day”.
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flat lining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the “hottest in history” and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to happen.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008 Story last updated at 12/30/2008 – 9:22 am
Temperatures could drop to record 50 below zero in parts of Alaska
The Associated Press
FAIRBANKS – Record bitterly cold weather slid over from Canada and settled into Interior Alaska with forecasters saying temperatures could continue to slide to nearly 50 degrees below zero in coming days.
Over the weekend, the mercury at Fairbanks International Airport dropped to 39 degrees below zero. Areas in the Interior outside the city were even colder; 46 below on the Yukon Flats, 41 below in Fort Yukon and 44 below in Central, according to the weather service.
Waynebro:
I do not believe that the Bilbo case is particularly good support for Reid. Bilbo was on his third term when there was the fight over his credentials. He was a vile racist who was accused of inciting violence to keep blacks from voting. I consider that to be a legitimate election controversy. There is nothing illegitimate about this appointment; there is no cognizable claim that Burris is not properly a member of the Senate. By the way, the problem is the Bilbo fight is that other Southern senators could have been accused of benefiting from suppression tactics of that kind.
Mespo,
Your scenario would be interesting, but I agree that it might be wishful thinking. Burris has been a pretty solid Dem in the past, but the best part of his career is behind him.
Rachael Maddow Criticizes Lack of ‘Proportionality’ to Israel Hitting Hamas — While Exaggerating Civilian Deaths
By Jack Coleman (Bio | Archive)
December 30, 2008 – 17:25 ET
Here’s what Maddow imparted to her Air America Radio listeners on Monday –
But while we’re on the wild wide world of scary tour, of course, Israel has started another war. A third straight day of airstrikes on Gaza, the death toll now more than 300 people. Israel says they are doing this to prevent Palestinians from firing rockets into southern Israel. First of all, there’s the question of proportionality as to how many people those rockets have killed versus how many people the Israeli bombing has now killed. There’s also the issue of effectiveness. In the midst of this massive air assault killing hundreds of civilians in Gaza, a rocket fired from Gaza today killed a man and wounded seven in the Israeli town of Ashkelon. Effectiveness. Three Israelis were also stabbed by a Palestinian in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank today. Is there a military solution to this problem?
In a manner akin to Barney Fife charging a mugging victim with assault for swinging back, Maddow blames Israel for having “started” another war, instead of citing the undeniable aggressor — Hamas. But what lowers Maddow’s comments to the contemptible is her condemnation of Israel for alleged lack of “proportionality” in response to Hamas’ aggression — while Maddow exaggerates the number of civilian deaths caused by the Israeli counterattack.
News reports out of Gaza, such as the following excerpt from a story earlier today in the International Herald News, don’t come anywhere near Maddow’s claim of “hundreds of civilians” killed by Israel –
So far, more than 350 Palestinians – about 60 of them civilians – have been killed, according to the United Nations. Four Israelis – three civilians and a soldier – have died.
You’d think being able to say “dozens” or “scores” of civilian deaths in Gaza would suffice for Air America propagandists, but apparently this level of carnage doesn’t meet their standards.
As 2008 draws to a close, Maddow has received abundant praise from likeminded quarters for her rapid ascension in the punditrocracy. Among critics outside the chorus, however, is CNN anchor-reporter Anderson Cooper, who had this to say to the Los Angeles Times —
LA TIMES: This year we saw the rise of Rachel Maddow and Campbell Brown — very opinionated. You haven’t succumbed too much. Do you have plans to?
COOPER: I have no plans to, no. I think those people are really good at what they do. Rachel Maddow is an incredible talent — she’s funny, and smart, obviously well researched on subjects. I’m just not interested as a viewer in listening to anchors’ opinions. It seems like there’s an awful lot of yelling, and this year yelling’s been replaced by sarcasm and snarkiness.
Cooper’s criticism of Maddow was picked up by wowOwow, “The Women on the Web” blog. I was struck by one of the comments to the post –
Commentators and reporters are two different things and comparing the two is ridiculous and a non-issue. The fact that Cooper would require a commentator like Maddow to act like a news reporter makes me question his understanding of the news media. It’s not her job to act like Cooper. It’s not Cooper’s job to act like Maddow. This is a non-issue.
