UPDATE (1:20 PM): The Capitol Fax Blog has a couple of additional details. Firstly, they're reporting that Illinois' Secretary of State Jesse White will refuse to certify the appointment. I'm not sure what, if any, constitutional authority White has to do that. Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois will name Roland Burris, a former state attorney general, to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the United States Senate, someone with knowledge of the governor’s plans confirmed on Tuesday. Mr. Blagojevich, who faces federal corruption charges including allegations that he tried to sell Mr. Obama’s former senate seat for a high-paying job or money, had not been expected to try to fill the seat. [...] Mr. Burris, 71 and a Democrat, is a longtime political player in this state, who has run for governor before, including mounting a primary challenge against Mr. Blagojevich. Mr. Obama backed him over Mr. Blagojevich in that race. The Senate will not seat Roland Burris if Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich attempts to appoint him, a Democratic leadership aide said. Majority Leader Harry Reid views Burris as "unacceptable," the aide said.
Secondly, although Burris has criticized Blagojevich in recent weeks, he's also contributed $11K to his campaign fund, and his consulting firm has done a lot of business with the state during Blago's term. Neither of those things are damning in and of themselves, of course, but they give the Republicans some ammunition.
One of Reid's problems, by the way, is that it seems plausible that some Republicans would vote against expulsion, perhaps by suggesting that to expel Burris would be an abuse of their Constitutional authority. Their real motivation, of course, might be to give the Blagojevich story legs heading into 2010.
_____
12:58 PM: What's more shocking? That a fairly credible candidate actually decided to accept Rod Blagojevich's appointment? Or that Harry Reid is actually showing some spine?
The Times:
But, says Ben Smith:
This is going to be ... awkward. As we explained before, it's not at all clear that the Senate has the constitutional authority to refuse to seat an appointed senator. Instead, they might have to seat Burris and then immediately expel him. And I'm not sure that expulsion, which requires a two-thirds majority, is any kind of slam dunk. Burris has a reputation for being above-board, was the first African-American ever to be elected (to statewide office) in Illinois, and actually ran against Blagojevich in 2002. He also has the advantage of not actually having held office in Illinois since 1995, which may explain why he's clean. So the third surprise here is that Blago made a fairly astute choice. If he wanted to pick someone who maximized his chances of having the appointment succeed, Burris would be close to the top of that list.
The Senate Democrats may have let this situation get away from them when they got greedy and pulled back from the promise of a special election.
12.30.2008
Blago Will Try To Seat Senator, But Reid Objects
by Nate Silver @ 1:58 PM...see also blagojevich, illinois, reid, senate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

127 comments
What's more shocking? That a fairly credible candidate actually decided to accept Rod Blagojevich's appointment? Or that Harry Reid is actually showing some spine?
That's why you're the best.
First?
Rats!
Hee, soozzie, just think of it as getting the silver medal in obsessiveness. ;D
This is absolutely ridiculous. The Illinois Legislature should have made it their first priority to strip Blagojevich of his power to appoint a replacement for Pres. Elect Obama. They could have then moved onto impeachment. Now Senate Democrats have a horrible mess on their hands on whether to follow through with their promise to reject the appointee, and they might not even be able to do that. They should have just guaranteed a special election and biten the bullet from there.
This is great. You almost have to admire Blago's chutzpah, especially to the extent that he's going be a large burr under the saddle of Harry Reid.
Really, Nate, "they might HAVE to seat Burris"?
And who will make them? If a bare majority of the Senate does not want to seat Burris, he will not be seated. In fact, Reid alone might be able to stop him via a procedural maneuver. To even get a court ruling that the Senate "must" seat Burris, someone has to sue (and pay for lawyers to do it) and then fight inevitable appeals. Not to mention the possibilities of voting to immediately vacate the seat, thus not accepting the appointment or voting only to seat Burris pending an investigation by the Rules Committee or some other body over the propriety of the appointment (in which case they could, in theory, subpoena Blago and ask him all about his pay to play scheme, to which he will invoke the 5th.
wv: "foolest" as in the notion that the Senate MUST seat Burris is the foolest idea I've heard today.
Here is John's prediction from a prior thread, I think he is right.
" John said...
I would bet money - if I had it - that the following happens with Blago and Burris:
* The IL Legislature vows to press on with impeachment, even though Blago has done the ultimate a**h*** thing and appointed someone to Obama's seat anyway.
* Blago's choice, despite the ineffective Harry Reid's admonishment that nobody appoint by Blago will ever be seated, will definitely be seated. I think a larger percentage of Repubs will seat him, because they already know (may have figured out) that many Americans view their party as, well, not a party for African-Americans. Since they probably suspect that the Dems will not seat any Blago choice (which they seem to be sworn to follow through on), the GOP sees an opportunity to paint the Dems as both racist and obstructionist.
*Enough Dems will vote for Blago's appointment just to end this mess.
*Blago remains governor of Illinois, because the legislature sees no real reason to get rid of him anymore.
*Blago gets off scot-free and remains governor, a testament to the embarrassing corruption in the Illinois political machine."
Or that Harry Reid is actually showing some spine?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Reid always shows some spine before he caves. Watch what he does, not what he says.
