If I’m the Judge you’ve given more than enough to “hang my hat on” and let the Senate at least investigate the appointment prior to seating him. Good work putting “right” back with “legal” in the same sentence in this case.

“There was an item in the Chicago Sun-Times today revealing this guy has already had a crypt built for himself with his various political accomplishments carved all over it.”

****************

Wonder if he ever read Shelley’s poem “Ozymandias?” Bravo to your work btw. I had no idea…

The big guns have opened fire. Expect another convocation of the learned high priests of the shrine of Con Law before a Senate panel, under the glaring lights of C-SPAN!

Seriously, there is absolutely no reason the Senate is bound by law to avoid doing the right thing, and to conduct a searching inquiry into the full background and circumstances of the appointment. The standard of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for keeping out of jail, not the standard for public policy. There is hard, credible evidence on the tapes that Blago intended to put the Senate seat up for sale, more than enough evidence for a civil proceeding. Maybe he did not make the sale, but he made his intent clear.

Blogo is still the governor, but the Senate is still the “Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

Many think that Powell is controlling, but others say it is distinguishable, because there was no question in that case that the Member had been validly elected. With Blago and Burris, there is a question whether Blago followed through on his stated intent to sell the seat. The appointment process could have been corrupted. We won’t know until the Senate investigates. Hold a hearing. Get Blago and Burris under oath and ask them if there was a quid pro quo, under penalty of perjury. Probe the candidate’s full record.

Of course the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality, but each branch has to make its own determination of constitutionality in the first instance. The Senate has a clear, textually defined duty to make a judgment on the returns and qualifications of this proposed member.

Burris could sue, but remember that the Powell Court remanded the cause to the trial court for nothing more than a declaratory judgment and an action for back pay against the House Clerk. It did not enjoin the House to seat the Member, because he had been seated in the meantime. Does anyone seriously believe that the present Court will order an injunction to seat a Senator?

Henry, Burris should be stopped from being a Senator because it is both right and legal.

The point spread between what is legal and what is right gets on the last good nerve on my body as well. This would seem like a good time to ratchet up public pressure via protest etc. go get Burris to withdrawl.

Where have I seen this personality trait manifest itself before?

After seeing a number of Burris interviews, and this is just an opinion, he seems to be very much the opportunist. He seems like just the kind of guy who might do anything to get ahead, as unfair as it might be to speculate on such a trait (again I’m just basing these feelings on how he comes across). The monument that I’ve read about, commissioned by him in honor of himself doesn’t win much favor, either.

I agree with Professor Turley that the power of appointing him rests with the governor, scandal and all, but I also stand by my earlier opinion that this thing just stinks.