To which I say, couldn’t agree more. Maddow is a commentator, not a straight news reporter (no pun intended), nor an anchor. She is free to pontificate about whatever she wants and, to her credit, could hardly be more transparent in her politics.
But this doesn’t mean Maddow can create her own facts, which she did on Monday — and not for the first time.
MR. TURLEY SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF BEING ON THIS PERSON’S SHOW WHEN SHE CONSTANTLY AND FLATLY LIES TO THE SMALL AUDIENCE SHE HAS. MR. TURLEY, HAVE YOU NO PRINCIPLES?
‘The move may have a marginal benefit legally for Blagojevich. At his trial, he will be able to show that Burris was in the running from the start and ultimately did receive the seat without any allegation of corruption.’
—-
JT, I find your argument to be the most persuasive and also agree with mespo that Burris should, unfortunately, seriously consider stepping aside, after appointment of the new Governor, so as to remove all clouds of doubt as to the legitimacy of the interim appointment of Obama’s vacancy in the Illinois Senatorial seat.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Australian MP: BAN TOPLESS BEACHES TO PROTECT MUSLIMS
An Australian MP wants to ban topless bathing in order to protect muslims. Mr. Nile stated that topless bathing risked “raising the ire of Muslim men”.
The MP says he wants topless bathing banned in NSW to protect Sydney’s Muslim and Asian communities.
“Our beaches should be a place where no one is offended, whether it’s their religious or cultural views,” he said.
“If they’ve come from a Middle Eastern or Asian country where women never go topless – in fact they usually wear a lot of clothing – I think it’s important to respect all the different cultures that make up Australia.”
The practice was at risk of raising the ire of Muslim men in particular, Mr Nile said.
WELL, WELL, WELL, TALK ABOUT LOSING FREEDOMS…
MSNBC is such a suck channel.
jonathanturley 1, December 30, 2008 at 9:08 pm
“Waynebro:
I do not believe that the Bilbo case is particularly good support for Reid. Bilbo was on his third term when there was the fight over his credentials. He was a vile racist who was accused of inciting violence to keep blacks from voting. I consider that to be a legitimate election controversy. There is nothing illegitimate about this appointment; there is no cognizable claim that Burris is not properly a member of the Senate. By the way, the problem is the Bilbo fight is that other Southern senators could have been accused of benefiting from suppression tactics of that kind.”
I understand there are differences between the two examples, I was leaning more towards the similarity in that both refusals to seat rested on a suspected or accused criminal act as opposed to one dealt already proven in court to address the argument that he Blagojevich hasn’t yet been convicted of anything.
Also I notice you didn’t mention the senates refusal to seat Franklin Glass. That one seems to demonstrate the Senates right to address not just the appointee, but the Governor making the appointment. In that case it was to fill a seat left vacant by death of the former occupant and in this case its to fill a seat left vacant by a promotion, so to speak. But they both focus on the governor making the appointment and not the appointee.
And given that this case deals directly with the seat being filled, that is the Governor is under suspicion for trying to sell that particular seat, it seems to me like Congress is just doing their job by refusing to seat an appointment made under these specific circumstances. I think the idea mespo came up with of the Governor stepping aside and letting the LT Governor make the appointment would be a good solution. Does that make sense and if not what I am missing here?
And by the way I have no problem with Burris at this point as he seems like a reasonable selection. But if the Lt Governor made the appointment wouldn’t that be a better than having Burris go in being appointed by a guy who may be found guilty of trying to sell that very appointment?
Please don’t get mad at me for questioning this. I know I’m a pain sometimes but I really am confused on this one.
CCD,
December 9, 2008 at 11:32 am
“This soiled man cannot resign from office fast enough. He will defend himself, but he has no integrity. The mechanics of filling the vacated senate seat are unclear, if he doesn’t step down swiftly.”
The soiled guy is playing a game of defiant political chess. The question is why did Roland Burris accept the nomination? Burris is an honorable man, why play ball with Governor ‘Dead Meat’ Blagojevich?