Well, OK, I think Blago still goes down on corruption charges - but unrelated to the Senate seat.
Sometimes I hate politics, often really.
Blago is insane, but this is great as it the perfect end to an amazing political year.
Reid:
"I found this spine and don't know what to do with it?"
Blagojevich should have chosen a Republican candidate. That would have been so much more fun...
@Nate--typo? "was the first African-American ever to be elected in Illinois. . ."
Don't you mean . . . "ever to be elected to a statewide office in Illinois?"
Or do you mean something else?
That's why you're the best.
Hah! Nate's gained plenty of notoriety, but he's hardly being taken seriously as a "pundit" or "expert" on politics outside of the blogosphere and the far left corner of the mainstream media (Olbermann, et al).
Here's a prime example. This "Blagojevich Scandal" which I will subsequently refer to simply as BS, is solely a Democratic ethics and corruption issue. All - let me repeat ALL - of the drama surrounding this BS is on the Democratic/Liberal side of thigns. Yet, Nate, the "shrewd genius" that he is, is covering this but can't help but twist this into a snipe at Republicans to make them out to be the ones as cunning for more sinister purposes. Here's proof:
One of Reid's problems, by the way, is that it seems plausible that some Republicans would vote against expulsion, perhaps by suggesting that to expel Burris would be an abuse of their Constitutional authority. Their real motivation, of course, might be to give the Blagojevich story legs heading into 2010.
Seriously, Nate, if you're ever to make that "dent" as a respected journalist, analyst, or whatever else you want to call yourself, you've got to at least put forth an ounce or two of some impartiality somewhere along the way because if you turn into paranoid-schizo anti-all things Conservative/Republican at every political corner - which you've done at every step up until now - you'll just be confined to the fringe with the other Far Left Lunatics...not saying you can't be successful or make a lot of money that way, but you won't be accepted by the mainstream - in politics or otherwise.
And that wouldn't bother me at all.
Siobhan -- I'm still coming down from primary-obsessing, which was heightened by election-obsessing. I think it may have been Nate-obsessing all along! !D
PS -- where is Sean?
..although Burris has criticized Blagojevich in recent weeks, he's also contributed $11K to his campaign fund...
Only $11K for a Senate seat? Apparently the thing's not so f'ing golden anymore.
Great comment from Capital Fax Blog's posts: We should call him "Blague" not Blago. Look it up.
Fred,
Well, we can only hope Blago goes down for some other reason!
John,
I think the pay to play, and the use of taxpayer funds for personal gain, will put him under.
The prior gov went down for a bunch of small stuff, not the big stuff he was also doing.
Roland Burris is now the number one search term on the web.
http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends
I also note the Yellowstone caldera is a top search. There is a very disturbing earthquake swarm right where we don't want one.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081230/ap_on_re_us/yellowstone_quakes;_ylt=Ap0yRvZWI0PPHRAB_3xWxmMDW7oF
Great! I think the Senate should say "Whoopee" and seat Burris. Now that Franken is officially ahead by 50 votes, there is every reason to think the Democrats will have a 59 to 41 majority in the Senate. This is tantamount to filibuster proof as there are 3-5 moderate Republicans who will vote for cloture. One vote is easier than 2. And in the near future, it might be 60 anyway.
Let the real election for Illinois Senate take place as scheduled in 2010 with regular primaries and a good turnout.
Burris is at least as good a choice as the one in Delaware.
PS - Does anyone have a current update on how the Minnesota counties are making out with selecting absentee ballots? At least 2 counties have refused to sort because the campaigns won't agree on a process....
Ahhhh, now the IL Sec.of State says he will not certify Burris as Blago's choice.
This is gonna be fun!
I'm sad to say that I actually like this Burris guy. Too bad he'll be rejected.
Blagoyevich is governor as of today. The Secretary of State may be able to sit on the appointment but on what grounds can he refuse to execute it? If he had any evidence of corrupt influence in the decision, he could hold it up. Otherwise I see this going ahead.
And further I don't see the U.S. Senate blocking it.
An audacious and clever move by the Gov.
This is the most hilarious news conference I have seen in a long while!
Burris is a good man, I hope he gets seated.
Not too much spine:
"...Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus"
The wiggle room already starts... well sure he can join but he can't be part of the caucus...
Lieberman in the caucus Burris out... now that is irony.
What is Congressman Rush even doing there? This appointment isn't about race, as much as the Chicago reps would like to make it.
Bobby Rush is pretty darn good...
Rush just made this a race issue, and that will make it much harder for Reid to turn down Burris.
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR SNL!!
Jesse White is a black man, and IL Sec of State. Does he really sue to stop this? Does he risk pissing off the black politicos in IL?
This is fun...I lived in IL for forty years (until last month) and this is even good for IL politics.
I agree fred. It will now be very hard for Reid and Senate Democrats to reject Burris without major riots and charges of racism from African-Americans. Blagojevich is a very shrewd man. Nevertheless, I still believe Reid and the Democrats have no choice but to reject Burris as they said they would. Blagojevich is obviously off his rocker, saying he's "enjoying the limelight".
THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR THE IDF
Here is Jesse White:
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/biography/biography.html
He got a name in IL that got him elected by creating a tumbling group called the "Jesse White tumblers" that went all over the state (it tries to keep kids off drugs, an honorable thing). This is fun...
