In one of the most dramatic moments in Senate history, the Democrats refused to let Roland Burris enter the Senate chamber today. Democrats do not want to recognize an appointment from Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell the seat to replace President-elect Barack Obama. Burris attempted to be sworn in on the first day of the 111th Congress, but was told by the Secretary of the Senate that his credentials “were not in order.”
Nancy Erickson, the Senate secretary, initially cited the absence of the signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White as the reason for rejecting the appointment. Burris is trying to get the Illinois Supreme Court to order White to sign the form. White has no authority to refuse his signature and is claiming the right to unilaterally block an appointment because he simply does not like or is suspicious of the appointing governor. No one has claimed that Burris bought this seat and indeed he would have been on the list of likely candidates for any governor.
It is clear that White’s actions are not true reason for extraordinary action. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others stated their intention to block the appointment based on the governor’s scandal. Indeed, Reid said that, if his credentials are valid, the Senate would “proceed in a manner that is respectful to Mr. Burris, while ensuring that there is not a cloud of doubt over the appointment.”
To make matters worse, there is a rumor that Burris is being asked to guarantee that, if he is sworn in, he will not run in 2010. Given the fact that the democrats have no legal basis to deny him this appointment, such a proposal would magnify the gross abuse of power.
For Democrats who have complained about George Bush’s abusive use of authority, this is a terrible way to begin their control of both the Congress and the White House. Just as the Bush Administration argued that the President can torture because he says he can, the Democrats are claiming the right to bar any member because they can. It would create a precedent that they will regret and only fuels GOP efforts to block Al Franken. At least the GOP can cite an election controversy, the Democrats have no legal claim against this appointment.
For the full story, click here.
mespo –
Sadly, no. I am one of the most mindless of sycophants …
“He’s already got this group of mindless sycophants and all he needs is a little push …”
*******
As opposed, I suppose, to that group of knights at the round table which you so ably lead!
Careful, Spindell. Don’t go giving Professor Turley any ideas. He’s already got this group of mindless sycophants and all he needs is a little push …
CCD,
Seamus is so corrupt that cool-aid hath no power over him! 🙂
Megalomaniac Reverend Jim Jones does display a similar tone and delivery to Sociopath Governor Blagojevich. I had to turn off the vid when Jones says, if they won’t let us live in piece, then we can die in peace.
Seamus if you’re in town don’t drink the cool-aid!
On the who does Blago look like front my nomination is the Reverend
Jim Jones, of Jonestown infamy. Put sunglasses on Blago and it’s the same man. Get a YouTube of some of Jones’ speeches and their manner of speaking is eerily similar.
CCD, as the old joke goes in Chi, I myself have directed in my will that I be buried in my native Boston so that I can continue to vote Democratic long after I die.
Vote, early and often!
Interesting, an IL State Rep told Olbermann last night that the new legislature will hold another vote on impeachment next week, so that Blago uniquely will be impeached twice in one week. I think this indicates that the Senate votes for conviction are very solid.
I thought the House Republicans who voted to impeach Clinton back in 1998 should have put off their vote until 1999, when a new Congress was seated, or at least should have held a new vote after the voters had spoken. But instead they charged ahead with charges so weak that they could not even get a majority in a Republican-controlled Senate, let alone the necessaryh 2/3ds.
I don’t think the IL legislators are making that mistake.
CCD:
I think Reid will cave if Obama wants him to do to get the thing over with.
Biblical proportions.
Please, indulge one more press account summing up Governor Blagojevich. The full article is here:
http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Illinois+first+lady+scrutinized+before+husband+arrested+-+CNN.com&expire=-1&urlID=33056716&fb=Y&url
Dick Mell is the Governors father in-law. This quote is from the above link, the interview is from approximately 2006.
Mell, in an interview with the Chicago-Sun Times, castigated Rod Blagojevich as someone who “uses everybody, and when there’s no more use, he discards them.” Mell further said that his daughter was wearing “blinders” and didn’t realize her husband was a manipulative political animal who would “throw anyone under the bus.”
This show will not be over until some how Patty Mell Blagojevich lands under a bus. Having been tossed there by here husband.
I always liked: “dogs and cats living together” when Bill Murray was explaining signs of the apocalypse in Ghostbusters, but the resemblance w/Bluto is an excellent catch Vince.
Vince T. you are so right about Blagojevich. Back in December, I stopped in the offices of my Illinois State Rep. Just to personally convey the message that Blagojevich needed to be crushed. He’s like a terminator. His wife and two daughters will be well taken care of by Chicago Alderman Dick Mell, (Blagojevich’s father in-law) when his federally authorized vacation day arrives.
Yes maybe something with Burris’ testimony about his contacts with the governors’ staff will get traction. Oh the wicked web we weave. Then the Nixon quote, it’s not the crime that brings you down; it’s the lies you tell to cover it up.
FFLEO your assumption is accurate, as customary. I’m trying to tuck into formation.
V.T.
I never saw Animal House so I went to dependable YouTube and I agree with you; perfect match.
I can’t help it. Blago is a dead ringer for Bluto in Animal House. After he is convicted and removed by the Senate, I am expecting this at his press conference:
“Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!”
FFLEO,
Thanks for the link!
“We note … that nothing in the published rules of the Senate, including Rule II, appears to require that Senate appointments made by state executives pursuant to the 17th Amendment must be signed and sealed by the state’s secretary of state. Moreover, no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supersede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution.”
I’m guessing Burris is seated.
CCD
Also thanks for info and what you wrote earlier. I’m glad you post to this blog.
Take a look at the letters signed by the State Governors for all the newly elected Senators at this session.
It includes the letter certifying the election of Sen. Durbin, signed by no other than Blago.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S1&position=all
All the letters are signed by a Governor and have the state seal, but they do not have the signatures of the secretaries of state.
The court said at the end of its opinion that anyone can get a copy of Blago’s appoinment document with the State’s seal affixed to it. Burris could get one of these and take it to the Senate.
Although Senate Rule II requires the signature of the Secretary of State, that requirement is not based on the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, and some have said it may be an extra-Constitutional “qualification” in violation of the Powell case.
As noted earlier, the Senate seems to have the power under the rule making clause of the Constitution both to make this Rule, and to waive it.
So the Senate could vote to seat him.
But keep watching the skies. Burris is tangled up in his testimony about his contacts with Blago’s staff about the Senate seat.
The reason I like the decision is that the court answered my questioning of why a court with jurisdiction could not issue a writ of mandamus to ‘compel’ the Secretary of State to sign the document.
“Under these circumstances, the Senate’s actions cannot serve as the predicate for a mandamus action against the secretary of state. The only issue before us is whether the secretary of state, an official of this state, failed to perform an act required of him by the law of Illinois. He did not.”
chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/state-court-rebuffs-burris-on-senate-signature.html
CCD: I assume that you are that Democrat fellow from a county called Cook somewhere in Illinois?
One would hardly know there was an economic crisis that might be better time/money well spent.
Writ denied because it isn’t required.