‘Dead Meat’ serves no one but himself with this action. The Illinois Legislature can’t impeach him fast enough! U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald can’t indict him fast enough! Governor ‘Dead Meat’ is experiencing due process. It’s expensive to everyone, the Illinois bond rating was revised down two weeks ago. Yet luxurious at the same time, because due process is moving ahead. We live in a truly great country! Corrupt pols and all.
I’m so appreciative of the balanced, level opinions stated here beginning with JT. Mespo, allow me to quote you directly: “When is laundry day for Bush et crooks? I would modify your statement to “everything comes out in the wash, if you have the guts to do the job.”
Obviously I don’t know the schedule for Bush Co. but it will come. Americans have the guts; U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has what it takes, but I deviate.
‘The move may have a marginal benefit legally for Blagojevich. At his trial, he will be able to show that Burris was in the running from the start and ultimately did receive the seat without any allegation of corruption.’
—-
Again, JT, I find your argument to be the most persuasive and also agree with mespo that Burris should, unfortunately, seriously consider stepping aside, after appointment of the new Governor, so as to remove all clouds of doubt as to the legitimacy of the interim appointment of Obama’s vacancy in the Illinois Senatorial seat.
Ok, sorry Professor Turley, I see why you didn’t mention the case of Henry Clayton and Franklin glass. I overlooked the fact that the Governor tried to make the appointment prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment.
oops.
Correction. The 17th Amendment was ratified but the state legislature had not yet passed a law giving the Governor power to make the appointment.
Ok, I had to work it out but I see now what you’re saying now. There really is no good precedent for congress denying the appointment by a Governor to fill a vacant seat in the Senate so the Senate would be violating the 17th Amendment unless they could show something was wrong with the candidate for the appointment like a known felon or someone known to be of bad character. Of course even then theres no prohibition from a convicted felon serving in the Senate as we learned with Ted Stevens so even then they’d have to have extraordinary grounds.
Bilbo was extraordinary grounds because his racism was common knowledge but Blagojevich you feel theres still a benefit of the doubt, thus he is Governor and the 17th Amendment says he can appoint someone to the seat.
I guess the only argument I would offer at this point would be that while Bilbo was known for being a racist and suspected of a crime, he was still not yet convicted of one, yet the Senate refused to seat him. Blagovich also has not been convicted of a crime yet we can’t say his crimes aren’t pretty much common knowledge. We hear him on the tapes trying to sell the seat. It sure sounds like that to me. But since we haven’t heard the entire tapes we can’t determine that completely. He may in the next segment of the tape that we haven’t heard yet declare “I’m jus kiddddinnnnngggg”. I’m joking of course but words to that effect could change the intent so I can see that effectively without some disposition on this case he’s technically still the Governor and the Constitution says he gets to appoint someone to fill a senate vacancy in his state. I’d still argue that given the nature of the suspected offense and its relationship to the appointment in question that it would be better if his deputy made the appointment but I can see that constitutionally speaking Burris is the new Junior Senator from Illinois.
I guess the real underlying fear in the Senate blocking appointments like this is allowing the Senate to deny appointments or elected officials would essentially give the Senate the power to structure itself.
Well after seeing that incredible and pathetic press conference where Burris was named the appointee by the Governor-for-hire, and hearing him speak with the aid of his pious friend, Rep. Bobby Rush, ex-Black Panther and apparently present day race baiter, I have modified my position. I now am certain the Senate should interdict the entire State of Illinois until such time as the Governor-for-Hire is out of there and then call a special election to fill the seat. Chicago politics is crazy, but this is just plain stupid and Mr. Burris appears to have all the political and intellectual acumen of the current resident of that big white house on the opposite end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol.
‘I now am certain the Senate should interdict the entire State of Illinois until such time as the Governor-for-Hire is out of there and then call a special election to fill the seat.’
—–
Me too, mespo. I watched Burris on Rachel.
The look on her face undoubtedly mirrored my own.
Mespo and Patty C -
My sentiments exactly. This thing stinks. Their argument boils down to, “It may not be right, but it’s legal.”
Sure it is, and it still stinks.