I think Blagojevich's appointment of Burris is an explicit message to Obama, saying "Here, I did something for you (for you black people), now you do something for me (amnesty or something like that)". It's a very shrewd move....
Or maybe Blago is honestly trying to say "sorry", but I can't really imagine that.
I loved Blago's "limelight" comment. That is great midwestern dry humor right there mister!
Alex S.-
This is completely irrelevant to Obama. If Blago appointed Jarret then there would be something required from Obama.
Rush just made this a race issue, and that will make it much harder for Reid to turn down Burris.
I think this is part of Blago's strategy. Rush was there to play his pre-ordained part.
Rush seemed to just be there and had not planned to speak,but that was a great speech.
For those of you who don't know Rush was a great activist for AA in the 60's.
If Burris' appointment reaches the Senate (not blocked in Illinois),there's no way in hell he will be rejected.
Can you imagine the uproar if the ONLY AA Senator (and only the sixth in history) is not seated? Even Republicans,who do not have even one AA in the House,will have to go along.
This is a clever move by Blago:posing as a responsible governor,not asking anything from Fitzgerald.
This could go to the Supreme Court if Reid does not seat him.
Nate wrote "The Senate Democrats may have let this situation get away from them when they got greedy and pulled back from the promise of a special election."
Disagree. The Illinois legislature would had to have passed a law and Blago either sign it or have a veto overridden. That doesn't happen in a day. Blago always could have evaded this new law by appointing someone before the law was enacted.
Wow, now Quinn's holding his own press conference saying Blagojevich is unfit for office and therefore unfit to make an appointment. This just gets better and better.
Of course Reid is showing spine, this is an issue dealing with DEMOCRATS after all.
Right now the best thing for everyone concerned would be for Blagojevich to follow that French stockbroker.
There are no accidents in a political press conference. Bobby Rush was meant to be there.
Pat Quinn is now yelling about this. Quinn is a clean guy and the Lt. Gov.
The Dems made a mistake when they said they would refuse to seat anyone that Blago appointed regardless of who it is. They've painted themselves into a corner that they can't get out of now. If they hadn't done that, then this would be good news for them. They get to fill a seat with a sympathetic vote that would otherwise be empty, and with an african-american candidate to boot. Burris will be publicly vetted between now and when Congress convenes by the media, and if anything comes up between now and then, then they can refuse to seat him with just cause.
They should have taken a "wait and see" approach rather than jump directly into damage control mode before it was apparent that any serious damage had even been done.
I've thought all along that everyone is making way too big a deal out of this. In 6 months this is going to be an afterthought to everyone regardless of how it plays out. If this was happening in Sept 2010 I would worry about it, but not now.
Man, and I was so sure Blagojevich would appoint a Republican in exchange for an outgoing Presidential pardon....
wv: rountent - another word for a teepee.
Really, Nate, "they might HAVE to seat Burris"?
And who will make them?
The US Supreme Court. They did it before when the House refused to seat someone for reasons unrelated to his election.
Quinn thinks the Sec of State can stop this, I am not so sure. If the gov appoints, I am not sure he can stop it. He can try, but he will lose in court, methinks.
What's everyone complaining about?
Everyone, including Nate has been calling for a place holder, now you got one.
I am not complaining, I hope he gets seated.
I am just loving the politics.
@ eric, I think you may be right about the Dems painting themselves in a corner. Burris seems like exactly the kind of person I wanted to see appointed--a seat holder who is a reliable vote for the next two years and (hopefully!) clean. If this weren't Blago appointing him, this would be completely fine.
I wonder if the political heat to refuse to seat him will abate? If so, Reid can back away from the promise not to seat him. The real problem for Democrats is if there's two warring factions--one against Burris and one for him. That would keep the Blago news in the headlines, raise doubts about Burris, and create animosity between members of the same party. If I were a Republican, I'd get out the popcorn and enjoy.
I hope he is not seated. As much as Burris seems like a good guy, if Reid backs down on his promise to reject any and all appointments by this lunatic, he will lose any credibility he may still have. I would have absolutely no problem with Lt. Governor Quinn making an appointment, though I think a special election would be best. What a mess.
"The Dems made a mistake when they said they would refuse to seat anyone that Blago appointed regardless of who it is."
True.This is another example of why Reid must go.In addition to being spineless,he's brainless.
Democrats will be voting next week,when the new Congress goes into session,on their leadership posts.Isn't anybody challenging Reid for Majority leader?
No the appointment is dead The appointment must be certified by the SOS before official according to IL election code
I don't think Senate leadership is going to want to risk a blow to the absolute power it has always claimed to seat or not seat by letting this go to the Supreme Court, especially with the current Court. I think they will judge it better to preserve its claim to this power by not exercising it.
Blago made a smart move by handing Reid this hot potato.
Blago knows he is in deap shit. The only thing he can do is what he has done - creat as big a mess as he can and hope he is offered a deal in return for cleaning it up.
Maybe, just maybe, Blago can haggle his way out of Jail time.
wv - nocupsag.
Mythical property of disposable styrafoam cups. In reality they are garanteed to dump half their contents of too sweet black coffee on your lap when you answer two phones at once.
