Burris goes to court for Senate seat

[DogPoundPup]

Source: WGN9 News

Democrat Roland Burris went to the Illinois Supreme Court today to fight to be seated in the U.S. Senate.

Burris, appointed by disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday to the seat once held by President-elect Barack Obama, asked the justices to force Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to co-sign Blagojevich's proclamation that Burris is the state's new senator.


"There is a great and urgent interest of the people of the state of Illinois in being fully represented before the United States Senate," the Burris petition said.


Burris maintained state law "imposes an unconditional obligation on the secretary of state" to perform "merely a ministerial" role that does not leave "any discretion whatsoever" to block or impede the action.



Read more: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/burris-takes...

[baldguy]

1. the Illinois Supreme Court can't force the US Senate to do anything.

[amandabeech]

3. No, but here Burris is asking the Illinois SC to force action by the Illinois sec of state.

If the Illinois SC rules that there isn't any legal ground on which the Sec of State can refuse to certifiy, it may help Burris in additional action in the federal courts because he will have fulfilled the Senate rule concerning certification of election results.

If Burris fulfills all written Constitutional and Senatorial rules, then it will be harder to keep him out.

[baldguy]

4. But Harry Reid has to allow him to be seated.

And he's already said anyone Blago appoints will be unacceptable.

What Burris needs to do is forget about any lawsuits & fly to DC to grovel to the Senate leadership.

[bullimiami]

5. harry reid? yeah, he might get tough with another democrat.

[pl259]

6. That probably won't work but it's likely the only feasible approach. Reid may be wrong but

he's on pretty solid Constitutional ground here. The whole thing is a damn mess.

[customerserviceguy]

9. No, Reid is not on solid Constitutional ground

Look at the case of Adam Clayton Powell from forty years ago. Congress can only consider the Constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency. How they feel about an appointee, or a person who wins a fair election has no bearing on whether or not that individual gets to vote in Congress.

Reid can refuse to let Burris be a member of the Democratic Caucus, since the Constitution is silent on that. But it would be a great mistake to do so. Reid will look like George Wallace trying to keep black students out of school by standing in the doorway.

Can a bad person do a good thing? If so, then is the good thing irrevocably tarnished by the bad person who did it? Seat Burris, and let RamRod get his justice with the Illinois State Legislature and the Federal courts.

[Baby Snooks]

10. Not hard at all...

The Senate has the discretion to refuse to seat someone for no other reason than they do not believe the person belongs in the Senate.

Burris has tainted himself already by first accepting the position and then taking an attitude that no one should dare attempt to block his taking the seat. The Senate will and that was made perfectly clear.

How do we know Burris didn't offer something? That is where he has really tainted himself. He knew there would be questions raised. And then the obvious ploy of having the race card played almost immediately. What he is saying is how dare we question his ethics and then before we can respond hits us with the race card. How dare we refuse to seat an African-American in the Senate just because he's an African-American.

[kevsand]

12. The senate has no such discretion.

The Constitution only allows them to consider those qualifications that are already specified and defined by the Constitution, not to make up new ones willy nilly. The SCOTUS has made this quite clear in the past.

[amandabeech]

13. I disagree.

1. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the question of how far the Senate can go in refusing to seat an otherwise qualified appointee. Until they rule, I see the question as open.

I believe that the Senate itself should think long and hard before refusing to seat a prospective member duly appointed under state law. My recollection is that the Illinois SC has ruled that Blago is still the Governor and that his official acts are legal until he is convicted in an "impeachment" proceeding. I am of the opinion that the Illinois SC will mandamus the Secretary of State to sign the certification since the SOS has said that there is no reason not to sign. Remember, no fraud has been alleged by anyone with respect to this individual's appointment. If something should come up later, then there would be grounds for expulsion from the Senate. What you are asking is that Burris prove a negative: that he did not give Blago a quid pro quo. That is impossible to do.

I do not agree with those like you who would refuse to recognize any future appointment of Blago's no matter what the circumstances. That would deprive Illinois of its full representation for as long as Blago can drag out his impeachment, and that could be as long as three or four months in my opinion.