Everybody on MSNBC sucks especially Olbermann & his side kick Maddow.
I pretty much agree with Professor Turley, but here’s my reasoning.
1. Blago has not been indicted except by the playing of the tape.
2. He is the current legal Governor, despite calls for his removal.
3. Mr. Fitzgerald proved in the Libby case that he takes a long time with his cases.
4. Illinois would not have full Senate representation until the case is settled, which with Fitzgerald could take at least a year.
5. The Illinois Legislature does not appear that it will impeach Blago anytime soon and they have no evidence other than Fitzgerald’s tape anyway.
6. Despite econiums from the MSM, in my opinion Fitzgerald’s handling of the Plame case did not prove non-partisanship. In fact he dragged it out and in the end focused only on Libby, when we know there were higher ups involved. his actions may be political.
7. While the release of the tapes seems damning, their release was in fact a typical prosecutorial tactic of pre-trying cases and I think was irresponsible failing an indictment being issued.
8. One is still innocent until proven guilty in this country despite the MSM’s obvious presumption of blago’s guilt due to tape release.
9. In these times Illinois can not afford to have only one Senator for perhaps more than a year.
I live in Illinois. I lived in Chicago for 10 years. Unfortunately I have found that in Chicago, it is the prevailing opinion among voters that a little corruption is a good thing. That attitude has allowed the Chicago political machine to become so corrupt that in is almost impossible to find a truly honest civic leader. The people of Illinois are complicit with the crimes of it’s leaders. Until we refuse to have anything to do with dishonesty at any level, we will continue to play out stories like this over and over again.
Mike Spindell:
I’d like to agree with you and JT, and from a legal perspective you both are correct. It is simply that acting in accord with the law is the bare minimum standard of conduct not its zenith. I hold our leaders to a position somewhere closer to the middle.
mespo,
I don’t understand your phrase about the middle. Sorry, I’m slow this A.M. I think Mike and JT are correct. I also think everyone’s comments on extreme corruption are completely accurate. I also heard the comment about “lynching” which I felt was over the top and disgusting. The thing I can’t figure out is why this extremely corrupt group of senators got religion on this issue. There’s so many times they should have been worried about corruption and bad actions, why this one? Refusing to seat is also in line with this group’s willingness to ignore the law and I don’t think they should be encouraged in that direction. I worry about the senate claiming one more exemption from the rule of law more than I worry about seating this guy.
Mike,
I’m glad you brought up Fitzgerald. I don’t think he took that investigation nearly far enough either.
I liked your list Mike. That helped me put it in perspective.
Jill 1, December 31, 2008 at 10:23 am
“The thing I can’t figure out is why this extremely corrupt group of senators got religion on this issue. There’s so many times they should have been worried about corruption and bad actions, why this one”
That one is one that was puzzling me too. When it looked like Ted Stevens was going to win his reelection no one in the Senate leadership seemed to indicate they planned on not seating him. In fact the talk seemed to the contrary. It seemed like had he won he would have been given his seat. Some Senate members made some grumblings but the leadership seemed to be fine with a convicted felon returning to the senate. So yes, it does seem odd that they’d be so ready to refuse to seat Burris over corruption accusations against the governor seating him.
Like I said I think it stems back to the nature of the suspected offense being directly related to the appointment, but still it is noteworthy that they didn’t seem to have a problem seating Ted Stevens.
Jonathan,
What would be your analysis of this from Harry Reid’s lawyer:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1208/Reids_case.html?showall
In response to those who are asking how this is different from Powell v. McCormack, in which supreme court said House could not refuse to seat a member based on his alleged corruption and said only qualifications to be considered are those listed in the Constitution:
[W]e are not making a judgment about qualifications of appointee, but about whether appointment itself is tainted by fraud, which we believe we are entitled to do under Art. 1 s. 5.
This is like judging the integrity of an election, free from fraud or corruption. It’s the process that led to the [appointment], not the appointee’s fitness.
A broad definition of “election” could suffice???
In response to Jarod’s earlier comment, I do not know what the proposed Australian ban on topless bathing has to do with the Illinois senate seat, but I feel compelled to observe that while the sight of a topless female at the beach may raise a number of things among men, ire is not one of them.