I can't believe Blago didn't appoint Ryan Sandberg or Ron Santo!!!
The IL Secretary of State can't block this, at least not according to his spokesman. There's no legal basis on which to do it.
The Sun-Times reports: "[IL Secretary of State] White spokesman David Druker acknowledged there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that the secretary of state sign off on a gubernatorial appointment to the U.S. Senate -- only longstanding precedent."
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1354679,w-blagojevich-obama-senate-seat-burris-123008.article
"Illinois' Secretary of State Jesse White will refuse to certify the appointment"
Although he seemingly has no actual authority to do this, could the purpose be simply to create a "hook" (albeit a rather tendentious one) on which Reid & co. can hang their hats, arguing that there is a dispute over the "qualifications" of the appointee, and therefore the Senate can constitutionally refuse to seat him?
Substantively, that argument would be a MAJOR stretch, I admit. But I wonder if that's what is going on here.
Possibly contradictory to Mainer's comment above, re: "only longstanding precedent," is this from Capitol Fax Blog:
"CNN is now playing up the Jesse White angle. Keep in mind that this is not a state law that requires certification of the Senate choice. It’s a US Senate rule. This may very well stick."
If there's a US Senate rule that requires appointees to be certified by the Sec. of State, and there's no certification of this appointee, doesn't that indeed create the "hook" I discussed above, allowing for at least a halfway-plausible argument that Burris's "qualifications" are in question?
Those who don't want him ti be seated merely need to delay the appointment for 2 years, or possibly until Blago leaves office, if they ever manage to finish the impeachment process.
Suppose the SoS refused to certify. Blago takes him to court and wins. Then the SoS certifies, but spells his name wrong. Senate refuses to seat, on the grounds that the name isn't correct. Etc, etc.
Each step takes time; the legal system is slow. Eventually the clock will run out.
White may try to do that but Burris can file a suit and the courts will make the ultimate decision.
If there is indeed a US Senate rule (and it sure would be good to have that established by a link to such rule), then it seems like they can block his appointment.
But I'd like to see someone with expertise weighing in on this.
IMHO there is more danger for the Democrats in NOT seating Burris than there is in seating him. The Senate Dems will take some heat in the short term for doing so, but it will blow over well before the midterm elections. Blago will either be vindicated or impeached/convicted, most likely the latter. Justice will be served and the whole issue will go away.
By not seating him, you risk alienating a key constituency of the Democratic party, ie african-americans. The damage from doing that could potentially be much worse and longer lasting.
James posted:
"It will now be very hard for Reid and Senate Democrats to reject Burris without major riots"
Major riots? Considering that African-Americans were entirely peaceful when a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION was stolen by preventing many of them from duly voting in Florida and some other places (e.g., St. Louis) in 2000 and Ohio in 2004, you come off as a fucking racist making an idiotic remark like that. Back off from the hyperbole and explain why African-Americans will even give a damn about this appointment. The fact of the guy's skin color doesn't cut it, because blacks have had no hesitation in voting against black candidates they didn't agree with (notably including Republicans).
And I don't know if the Democrats want to create a precedent of allowing a Sec of State to block the appointment of of a Senator when there is an open seat. That opens the door to a real mess in states where the SoS and the Governor are from different parties.
Although he seemingly has no actual authority to do this, could the purpose be simply to create a "hook" (albeit a rather tendentious one) on which Reid & co. can hang their hats, arguing that there is a dispute over the "qualifications" of the appointee, and therefore the Senate can constitutionally refuse to seat him?
I'd bet that you are at least two steps ahead of Reid and White. I do think your idea, however, is by far the best LEGAL means to block this appointment so far dreamed up, even though I agree with you that it is a bit of a stretch. But, given everything against Blago, perhaps it would be enough for the Surpremes.
Eric.
Dificult to creat any sort of national precident. The laws involved are state laws.
Enough with the "Harry Reid is spineless" crap Nate. It's been explained to you, more than once, by EXPERTS in senate procedures why no one could have done much better than Reid with the last congress. One would have thought it would have been obvious to a statistician that 51 (at most) = NO POWER!
Blame,
A commentator mentioned that it was a US Senate rule that calls for the SoS to certify the appointment. If that is the legal justification that is going to be used, then it would potentially create a national precedent.
Standing Rules of the Senate
Rule II - Section 2
"The Secretary (of the Senate) shall keep a record of the certificates of election and certificates of appointment of Senators by entering in a well-bound book kept for that purpose the date of the election or appointment, the name of the person elected or appointed, the date of the certificate, the name of the governor and the secretary of state signing and countersigning the name, and the State from which such Senator is elected or appointed."
There is one way out for Reid.
He can go, cap in hand, to Blago and ask him to withdraw the appointment.
This, I think, was Blago's whole plan. Then blago can try to trade his cooperation for a pardon.
"By not seating him, you risk alienating a key constituency of the Democratic party, ie african-americans."
Balderdash. The Dems now have a very powerful weapon in their arsenal to combat charges that they're committing some sort of racial sin here. That weapon is named Barack Obama.