I think that Reid and Obama should have left themselves with a little wiggle room on this. They did not, and the result could be a media circus for the first six weeks or so of Obama's term while the Senate rules committee holds hearings and the lawyers file suits. This is not the time for a distraction like this. A delay might mean additional unnecessary damage to the nation's economy, and I don't think that chastising Blago at the federal level is worth it. And we might need another Dem vote on the stimulus package. You never know.

2. I don't think that the fact that Burris accepted the nomination is a taint in and of itself sufficient to warrant U.S. Senate rejection absent any allegation, let along proof, that anything untoward happened with respect to Burris' appointment.

As far as I'm concerned, Bobby Rush can say what he wants. I don't see that his statements are evidence of any kind that Blago or Burris has broken any law with respect to Burris' appointment. Rush lived the hard days of the civil rights struggle and I believe that it colors his opinions today. I cut him a lot of slack.

As for Blago, I believe that the Illinois legislature and Prosecutor Fitzgerald will take care of him. It is likely that Blago will be thrown out of the Illinois governor's mansion and then thrown right into federal prison. That's enough for me.

[pl259]

2. Never mind, I wasn't aware of White's opposition

edit...

okay I see the problem.

[proud progressive]

7. i can't believe this guy. talk about a shotgun wedding...geez!

[rwheeler31]

8. I am sick of Blago and Burris the are both egomaniacs.

[MilesColtrane]

11. He must have already carved "Senator" on his ugly-assed tombstone.

[benh57]

14. Burris is in the right here

From the article:
"The secretary of state cannot veto an action by simply not signing the document," Burris said. "He doesn't have that authority. He must do his job."

The sec of state clearly doesn't have veto power over the governor. This is like someone just deciding not to do what their job requires. Burris will probably win this round.

IMO, Burris should be seated.

[Critters2]

15. Yep. A legal appointment by a legally elected governor. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. CNN breaking: Burris won't be allowed on Senate floor Tuesday by Congress

The man tapped by Illinois' embattled governor to fill an open U.S. Senate seat will be turned away if he arrives for Tuesday's inauguration of new members, according to two Democratic aides.


Roland Burris, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, will not be allowed on the Senate floor, according to the aides -- one who is familiar with Senate Democratic leaders' plans, and the other an aide to the Senate Democratic leadership.


The first Democratic aide said if Burris tries to enter the Senate chamber on Tuesday, the Senate doorkeeper will stop him. If Burris were to persist, either trying to force his way onto the Senate floor or refusing to leave and causing a scene, U.S. Capitol police would stop him, the aide said. Watch efforts to keep Burris from the Senate

"They probably won't arrest him," but they would call the Senate's sergeant-at-arms, the aide said.

Burris has indicated he intends to be at the Senate on Tuesday. When asked about what would happen if he shows up, Burris told the Chicago Tribune that he is "not going to create a scene in Washington."

The Senate sergeant-at-arms, Terrance Gainer, served in the Illinois government at the same time as Burris. Gainer was the director of the Illinois State Police from 1991 to 1995 -- the same years Burris was the Illinois attorney general.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/01/illinois.senate....

[mathpol]

17. Roland Burris, Harry Reid, Secretaries of State, and Notary Publics

Item: The Governor of Illinois appointed Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama’s Senate Seat.

Item: Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, says Burris can’t be seated without the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State, who has refused to sign.

Item: The 17th Amendment, passed about 100 years ago, mandated the direct election of Senators. Governors could fill vacancies, and the requirement that the Secretary of State also sign was equivalent to having a Notary Public verify the Governor’s signature.

In today’s age, it’s clear that the Governor of Illinois picked Burris to fill the seat. The role of the Secretary of State as “Notary Public” is hence outdated and irrelevant.

Reid is a fool and a clown. Is it because he had a stroke? Is it because he is a Mormon?
Who knows? But it is time to give him the hook.

Let’s seat Burris and close one ring of this D.C. circus.

[mathpol]

18. Why is Harry Reid a clown and a fool?

For the PC crowd, the third possible reason was meant as a joke.