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.
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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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?
MSNBC is such a suck channel.
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…
‘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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.