If Obama, the African-American president-elect whose former Senate seat is at issue here, makes a strong public statement that Burress, although a good man, should not be seated (or should, if necessary, be expelled) because of the cloud around Blago -- and furthermore, explicitly condemns any playing of the race card, reminding us that the issue is Blago, not Burris -- who then will claim that the Dems are acting out of racist motives? Certainly some fringe elements might, and DrudgeHannityRush & co. will get the maximum possible mileage out of any such statements... but I don't see how the "seat him because he's black" argument can become a mainstream position if Obama publicly repudiates it. Which I presume he will, if necessary.
Eric
Oh.
Brendan,
I've been assuming that Obama would not want to get involved in this mess. He has more important things to worry about.
Excellent point, Eric.
Of course, the "precedent" would merely be that the Senate can designate itself as the arbiter of such disputes, not that it has to resolve any particular dispute in any particular way. So if, later on, an SoS refuses, for no good reason (other than partisan politics), to sign off on a gubernatorial appointment, the newly established precedent would be that there is a "qualifications" dispute which the Senate can adjudicate... but presumably the adjudication would be swift, ending in a 100-0 in favor of seating the appointee, in such a case. Presumably neither party would want to be seen as so blatantly and ham-handedly interfering with legal processes for political reasons when there's no good reason to do so (as there is here).
The precedent would really only become relevant in some sort of a "Blago Lite" case, where there are perhaps less substantiated but still existent charges of corruption or what-have-you, lending a defensible, not-purely-partisan justification to Gov vs. SoS warfare. And such cases will presumably be fairly rare.
Nevertheless, this precedential issue is certainly something the Dems would want to think carefully about.
It's been explained to you, more than once, by EXPERTS...
Hah! He's so ensconced in his own little far left world that he has no grip on reality and simply doesn't get it.
And it doesn't matter how much you beat facts into his (or his mindless followers') head(s), they refuse to acknowledge anything other than their own deluded way of thinking.
Fivethirtyeight is groupthink run amok at its finest!
Crawl in your jaded corner of hateful and mindless Liberalism, hide behind a "shroud" of statistics - no matter how contorted and twisted they may be, intentional or unintentional - so you can put up a facade of expertise on a subject, and then yell away anyone with a remotely differing opinion.
Yes, that's the "open-minded" liberalism we've all grown to know and love (read: despise and loathe) over the years.
Wallow in your own stench. No sweat off my back.
If this wasn't clear, my "excellent point" comment was regarding your comment that invoking the SoS non-certification as a justification for rejection could set a troublesome precedent down the road -- not your comment that Obama might have better things to do. Though that's a good point too. :) That's why I said "if necessary." I imagine he won't be eager to jump into the fray, but if it's necessary to tamp down a racially fraught situation that's damaging the party, presumably he would do so.
The biggest winner in all this is the GOP. Barack the Magic what? That controversy just instantly vanished, never to heard from again. MagicNegro-gate has been irrevocably trumped by BlagoBurris-gate.
Just finished watching video of the news conference. That was one of the most interesting ones I've seen--well worth the watch.
Some thoughts:
1. Blogo really threw the Democrats under the bus. He emphasized the duty he had to appoint a senator and explicitly blamed the Illinois legislature for not passing a special election law that Blago supported. I earlier posted that Nate was wrong because Blago could have appointed a Senator before the law was enacted. But, I didn't realize Blago was going to echo Republican talking points. Perhaps his strategy is to cause problems with the implicit threat to cause more. What a mess!
2. Bobby Rush played the race card. He not only played the card, he slammed it on the table and practically dared the Seante to not seat Burris. This could get messier!
What about Obama's cabinet appointees?
Here is a progressive perspective.
Thinking about the SoS certification issue as a way for the Senate to lawfully not seat Burris, it seems to me that issuing a certification is exactly the sort of ministerial function that the SoS has no discretion to withhold. Blago should sue if necessary to get a court to order the SoS to issue the certification. Then, there would be no "hook" however tenuous for the Senate to refuse to seat Burris.
The law on this is very murky and untested
There is no IL law allowing the SoS to stop the appointment, unlikely "precedent" will hold
The Senate amy not have the power to "review" the Senators and may only have the ability to make sure the new Senator to be seated passes the constitutional muster - nothing more
Also not sure, even if it is constituional, that the Senate can decide to have more requirements than the state - it is the state's who run elections and do appointments.
This is a giant mess.
Exactly Another Mike - I don't think they can stop Burris from being seated
Oh, my mom just called, she went to high school with Burris. Says he is a great guy and should be seated, and she is a republican. That sure holds alot of legal significance, I'm sure.
The longer this thing stays in the spotlight,the worse it is for Democrats! Republicans must be laughing their asses off watching the Democrats keep this mess alive and in the headlines!!!
I'm now thinking the best move would be to put it to bed as quickly as possible (White certifying,Reid not fighting it) and hope it's buried by Obama's programs,threatened filibusters,cloture votes,etc.
(White shoud certify,saying that Illinois needs/deserves TWO senators in the new Congress.)
I agree Opus. Burris is a good choice, let him serve and lets move on.
I think they lose in court in any case, and he gets seated.
How bad would it look to be suing to keep the only black senator from being seated?