I’d like to expand further on my earlier comment since it was made as I was going out the door for a medical appointment. This is being done not because of an overweening ego, but because this whole affair has disturbed and offended my sense of justice since its inception.
First we have the fact that Governor Blagojevich has has been defamed based upon phone conversations (possibly abridged) released by a prosecutor. I knew nothing about the man until the media circus began. While it seems on the surface that he is corrupt based on supposition and innuendo, is he really the most corrupt seated governor in light of current GOP governors Davis, Barbour, Sanford, et. al.? Jeb Bush too, was not a paragon of virtue and yet no one looked into his many scandals while in office. In comparison we have had Eliot Spitzer forced to resign over a possible violation of the Mann act. The Mann Act was an abomination from its’ outset and indeed has been many years dormant in its’ inanity. Spitzer was a hubristic fool in his actions, but truthfully I think he was more of a fool for resigning. We had Don Siegelman, ridiculed and labeled as corrupt, sent to jail in fact, for what we now know to be political vengeance against a Democrat.
The MSM, has been totally gutless in the face of rampant GOP corruption, obfuscation and criminal deception. Yet they gleefully will bring opprobrium to bear on any Democrat charged in a like manner. Even Ms. Maddow, whom I greatly respect, refers to Blagojevich as “Governor F Bomb.” The MSM uses the Governor’s crude language, used privately, as a further indictment of him, while we all know that the use of such language in private is the widespread norm, rather than the exception. There has been totally no respect for “presumption of innocence.” This is pathetic since this “presumption” is an absolute necessity for any viable system of justice (sorry Code Napolean) and certainly for ours.
While the released tapes appear damning, I would much prefer to wait for the full transcript to provide full context and help adjudge the Governor’s criminality of behavior. Based on what could possibly be released in the future I could envision an expansion of evidence that could prove exculpatory. If I can, than I am sure the many Attorneys who frequent this site could come up with many more scenarios that would provide a theory of innocence, despite the seemingly damning, if abridged tapes thus far released. If then as I believe we are prematurely rushing to judgment on the Governor, then he is perfectly within his rights to not resign and to perform his constitutional duties. In fact, from the standpoint of his own defense, his not appointing a Senator could almost be viewed as an admission of guilt.
Next we have Prosecutor Fitzgerald. I am aware that the MSM has deemed this man to be “beyond reproach.” I do not know what his reputation is in the legal community, but even granting that he is likewise “beyond reproach” within the legal community, we do have “The Plame Affair” by which to judged his actions. He was appointed (I believe) by the Bush Administration itself. He spent years on the case, supposedly building his prosecution, but also “coincidentally” defusing the immediacy of the whole affair as the MSM continued in its never ending search for novelty over substance. In the end, after much “sturm und drang” he managed to only prosecute Liddy on reduced charges and forgot about the clear trail leading to Rove, Arrington, Cheney and possibly Bush. To me at least, it seems that his actions did more to contain the damage, rather than uproot the guilty. In that sense he was a perfect tool for the Bush Administration’s cover up.
We now have Mr. Fitzgerald releasing this “bombshell” exactly at the time of Barack Obama’s ascendancy and directly at the point he was releasing the details of his cabinet. This had the effect of the MSM ignoring the important appointments in favor of a media “feeding frenzy.” I am also naturally highly suspicious of any prosecutor who tries his case in the media, rather than in court. To me every time, in this case prior to indictment, a prosecutor makes such a maneuver it bespeaks a weaker case rather than the strong one that is claimed. I’m am not sure that in the end Mr. Fitzgerald is acting out of a thirst for justice, or rather for his own self interests whatever they may be.