Michael,
I meant no harm and I'm very sorry if my comment came off as racist. I was simply stating that based on the comments of Congressman Rush, there will be hell to pay if the person replacing Pres. Elect Obama is not an African-American. I find this very ridiculous as there should be no stipulation as to the number of a certain race in the U.S. Congress. If people like Congressman Rush think that just because the seat belonged to an African-American it must go to another, he has another thing coming.
Opus,
I agree completely. Let the Dems take their lumps in the short term for going back on their promise to not seat anyone Blago, and lets move on to more important matters. The Democrats will live or die based on how they govern in these trying times, not based on this one scandal. This is only a distraction, and will be forgotten in a few months.
Let the GOP try to make political hay out of this. If the Democrats can effectively govern while they do that then they just come off looking petty.
If the SoS of Illinois doesn't sign the certification, the Senate can easily keep the appointment from being accepted, per current Senate rules. This would only require a majority vote, and would be in line with past precedent.
Of course Blago can sue. Anyone can sue. It doesn't mean anything to sue, unless you win.. and he doesn't exactly have a lot of time to sit around and wait for an IL Supreme Court decision ordering the SoS to sign the appointment. Any lower court ruling would quickly be appealed, and there would be no injunctive relief for Blago in the meantime.. since White is *refusing* to act. He would be free to continue that refusal until the appeal process completed.
Wayward son-
I don't think the Senate can "decide" not to seat Burris based on the SoS cert.
Two reasons:
1) They only have the right to make sure the Senator before them passes constitutional muster (age, etc.) and nothing more. Where do they get the idea they can "decide" not to seat someone? This would be fun to litigate...
2) States run elections, and they choose their Senator. In this case he is appointed as that is the default constitutional method of selection. The state must stop this, and if it is found that the state cannot (see Another Mike's post above - the SoS can only check if the paperwork is in order and cannot "decide" to overrule state law).
I think he has to get seated. Blago called their bluff, I think they lose. Welcome Sen Burris from IL.
Here is a good article on the topic.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16942.html
"The closest precedent is the 1969 case of Powell v. McCormack, in which the Supreme Court held that the House and Senate can exclude a would-be member only if he or she does not meet the minimum constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship and residency in a state.
But that ruling dealt with the corruption of the would-be member, not the alleged corruption of the process, and it arose in the context of an election, not a gubernatorial appointment. Thus, some legal experts say, there may be an argument that the ruling doesn’t apply when the would-be member has been appointed by a governor who has been charged with trying to sell it to the highest bidder.
“I certainly see a reason someone would argue that the process would be tainted, but I don’t know if that gives the Senate the authority to prevent Burris from taking the seat,” said Steve Huefner, a former Senate legal counsel who is an election law expert at Ohio State University. "
Just a note on the SOS "hook" and the standing rules of the Senate. The Standing Rules of the Senate will never be determined to trump the Constitutional right of states to determine how they will vacancies. Not by the current SCOTUS or any other.
And if it got to that point, a writ in Illinois court would force White to certify the appointment or be in contempt. At which point, the whole argument would be moot.
I suspect Reid and the democrats will not formally contest his seating despite the rhetoric. Maybe they'll allow a vote so members can go on the record, who knows. As for expelling him, no frigging way that happens unless some dirt comes out on him.
RufusRules is correct with his observations about the obstacles to fighting it if the Senate does decide not to seat him. But this is a Senate seat (It's valuable, as Blago pointed out) and those obstacles will not stop anything - the appeals process might last a week or two, but it will be expedited and in the end SCOTUS will uphold Powell.
1) They only have the right to make sure the Senator before them passes constitutional muster (age, etc.) and nothing more. Where do they get the idea they can "decide" not to seat someone? This would be fun to litigate...
It's called Article I of the Constitution.
"Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members"
Since it specifically mentions elections and returns, the ability of the Senate to refuse to accept the results of a state election have been confirmed in case law. It does not mention appointments specifically, which is where the wiggle room you may be misinterpreting came from.. the Senate can certainly void an election, and has done so in the past. It may not be able to void an appointment, assuming the appointee meets the qualifications of the Senate. But these qualifications are 'judged' by the Senate itself, per Article I. Since we have existing Senate rules requiring an SoS countersignature.. it would easily be grounds for refusal.
Powell v McCormack is not precedent, because Powell was a standing member of the House and it was argued that the refusal to seat the congressman was in fact an expulsion (requiring 2/3rds vote) whereas the speaker of the house chose to implement it as an exclusion. The merits of the case were not decided as to remove the House's ability to judge elections, but was instead decided that the speaker had acted incorrectly when calling for a majority vote.
2) States run elections, and they choose their Senator. In this case he is appointed as that is the default constitutional method of selection. The state must stop this, and if it is found that the state cannot (see Another Mike's post above - the SoS can only check if the paperwork is in order and cannot "decide" to overrule state law).
Well, although Another Mike may indeed be a constitutional law professor, or a member of the Supreme Court.. the facts would still be that his statement, and yours.. and mine.. are 'opinions'.
I am certain that the SoS can refuse to certify the election, as he has already done so, and the discussion here has involved using the court system to force him to certify. What has yet to be proven is whether a willing court exists that can be invoked by Blago in time to meet the Senate requirements before the governor is removed from office.