Finally, we have the Democrat’s behavior in all of this. For Mr. Obama, this is purely smart politics, so I can accept his position. Contrary to many, I want a President who is adept politically, as all the great President’s have been. Mr. Reid and the Democratic Senators are a different matter. Their immediate call for Governor Blagojevich to resign was not only premature, it exposed a lack of knowledge of our legal system and/or a craven cowardice. That they further intimated that they would not seat any Senator that he appointed was an outrage in that there is no indictment, no trial and no proof of guilt submitted. Blagojevich is the legal governor. If after a trial and a conviction they see proof that this was an untoward appointment, then they could remove his appointed Senator. In this respect I thank Ab2kgj for referencing the case of Adam Clayton Powell. Representative Powell was a great man, who unfortunately was an outspoken black man at a time when most of congress deemed this to be “uppity.” He truly spoke truth to power and his persecution in Congress was another unfortunate example of our country’s racist history. It was especially ironic considering the many thieves and liars that sat in judgment of him, especially those from southern climes.
Please forgive me for this overlong rant but I think it’s obvious that I am disturbed by this case and the Professors post gives me the opportunity to speak out. On a lighter note I wish all of you here the happiest and healthiest of New Years, with the hope that we will have many, many more to share.
I believe Prof. Turley’s right about Gov. Balgojevich’s motivations for this appointment; it may buttress his defense to the criminal charges. However, I disagree with Sen. Reid’s position, as well as with his logic. The Senate is not intended to be a private club whose prospective members are subject to being blackballed if they do not satisfy the preferred club criteria. Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution prescribes the eligibility requirements, which have been met in this instance. The Seventeenth Amendment provides for the popular election of senators and also authorizes a state’s executive (if authorized by that state’s legislature) to appoint persons to complete unexpired senate terms. That is precisely what has occurred in this instance.
The authority of the Senate under Article I, Section 5 to judge the “elections, returns and qualifications” of its members must be understood within its constitutional confines. Gov. Balgojevich remains governor of Illinois and retains the authority he exercised in the appointment of Roland Burris. Therefore, the Senate cannot legitimately question the appointment under the “elections and returns” language. With respect to the issue of qualifications, the Supreme Court made it clear in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) that Congress is precluded from imposing “qualifications” beyond those expressly described in the Constitution. If the people of Illinois determine that the power to appoint should be deemed suspended when a governor is under indictment or has been formally charged with a crime, the legislature of that state can presumably enact that change. In the meantime, the Senate lacks any legal basis to refuse to seat Mr. Burris.
I also do not believe that the example of Theodore Bilbo provides any guidance whatsoever on the issue. That he was grossly racist, corrupt and a national disgrace is certainly true, but he was apparently popular enough with the Mississippi electorate. Moreover, the motion to prevent his being seated was actually tabled due to Sen. Bilbo’s illness. He died without a final decision having been made and without the inevitable judicial review which would have come on the heels of a vote to keep him from assuming his position in the Senate.
Sen. Reid’s lack of leadership ability is once again on display. He failed to prevent Sen. Lieberman from retaining his leadership positions in the Senate, something which senate Democrats had the ability and ample justification to accomplish. Now he intends to prevent a duly appointed senator from taking his seat, something which the Senate cannot do. As a lifelong Democrat excited over the prospects of an Obama presidency, would it be too much to ask for new majority leaders in Congress?
White would NOT be overstepping his authority one bit by refusing to certify Burris’ appointment. He has every right not to sign that piece of paper for any reason that chooses. The real question is what does White’s lack of certification mean for Burris. It is completely unclear whether or not White’s signature is even legally necessary – unless I’ve been misreading the available data.
What a dangerous dangerous, potentially destabilizing precedent it would set if Burris was not seated because someone, somewhere was “suspicious”, that he “might be” involved in something untoward.
Can you imagine any Senator having to defend against an unsubstantiated charge of “suspicion” before being seated? The Senate would grind to a halt. Worse yet would be if we start examining burial plots in order to ascertain if they are ostentatious and thereby indicative of a lack of integrity that would call into question a person’s fitness to serve in the Senate.
I think it would be a horrible start to the Obama era and one where historians could look back and wonder what could’ve been if only Mr. Burris had been seated.
What a dangerous dangerous, potentially destabilizing precedent it would set if Burris was seated because he was Black.
I think it would be a horrible start to the Obama era and one where historians could look back and wonder what could’ve been if only the Senate hadn’t bowed to racism and political extortion.
I have been musing about what if he had appointed one of the most prominent republicans in the state. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the head!