I'd rather have a tainted senator than no senator.
James:
Apology accepted. But while I've respected Bobby Rush in the past, I can't see that it's likely for rank-and-file black citizens of Illinois, as opposed to demagogic black politicians (which is how it sounds like Rush is acting), to care merely about the color of a Senatorial nominee's skin.
I just heard a headline on WCBS here in New York that President Obama has come out against seating Burris. No details yet, just that he supports those who wouldn't seat him. Whereupon, as others have mentioned, I do believe that any potential race card - even if it were ever relevant - is presumably by the boards.
It is surprising, and welcome, that Obama would agree to step in and make his stance known at this early stage. Is there any additional confirmation from another source?
Although many would be willing to cross Reid, not many are going to stand against Obama. He may have been prompted to announce because of the tone of the press conference.
Wayward son-
I think you are wrong on almost all points (I will discuss but one...), but most may be answered soon, very soon, and we will see who is right.
As to Article I, you are grossly over-reading those words.
Qualifications was interpreted in Powell, and it is read narrowly.
Article I does not provide for the House or Senate to pick and choose which election it will accept or not. They can't simply decide to not accept the Senator from Alaska because they hate them, or the process that was used to choose them, if that process followed all their laws within their constitutional purview.
Sorry, you are grossly over-reading the constitution, in my opinion.
I f\referred to Another Mike's post because, in my opinion, he is right.
I am actually surprised Obama commented. That will it make this much more interesting.
Bring on the lawyers!
Another article quoting legal scholars saying he will be seated:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/roland-burris-has-lock-on_n_154322.html
It agrees with my posts above ;)
Burris is on MSNBC and he gave a great interview.
Another opinion saying they must seat Burris:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/12/can_the_senate.html
An opinion that they could get him out, but it would take a 2/3 vote:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/30/what-must-the-senate-do-to-keep-blagos-appointment-out/
To say this guy is untouchable because he's black is insulting to the intelligence of that racial group. Women, after all, didn't buy Sarah Palin.
Additionally, Obama's first choice wasn't even black.
Indeed, even if Obama's seat is eventually filled with another white guy, I don't think trading one senate seat for the presidency is such a bad deal for blacks.
Expel this man on principle. I sure there are plenty of qualified people in Illinois, some of whom are probably black.
I hope Obama,a consummate politician (this is NOT a knock),is just covering his ass.
I'd like to see Burris,certification in hand,show up on Jan.6 for the swearing in ceremony for new members.At the same time,White is announcing the certification in Springfield.
Stealthy,but at least it's legal and over with.
Well, although Another Mike may indeed be a constitutional law professor, or a member of the Supreme Court.. the facts would still be that his statement, and yours.. and mine.. are 'opinions'.
I am certain that the SoS can refuse to certify the election, as he has already done so, and the discussion here has involved using the court system to force him to certify. What has yet to be proven is whether a willing court exists that can be invoked by Blago in time to meet the Senate requirements before the governor is removed from office.
Ha, ha. Not a con law professor, although I did get an A in the subject many years ago. But, all opinions expressed by me on this blog are worth exactly the legal fees you paid for them.
As to whether a willing court would order the SoS to certify the election, we do have at least some clues. The Illinois AG tried to get Blago declared incompetent to serve as governor. In a novel argument, she asserted that the scandal prevented him from effectively carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the governor. The Illinois Supreme Court, correctly IMHO, shot down this argument as that was not the type of incompetency contemplated by the statute. IIRC, the lawsuit was over in a week or two from start to finish. Although most cases take lots of time, cases like this tend to move very quickly through the system. I do not think it would take long for Blago to get an order requiring the SoS to certify his appointment. The attempt to get him declared incompetent would tend to show any result will be extremely expidited and that the Illinois Supreme Court, while not sympathetic to Blago, is not willing to disregard the law to thwart him from appointing Obama's successor.
First, I thought it was a really tricky move to appoint an actually good candidate because that makes it very hard for the Senate to even try to reject Blagojevich's candidate. But now, especially after the press conference, I am just angry about the amount of race baiting. Something there isn't right. Rep. Rush knew very well what he implied by using the word "lynch". It was totally inappropriate.
And Burris shouldn't have accepted the offer. He is supporting Blagojevich by this action, he is giving him authority and turning this into a national problem that's going to involve the whole Senate.
And why... why did a black man accept the offer after the suspicious details that emerged from Blagojevich's dealings with Jesse Jackson Jr.?
It seems that Blagojevich is maintaining an alliance with the black democrats of Illinois - can't blame him, but I blame the people that should know better.
What's more shocking? That a fairly credible candidate actually decided to accept Rod Blagojevich's appointment? Or that Harry Reid is actually showing some spine?
Both are very surprising. I guess Harry Reid has a backbone when his own party is involved, but when the Republicans threaten to filibuster, the guy takes to the fetal position faster than an actual fetus. Maybe it's a side effect from having so many doors slammed in his face during those Mormon missionary years. "Sorry to bother you guys! Have a swell afternoon folks."
As for Burris accepting the post, I don't understand why he wouldn't turn it down. Imagine, "As honored as I am to have been offered this position and as thrilled as I would be to serve the great people of Illinois in such a capacity -- in light of current events and out of respect for the Congressional leadership, I cannot in good conscience accept the position at a time when the people of Illinois are understandably skeptical about whose interests their representatives are truly serving."
Worst case scenario, Blago turns to the next person in line (who would likely be rejected) and after Blago gets thrown out, Burris the Benevolent is suddenly the magical elixir who we can count on to work against corruption in Chicago politics.
This seems so clear to me I feel like I must be missing something blatantly obvious (I didn't get that much sleep last night, so that's very probable). Anyone want to fill me in on why Burris would accept?
Anyone want to fill me in on why Burris would accept?
Seems like you're missing the obvious. Burris wants to be a Senator. This is the only chance he has to become one.
Seems like you're missing the obvious. Burris wants to be a Senator. This is the only chance he has to become one.
___________
Yeah, I guess that is the obvious answer, but what would you put the odds at of him actually getting the seat? He isn't going to make many friends in the party w/ this decision.
And if he were to pass over the seat at this point in time, don't you think he'd stand a good chance of getting the appointment at a later date (or winning in a special election) once this Blagojevich mess is sorted out?
Plus, if he ends up getting the seat, do you think he's going to be able to keep it come next election? To borrow the media's new favorite word, what kind of taint are we looking at here?
I may be in the minority on this, but I think he has a good chance of being seated. I'd put the odds at about 50-50. Maybe check intrade tomorrow to see what the consensus odds are.
I don't think he had any chance of being appointed at a later date. From what I've read, he's a little past his prime and wasn't really on the short list before the scandal. I do not think he had any particular ties to Quinn, the Lt Gov who will become Gov if Blago is impeached and convicted.
Not sure he even wants to run in 2010. But, if he did and had served well for two years, then I'd think he'd have a decent chance to win both the primary and general. He'd likely have strong AA support, which would go a long way to winning the primary. And, if he won the primary, just being the Dem in Illinois would likely make him the favorite. It will be interesting to see how much, if any, political taint attaches to Burris for accepting a Blago appointment--I don't even have a WAG on this.
I may be in the minority on this
_______________________
Well, you managed to convince me. Nice work!
i dunno, but what can be done to GET HARRY GONE??? Reid is so ineffective, so buffoonlike in playing out these scenarios, that he needs to get gone, fast. What will it take for the Democratic Senate Caucus to vote him out, and vote in Russ Feingold? Help me please
I'm with ya Keith. The man is a turd sandwich, plain and simple.
The (state) Secretary of State must certify public election results, because his department manages those elections at the state level.
The Governor, on the other hand, has authority to make his appointments over his own signature; no Secretary can veto it by withholding a signature.
Otherwise the law would in effect say that "the Governor and Secretary of State, acting together in agreement, appoint a replacement Senator" -- which isn't the case.
Here, the SoS's certification can only be ministerial, like a Notary Public's: in effect saying "Yes, the Governor did sign this appointment."
Due Process Rights Of Everyone Behind Refusal To Senate Seat Roland Burris
Re: Gov B Appointment In IL AND Senate Seating of Roland Burris
Dear Senator Harry Reid, (FYI Copy to Public Officials And Press):
Please take a course in government and constitutional law. Ignorance of the concept of DUE PROCESS seems to exist in your case. You show not even the most rudimentary understanding of the process of DUE PROCESS OF LAW and THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE with your constant pronouncements of TAINT OF GOV. B. The only taint is upon you for your ignorance concerning the confusion of charge/accusation with a finding of guilt.
How could you have gotten as far as you have in government with such profound ignorance? Explain this? Please, I wish to hear this?
This GOV B has been found gulty of NOTHING. Even you have the right of DUE PROCESS OF LAW, not just GOV. B.
Tell me, Senator, whether you have ever heard of the right to confront and cross -examine your accusers where rules of engagement exist either in court or even before legislative bodies?
Gov. B., this moment, stands before the public as innocent as you or I. He is only charged, not convicted or found guilty or adjudicated except for purposes of pretrial bail and release.
The size of a charging document does not determine the magnitude of taint or degree of guilt without a full adjudication on the merits. How could you not know this?
I am embarassed for you and the ignorance of DUE PROCESS you convey every time you open your mouth about Gov. B. Gov. B. stands innocent as you or I absent fair and proper adjudication on the merits.
If a lawfully placed, duly constitued Governor of a state makes a rational, legal and lawful appointment for replacement of a senatorial seat. it is LEGAL. Gov. B. did not appoint an elephant or giraffe to Replace Sen. Obama.
In your case, USE OF THE WORD, TAINT OF GOV B. = COMPLETE IGNORANCE OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL CITIZENS, EVEN GOVERNORS, OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW, BEFORE LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS AND, OR FORMAL, LEGAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. Please, learn something here. You owe an apology to the american public for your IGNORANCE, attitude and demeanor on the GOV. B AFFAIR.
Sincerely,
Dated: January 6th, 2009
Ronald B. Keys, JD, PhD,
Former Felony & Homocide Trial Prosecutor
Attorney, Michigan & New York
Plantation, Fl. USA
rkeysphd at gmail dot com
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區
thank you, wonderful blog.
ISO 9001:2008 quality
I II III IV V VI IV
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment