Item. Rod Blagojevich impeached by nearly unanimous vote in Illinois House. Impeachment trial to be held by Illinois Senate next week.
Item. New poll from Glengariff Group says that Illinoisans opposed to seating Burris by 53-32 margin. More Illinoisans strongly opposed to seating Burris than in favor. More support for either a Pat Quinn appointment and a special election.
Item. Sun Times alleges inconsistencies in Burris testimony to House impeachment panel. Burris said he had no contact with representatives of Blago prior to late December; Sun Times says he talked to Blago confidant at some point during the fall. A venial sin -- but might offer enough pretense for the Senate to deny Burris membership.
Item. Draft of stimulus bill encountering more resistance from Democrats than Republicans. Getting 60 votes in the Senate does not seem like major concern to Senate Leadership; getting "right" package passed does.
Conjecture. Is Burris' appointment to the Senate still a fait accompli?
1.09.2009
Blago Impeached; Tide Turning (Again) on Burris?
@ 12:28 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
131 comments
Good riddance. Eventually. Yay rule of law.
The vote was 144-1 with 3 abstentions. Who voted for keeping Blago?
Burris should still be seated in my mind, but if the IL Senate moves fast they might be bale to try to remove his appointment via Quinn.
Hopefully Jesse White will stand strong and not acquiese.
Burris is a damn dope. He will cost the dems a seat in 2010 if he keeps this shiite up. Somebody with some balls please stop this ass-clown.
Anyone? Anyone??
Nate, you can't stop me. I'll hunt you down if you try and stop me from posting on here.
I will gut you like a fish. I come to Chicago regularly, so you'd better watch out, or your life will be in extreme danger.
Mule,
You have been referred to both Google and to the Secret Service.
I suggest that you never post here again.
Burris should be denied a seat because of his political opportunism, lack of integrity, and lack of humility. Admittedly though, if that was a valid reason to denied office to politicians, they'd all have to go!
I think I am missing the joke of Mule Rider's post. Or else I am not a fan of it.
Thought: would it be totally out of the question for Pat Quinn to come into office and reaffirm (or announce that he'll reaffirm) Burris's appointment? Then Reid doesn't need to worry about blocking it, because it's Blago and his questionable right to appoint a senator that's in question - not the record or ethical standing of Burris.
Nate,
Report Mulie to the cops - that is clearly a threat.
Also, you can go to haloscan for somments and block him permanently from each IP he uses - it blocks all the anon stuff.
Well! We all knew Mule Rider was a nut job, but now he's making death threats toward nate to confirm his how mentally disturbed he is! I certainly hope the proper authorities use his IP address to take action. I warned months ago he was potentially dangerous.
538 now at 61.5% of the vote in the weblog political coverage awards - down from 62+ earlier today. Nearest rival 8.2%.
on the previous thread about where senators come from - could have done with analysis by party. An analysis of dynasties by party and wealthiness by party would also be interesting as a future topic.
all i can say is that it's about time.
after all the corruption charges he's up against (see them here: http://tv1.com/playlists/109) he should have been impeached earlier...like before he appointed someone to the Senate seat.
Nate,
Depending on how many proxies he's hiding behind, it could conceivably take forever to find who or where Mule Rider is.
If MR is one person. Some websites, like bugmenot.com, post user accounts with passwords so people can bypass login requirements. MR could be several different people all using the same login info.
Then there are the legal issues. The Megan Myers case proved you can harass somebody over the internet, even to the point where they commit suicide, and the law won't bother you. Also, what if Mule Rider (or Mule Riders) is (are) under 18?
Now, you are correct that threatening someone's life is illegal. That does count as verbal assault and it is actionable. It's one thing if someone does that in a traceable way-letters, phone calls, in person, what have you - where the assailant's identity is easily established. Here, the assailant's identity is not easily established.
But you still have to find the little bastard(s). Good luck with that.
Calling the cops will do little good. Better to moderate your blog, and just don't let any troll posts go live.
Statler, I've always thought there were at least two of them, plus the lame sock puppets who occasionally erupted.
Hey, maybe we could all club together and find $20K and pay that guy in Oxford to analyse MR's posts and prove they were all written by ....( no, not Bill Ayres)... Karl Rove??? Russ Limbaugh? Ann Coulter?
...oh, I left Rick Warren and Joe the Plumber out of the list of possible MRs.
You have been referred to both Google and to the Secret Service.
I suggest that you never post here again.
Hahaha!
Idle threats from the a 2 cent queef. Whatever. I'll post when I want, where I want. All you can do is remove/delete as best you can.
I would kick your ass five ways to Friday if given the chance. You better watch your back.
And I suggest you not be such a needle-dick piece of shit, Nate.
You're gonna pay for even smarting off to me you ignorant mook.
You look like you've got Asperger's or autism or something. Must suck to go through life being a complete dickhole.
Do you think maybe you could hire somebody to moderate the posts? That way you don't have to do the whole thing by yourself. As a flat broke college student that already spends a ridiculous amount of time on 538, I'd be more than happy to do the job.
As a flat broke college student that already spends a ridiculous amount of time on 538, I'd be more than happy to do the job.
Yes, you do spend an inordinate amount of time on here. Maybe you should spend some of that time actually WORKING, and then maybe you wouldn't be broke.
And I'm sure if you were moderating posts, as soon as someone started with something like...
"It looks like maybe conservatives have a good point about...."
...you'd delete the sucker, no questions asked. Then this whole thing would reek completely of the stench of far left liberals, not that it isn't far from that anyway.
Except it'd be about like Daily Kos*2...or more like Daily Kos^2!
Did I hear that Nate was a "diarist" for Daily Kos. That explains a lot. What a joke!
He'll flame out in the mainstream. Too radical. Too liberal. His ego is too big. He's Olbermann with five times the stats but an even bigger ego...which is unbelievable....
So where does Nate come off? Who knows, but he better not cross the Mule Rider, because that will be the day he gets castrated in front of his friends and/or family by me with a dull butter knife.
Down with Nate!!!
So I wonder what Blago has on Milton Patterson and the three absentions.
Mule Rider - one thing you should really understand.
No one likes you on here. You are the web equivalent of a fart in an elevator basically.
On the other hand Nate is highly respected both here and offline, with multiple appearances on various tv shows in the recent past due to his meteoric rise.
Now, given that these two statements are both true: why do you even think you abusing him is going to make one whit of difference to him?
Now why don't you try just going away to a nice asylum somewhere and commiting yourself. Because seriously, you are a very weird person and mental problems are likely.
They do a neat thing over at other blog journalism, called 'disemvoweling'. The trick is, trolls love when people read their tripe. So you make their tripe unreadable by removing all the vowels. Don't know if scripts for this exist on Blogger.
You don't get to be a bigshot Governor without having a few people in small places under your heel. Then again, you don't get to be impeached without abusing your power in a grand and ridiculous manner. If only the converse were also true.
Statler, what happened about the fasting?
MR, this version of you is now beyond redemption. Not for the fish gutting, but for using Asbergers as an insult. You know fuck all about anything that matters. Go back into your basement and play with yourself, because it's all you are fit for.
and Nate - I'd suggest blocking based on IP. Block him and block him and block him again if required. There are ways around it but it'll slow him down massively, and that might stop him in the long term.
The mission of Joe Biden's Teeth is to reduce our dependency on porcelain and metal fillings through the investment in clean and renewable enamel.
To teach our youth that tooth decay is a matter of national security, and to unite democrats and republicans for the conservation of our most precious natural resource
wow, those were some teeth! Though of course, you guys will reckon that as a Brit I have not a leg to stand on where judging good teeth is concerned!
... completely off topic but I just clicked on the link on the left "how much is a Bush speech worth?" and saw an advert for a 20mm brass female bush. What exactly is THAT about?
I can't believe they continue to provide Internet service to mental inmates such as the one on the back of an ass. Good for you for reporting him, Nate.
However, best answer for nitwits like this is to ignore them.
It's hard to tell with Mule Rider whether his age or IQ is lower, but the threats are simply sad and pathetic. Nate, you've done a sterling job bringing rationality and science to the confused polling over the last year or so. The civilized adults on this blog long ago recognized that Mule Rider was a fool, and today's sad episode only confirms that. Please don't waste too much time on the wretch in future. For some reason my mystery word today was frusto, presumably meaning frustrated psycho. It seems rather appropriate.
What's sad is that we've allowed this blog to be primarily about MR. I have no idea what the percentage of posts either by or about MR is exactly, but I'd wager that it approaches 50%, if it hasn't managed to exceed that number.
Maybe we should re-title it to something like "538: Mule Rider Expo featuring the occasional political comment"
Statler, I suggest we entitle the thread "Drop the Dead Donkey." it fits both Blago and the fuckwit currently known as Mule Rider.
I'm half expecting Mule Humper to come out with, "I mean to have you, Nate Silver, even if it must be burglary!"
I for one am chuffed that I had this moron Burris pegged from the moment he was appointed. Anyone with an ounce of self respect would never have accepted. He has NO business being in the senate.
SnW
I briefly met Joe Biden when he was campaigning in Daytona Beach during the last week of the electio - well, OK I shook his hand in the rope line & exchanged pleasantries about his wife, etc.
anyway, his toothiness was not extreme imho. it did not call undue attention, especially after years in LA where all those mouths full of fake brite-white chompers vitually blind a normal person.
Of course, Joe's hair had to be examined - but for a man his age it looked just fine too
now Norm Coleman's toothiness factor is another story...
-----------------------------------
as for MULE HEAD
this appears to be one of the later sock puppets rather than the original MR [who was a different sorta jerk in his own 'right']
doubt this sucker even knows where the real MR resides...
DNFTT
back to the topic: being an ignorant foreigner, I don't know much about how your legal processes work. I seem to remember from (embarrassed cough) Clinton, that there are impeachment hearings. But surely they would have to wait until any police case was completed? So what is happening with the prosecutor and when will we hear about any evidence he might have?
I can get behind morzer's suggestion. 8) I also agree with DCM - I've been reading here long enough to know that there are at least two Mules - one's fairly reasonable (in comparison to the one we have here), and the other is the one that's about to get b&. (And quite possibly v&.)
That said, Blago's out on his ass. But I'd like to see the internals of that poll - I read HuffPo (the linked post) AND the article that HuffPo linked to, and no breakdown of the approval or disapproval.
I'd just like to know, though - are the people that approve of Burris also - by and large - the people that approve of Blague exercising his appointment power? Or are they two entirely independent things?
I also normally try to restrain myself from WV games, but...my WV is "shous."
Not bad, it has potential. It's short and punchy, so that would hold the reader's attention better. What colors should we use, the current primary red/navy blue scheme or should we move more toward pastels? I'm thinking pink and yellow, actually, something more spring-like and happy, to reflect the new era of Mule Rider that has come about.
In fact, we should try to re-market MR as being more cute and cuddly, to make him more accessible to the general public. His trademark death threats should probably be made into some kind of catch phrase, something he can just repeat at key moments along with an MP3 of a laugh track.
For the logo, there should be something about Blago's most distinctive feature, being his hair. Most men over 20 eschew the Zac Efron look, since the presence of massive bangs is aimed more at the maternal instinct than it is at projecting an air of maturity. Maybe we could have like a wig or something resembling his hair at a sort of canted angle hanging off the F logo...
We should also stop calling it a Blog and now describe it as a Blag, to further tighten up the association.
I think it has great commercial potential
Any word on when the 3 judge panel will be appointed and start work in Minnesota? There is a deadline of 20 days to get underway but not sure when the clock starts running.
Please find a way to block all posts by MuleRider. He scares me.
SnW
pink and yellow no way - has to be pink and turquoise, surely?
And to answer Mrs. B:
Two somewhat different animals - our state governments are modeled on our federal government's, for the most part. However, the processes are different.
I believe, though, that formal criminal charges are NOT a requirement for impeachment at the federal level. If I recall, Andrew Johnson (I believe) was impeached without criminal charges being lodged against him.
At the state level, again, processes differ across state lines. I live in New Jersey, so I'm not familiar with Illinois procedures. (As I shouldn't - Springfield, IL is halfway across the country from me.) In general, though, I think the same rules apply. Blago hasn't been formally indicted yet, but that wouldn't necessarily preclude a state legislature investigation into wrongdoing.
DCM
I saw the VP debate, and all I could think about the whole time was 'this man has wondrous teeth'. Which is either a comment about how vapid the content of that debate was or my shallowness. Maybe it was intentional to distract the gay men int he audience from his comments about how he opposed Equal Marriage. Sort of a "don't pay any attention to what comes out of my mouth, just keep staring at my mouth kinda strategy.
Which could be how he has managed to survive all those gaffes. I mean, maybe you're thinking to yourself "wtf did he just say" when you read it, but if you are actually watching him say it, your thoughts are more likely to be, 'My god, who is this man's dentist?'
And it could work in foreign policy discussions as well. Kinda like how Tony Blair distracted us all with that amazing haircut and his dreamy eyes. "what? War in Iraq? Sure, Tony, anything you say. sighhhhhhhh"
"more resistance from Democrats"
That is a good sign right? The magnitude of resistance from Democrats in the Senate is positively correlated with the rate at which legislation passes- no?
It is hard to see Tom Harkin looking so sad. I hope this all works out.
Do either Google or the Secret Service employ mental health professionals? I hope so.
@ ABowers
I believe the 20 day clock is already running. I would expect that Justice Page will appoint the panel in the next few days.
So what happens if Blago is impeached, and the new Governor picks someone else for the vacancy. Then Reid has two people lined up for the same job..
Mrs. B,
Chris is generally correct. Pres. Johnson, for ex., was theoretically impeached for corruption, but mainly for being clueless.
Illinois' standard is "cause," which is an updated version of "misdemeanors" (in the sense of official misconduct, as it was understood in the 18th-19th century, and not a crime punishable by less than a year in prison as currently defined). Actually, the Illinois' impeachment report - available at chicagotribune.com among other sources - does a good job laying out the fact that impeachment and removal isn't criminal, or even civil liability, but an essentially political process.
Think of it like the way you boot someone off the job who has tenure or other form of job security - you have to have good cause, but how much or what form it takes will vary wildly with the circumstances. Its not enough that you don't like the job they do(hence the tenure analogy), but if they are violating the minimal standards of the profession, you don't have to wait for a criminal conviction to remove them.
And I don't care what incarnation of MR Nate was dealing with, I'm glad to see he finally crossed the line enough to get a smackdown. He's been threatening to hurt other posters, but since Nate is actually pretty easy to find this crossed the line of both Federal and state law. While I agree an IP trace/whois search might not get him, and a lot of agencies don't take this stuff seriously enough, letting that sort of threat go undocumented is far worse.
Does anyone know what happens if Burris hasn't been seated by the time Blago is removed from office? Does that automatically invalidate the appointment? What if Blago's replacement appoints someone else?
I had assumed that Blago's replacement would just reappoint Burris if that happened, but if popular sentiment in Illinois is against doing that then that might change things.
JR,
I know that in cases of competing credentials the Senate can decide who to seat (happened a lot during Reconstruction, for example), but they'd have to defend the choice not to seat Burris (as the holder of the senior commission). In other words, they'd have to take exactly the same position they'd have to in order to refuse to seat him without a replacement, so we'd have the same court battle we all thought was looming a week ago. Especially since the Illinois Supreme Court just ruled JWhite's signature wasn't necessary to make the appointment official (contrary to Reid's position about its "preferred" form).
Andrew Jackson was not actually impeached: a request to impeach him (on grounds of general arrogance, basically) was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, but the committee would have had to find some "high crime or misdemeanor" to charge him with, so they settled for reporting out a bill "censuring" the President (nasty sounding but of no legal effect).
Illinois' impeachment standards do not require any kind of "crime", although the standard is not as weak as just a "no-confidence vote".
Andrew Johnson's Impeachment
Andrew Jackson was not impeached. AndrewJohnson was.
at the risk of getting stoned here, i would like to defend blago.admittedly it is a short defense.
blago is just about the only demo i can think of who makes a stand and doesnt wimp out. the guy has not been found guilty of anything. he had a legal right to appoint burris. He has nice hair.
to those who think those released tapes prove blago isnt quite on the up and up. you are probably right. If you think that blago probably will not be absolved with whatever charges are filed against the guy you
are probably right too.
BUT NO ONE CAN DENY THAT HAIR!
@SnW-
I do not know why Gwen Effiel push Biden on that. He looked so sad saying those words-I did not believe him for a minute. Has Biden ever attended a same-sex wedding? He must have, right? I am sure it depends on how many weddings he attends per year. Kerry and Kennedy must have attended an actual marriage ceremony between two people of the same sex? It has been law since 2003 in MA.
If any of these people have not celebrated a same-sex union or wedding in person I would be shocked.
How many of our elected official have attended same-sex weddings or commitment ceremonies?
Statler N Waldorf said...
Nate,
Depending on how many proxies he's hiding behind, it could conceivably take forever to find who or where Mule Rider is.
If MR is one person. Some websites, like bugmenot.com, post user accounts with passwords so people can bypass login requirements. MR could be several different people all using the same login info. . . .
Now, you are correct that threatening someone's life is illegal. That does count as verbal assault and it is actionable. It's one thing if someone does that in a traceable way-letters, phone calls, in person, what have you - where the assailant's identity is easily established. Here, the assailant's identity is not easily established.
But you still have to find the little bastard(s). Good luck with that.
Calling the cops will do little good. Better to moderate your blog, and just don't let any troll posts go live."
The net is mostly pseudo-anonymous. People think they can't be traced because they use anonymous accounts. They can.
Even those who use library or school computers can generally be traced. IT experts can easily track users, and notify the domains they use of illegal activities and force them to close down the accounts.
Also, backtracking over Mule-Ridder's posts on these past threads over the last 6 months would reveal that he's posted his real location in some town in Tennessee (I forget which), probably his true location.
It wouldn't take too-long from there for any competent investigation.
If you'd like a Mule Rider-free site to post comments, where people of all political stripes come together, read 538.com religiously, talk about the issues of the day, and is sock puppet-free, come visit us over at Poll Watcher. We'd be happy to see you there.
well, waiting for Nate to post another thread on the IL SC denying Burris relief via mandamus...
on the face of it, this appears to damage Burris' claimto the seat
BUT in reading the entire [unanimous ?] judicial opinion of the SC, actually they state clearly that mandamus is not necessary or needed for relief by Burris because the go0vernor's appoitment is valid on the face of it & is already 'documented' by the SoS when he 'registered' it
so they essentially ruled that the registration is all that Burris requires to prove his bonafides
and they basicallt seem to tell the US Senate to stick it in their arse, because Burris' appointment is registered & legal & legit so deal with it [or words to that effect]
IL SC opinion @ http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/January/107816.pdf
Burris appears to be in as IL junior Senator regardless of whether Blago's impeachment is subsequently upheld...
but that might be another legal relief that Burris may have to file with the courts...
"Conjecture. Is Burris' appointment to the Senate still a fait accompli?"
Burris' appointment was NEVER legally a "fait accompli" for reasons that various legal scholars have explored. Bottom Line: It's not at all conclusive that Art. I, Sec. 5 prohibits the Senate from refusing to seat Burris under the current circumstances.
Here's a convenient summary of the Powell case that shows WHY the legal issue in THIS case is not yet decided:
"The Court did not reach (because it determined it did not need to in order to definitively rule in this case) the question of which Congress the Constitution was referring to that had the power to expel one of its members. The Court determined in this case that no Congress could exclude a not-yet member (i.e., a candidate member) from being sworn in and taking their seat in the House. The Court found that if the Congress went beyond a determination that a candidate member had satisfied the Constitution’s qualifications for membership (and had been duly chosen by, and through the laws of their state) it could not (under the Constitution) go further in examining and possibly rejecting a candidate member before administering the oath of office, and seating them."
In THIS case, Congress has the power to determine under Art. I, Sec. 5 that Burris has NOT been "duly chosen by and under the laws of their state" and thus the Senate is NOT required to seat him and bring an action to expel him afterward.
Thus, the present circumstances is arguably DISTINGUISHABLE FROM POWELL, and thus, should permit the Senate to bar Burris.
Of course, Harry Reid doesn't have the guts for the fight, but that's another story.
After I posted a comment on this site in support of John Zeigler, I received an e-mail for a Mr. Bill Daly, an avid reader of Nate Silver and fivethirtyeight.com. After Daly e-mailed me I responded with the following e-mail and posed a few questions:
Okay, his point was in doing the interviews was to show how uninformed Obama supporters are. It has NOTHING to do with McCain supporters! He never said, nor implied McCain voters were smarter or better informed or more knowledgable. McCain supprters could be even less informed than Obama voters, but that wasn't the issue! If I wanted to do a survey to show that Mike Jabaley was a dumbass, why would I need to interview Bill Daly???? I would just ask Mike Jabaley questions to see if he knew the answers. If I got them all wrong, then asking Bill Daly the same questions doesn't make my responses any more or less correct! Tell ya what, we'll do a little test case. We'll call it:
"Bill Daly has no clue as to what the "rich" make in a year, or who pays what taxes."
Question 1:
If a person wants to be in the top 1% of annual income earners in the United States, what is the minimum amount of money that person needs to make to be in that top 1%?
Question 2:
If a person wants to be in the top 5% of annual income earners in the United States, what is the minimum amount of money that person needs to make to be in that top 5%?
Question 3:
What percentage of all income tax dollars collected by the federal government does that 1% pay?
Question 4:
What percentage of all income tax dollars collected by the federal government does that 5% pay?
Now, don't get confused here Bill. I don't need to go ask anyone else these questions. John Zeigler might not even come close with his answers, but that is not who my statement is about. It is about Bill Daly's lack of knowledge of the subject. When you answer these questions incorrectly, it doesn't imply that Zeigler is better informed on the subject matter than you, just that you, much like the Obama supporters, are incompetent on the subject matter.
Here is Mr. Daly's answer to my question he e-mailed back to me:
I began reading your response but clearly your inabilities and shortcomings as a person have gotten the best of you. I never said what you are claiming and you clearly are too incompetent and too immature to understand the argument at hand. Do yourself and the rest of the world a favor, don't post your opinion online again or you can expect a rational rebuttle to your stupidity. Your lack of understanding clearly demonstrates your hate and incompetence in matters of national interest.
Now for something special... if you contact me anymore with your incompetence, I swear to God I'll pull a reverse lookup on your aol.com address and really give you something to cry about.
You talk of stupid people, yet you are clearly the uneducated idiot in this conversation. What you don't realize is by responding to my email, you provided me with the IP address of your computer which is more than enough information to find your personal home address, social security #, and information about friends and family. Clearly you're the fuckin idiot my friend. Thanks for the info!
I'll show you just how "informed" I am about your friends and family and where they live or won't be living at much longer. You can also expect all this information to be posted on a website, where everyone will have access to it.
Do yourself a favor and get an education. You clearly need it!
- Bill
livemild are you implying that Blago's hair, if not the rest of him, is unimpeachable, and therefore that same hair might become the Governor of Illinois in a few days?
mhz-
You can attend a marriage without legalizing it. Maybe the ones he did attend were officiated by Rick Warren.
Cugel-
That was true before the advent of the proxy server. It is now possible to disguise your IP address to appear to be very far from where you are actually located. If you do thsi multiple times, you create a nasty mess for anyone that tries to track you down. Also, it is still possible that there are multiple MRs in multiple locations. If that's so, who do you bust? All of them? What if some contend that they personally did not post the illegal stuff and they don't know who did? Legally, they can send your lawyers in circles like a dog chasing it's own tail. If you catch any of them to begin with, which again is doubtful.
Further, the courts don't consider this sort of thing that critical of an issue. Megan Meier is an example of this, where a woman harassed a teenage girl online until she committed suicide. Despite public outcry, there's nothing legally that can be done about it. The jury couldn't even return a verdict as to whether the stalker had committed a crime. And they could find her, because she wasn't hiding behind a proxy server, and even admitted what she had done, with no remorse. Imagine how much harder this would be if she'd made any serious effort to hide her identity or deny what she had done. Now think of MR, who, if smart, is behind at least 5 or six proxy servers and will deny everything if asked.
Again, good luck with that.
Now, what is the real goal here? To change an assholish forum troll's behavior (yeah, good luck on that one, pal), to get vengence, or just to cut down on the troll posts? The latter is easy to solve. You just have to moderate the posts, so they're in a queue until you look them over and approve the ones that go live and deny the ones you don't want to go live.
Rather than trying to save the world from MR, just save your blog by moderating it.
IL SC Opinion conclusion:
"Because the Secretary of State had no duty under section 5(1) of
the Secretary of State Act (15 ILCS 305/5(1) (West 2006)) to sign and affix the state seal to the document issued by the Governor appointing Roland Burris to the United States Senate, Petitioners are not entitled to an order from this court requiring the Secretary to perform those Acts.
> Under the Secretary of State Act, the Secretary’s sole responsibility was to register the appointment (15 ILCS 305/5(2)
(West 2006)), which he did.
>>> No further action is required by the Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor’s appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under Illinois law. <<<
------------------------------------
seems pretty definitive, no ???
WV - strongr [Burris's claim to the seat is now even 'strongr' than before...]
Burris was foolish to take the Senate seat with approval from an impeached governor, but I do believe is right. The law is on his side and despite the governor, Burris was approved by the governor to take that seat. In 2010, the people in Illinois will have a say if they want Burris to stay in the Senate or not.
As for the MR, I doubt if he can enroll to go attend the Southern Ark. University, home of the real Muleriders. A mulerider over there is a foxy lady with a cowboy hat riding her horse down the football field after the football team had won a home game.
MR must be John Ziegler from Fix News. Why don't he/she just go to the Freep site and stay there!
Blago just gave another shout out to the press (can't be a press conference if you take no questions, even after telling a reporter you'd "be happy to talk to them"). Basically, he's trying what I'm calling the "Robin Hood" defense - sure, I ignored the Legislature, "defied" the FDA, went around the plain letter of the law, etc., but look - I did it to help little people the big, bad legislature wouldn't (and I consulted "experts" and "lawyers" to do it, so it must have been okay - hah!). He also through Emanuel under the bus, again, for suggesting Illinois try to do something to get drug costs down (which is, again, not the point - the fact he went against the express law on the books and violated Federal law despite warnings from the legislature is). Basically, you can't remove me because the ends justify the means (even when the Legislature has said we can't afford the program) - and he qouted Tennyson to close, after talking about how hard his parents had it and how he's been a fighter for so long.
All he said on the corruption charges was "I've committed no criminal wrongdoing" and "it will be dealt with in a Federal Court". Funny, I guess he won't be defending what he says on the tapes in the Senate?
Even the MSNBC talking head immediately said "Is he crazy? Or crazy like a fox?" With a clear emphasis on the former.
Cugel, are you the genuine Cugel the Clever, as per Jack Vance, or just a pale imitation?
TIM
your description of what a real MuleRider is [foxy lady riding a horse at college football] will be in my head now whenever MuleHead spews his bile on here...
clearly 'she' [Mulie] is no foxy lady !!!
thanks for the laff @ Mule Hide's expense
i dont see how the US Senate can stop burris. he is the legal senator now. get over it demos.
statler- i dont know how to separate blago from those beautiful strands without a scalping. last i heard a good scalping was currently illegal.
his hair is unimpeachable. maybe the good citizens of IL can find it in their hearts to forgive blago justg to keep the hair in office.
How can Burris be anything but a joke, a major liability, if appointed by an impeached governor? A governor that was impeached for crimes pertaining to the very seat in question?
C'mon, wake the F up. Burris was a fool to go along with this, the collective party and senate would be historical fools to abide as well.
If they seat him, in two years the seat will turn red.
MOON
BUT the reverse is also true - and scarier yet
regardless of IF the Burris appointment is sketchy & borderline tainted & in poor taste under the circumstances
the FACTS remain that it is legally Blago's duty to appoint a replacement in a timely manner as well as his sole legal right to choose the appointee under IL law
there are no legitimate legal reasons to deny Burris [as the IL SC also concurs that he is the legal appointee in their written opinion today]
the IL SC also calls the Senate on their silly excuse to refuse to seat him without legitimate merit just because they always have required a cert - the SC says they have no legal grounds to deny Burris the seat [in so many words]
the fact remains unfortunately that the appointment was timely & legal when it was made, and a subsequent impeachment proceeding would do nothing to cancel or revoke the legitimate & enforceable appointment of Burris
IF the US Senate prevails in not seating him, then any future appointment or even an unpopular election in any state could be denied their lawful seat due to unpopularity by a majority of sitting senators
I wish they had refused to re-seat Saxby the Lizard for such a lame reason as he is despicable...
but that would be wrong [unfortuantely]
likewise, they could refuse to seat Franken for trumped up reasons...
What I don't understand, and perhaps someone could comment on, is what happens next.
The Ill Supreme court says he doesn't need the SoS signature to get seated.
The Senate says he does
But can the ILSC order the Senate to seat him? I don't think so.
So perhaps there is an impasse.
What happens next?
EC
my take is that the IL SC cannot 'force' the US Senate to seat him per se
BUT they could & probably would deny the ability to seat or appoint anyone else to fill the vacancy unless Burris himself agreed in writing to withdraw his appointment & then Blago revoked the appointment too
as long as the Blago appointment is 'registered' in the IL state documents, he is the duly chosen & sole junior senator in the written opinion of the IL SC today
so either they seat him, he revokes his appointment or the seat remains vacant for 2 years
because they cannot have a special election now before then since the IL SC has ruled that Burris is legit today
and there is no mechanism for the next chief exec to revoke or withdraw a legal/legit appointment made by Blago pre-impeachment imho
so at best an impasse that denies equal representation to the citizens of IL
better the DEMs in the Senate hold their noses & their objections on 'principle & tradition' & just resolve the impasse asap
then elect someone else in 2010...
Several times I've seen people say that if Burris is seated, the seat will go to the republicans in 2010.
First of all, this isn't a reason not to seat him. Secondly, it's not a convincing argument.
We have here a strongly democratic state. In two years, Burris may choose not to run for reelection. There will be no taint on the democrat running for the seat. If he DOES run, then other democrats would have a strong argument for running, in that he wasn't elected in the first place. When the primary is over, some democrat will win, probably after defeating Burris, and some republican will have won as well. They now start on an equal footing, except the democrat has the advantage that he is from the majority party.
Why is it so unlikely that the dems can hold the seat in 2010?
WV: caretu: Would someone caretu explain why this is such a disaster?
agrred EC
no good reason to assume any other outcome
Burris is a placeholder & he is in his 70's already
so just let everyone start their senate campaigning now & run for the post in 2010
Burris is a bonafide DEM at least, so who cares in the short-run ?
tempest - meet teapot
treat Burris same as the appointments in CO, NY & DE [Biden to resign Thursday next week]
all will presumably be 'placeholders' who must prove their bonafides in a general election in 2010 or step aside
DE - is Kaufman any better as an appointee than Burris ?
probably worse, since the fix is clearly in there...
who wants to argue that the DE appointment has no quid pro quo orchestrated by Joe Biden to hold the seat warm for his son ???
so why is tis particular IL appointment more tainted in comparison...
Well, I'll continue to disagree here. I think the Senate has a legal right to not seat Burris and declare the seat vacant. It looks unlikely that Reid will have the balls to back up that option, but I think he should.
DCM,
It is completely different. It is because no one alleges the governor of Delaware tried to sell Biden's seat to the highest bidder. Blago is accused of that and the accusation seems to be backed up.
It is not Burris that is he problem. It is that Blago appointed anyone would be tainted. He should not have done it, the Senate did not want him to do it, and they should get some backbone and back up what they want.
I don't understand the IL SC's opinion. They seem to be saying "notwithstanding the Senate's ruling that the certification is invalid, and Art I S5c. of the constitution's setting the Senate as the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its members, the certification is valid."
Isn't the correct response from the Senate "no, fuck off, read the constitution and who asked you anyway?"
"IF the US Senate prevails in not seating him, then any future appointment or even an unpopular election in any state could be denied their lawful seat due to unpopularity by a majority of sitting senators."
This is a completely valid point. But, it's a Constitutional problem. Arguably, the Constitution gives Congress the sole and exclusive power under Art. I, Sec. 5 to be the sole and exclusive "Judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of it's own members."
This power is NOT qualified in any way, and at the time it was written, the State Legislatures appointed Senators, so if it were intended that this power were reserved to the states and that the Congressional power to refuse to seat a Senator was limited to determining that they were "duly appointed" under state law, the framers could have written THAT into the Constitution.
They didn't.
No court has ever held that the Senate MUST confirm a legislator under Art. I, Sec. 5 if they refuse to seat him. The ONLY limitation is the Powell case, (which may even have been wrongly decided by the Warren Court) and that case involved Art. I, Sec. 2, and held that Congress could not impose NEW and different "qualifications" than those imposed by Art. I, Sec. 2.
The Powell case said nothing about the power of Congress to bar a legislator under Art. I, Sec. 5 -- for any reason, or no reason at all.
A plain reading of Art. I, Sec. 5 would be that Congress can refuse to seat a legislator for any reason or no reason at all and the entire question is completely NON-JUSTICIABLE.
Perhaps the Warren Court MIGHT have made a ruling limiting Congress's Art. I, Sec. 5 power -- they were a court that made many new precedents after all.
It's wildly unclear the present S.Ct. would go so far as to invent a limitation on Congressional power that isn't written into the plain language of the Constitution.
Is this a good thing? Probably not! I agree that this just invites abuse in the future. But, as a matter of Constitutional law? I don't see how Burris wins. Could of course be wrong and I have been before and will be again, no doubt, but I don't see it.
sorry Kenny
but you are arguing principle
why is it better that the Gov of DE does a 'favor' for Joe & Beau Biden as requested than for Burris to accept an appointment in IL ?
Beau's qualifications as a young politically connected DE state AG [& I like him btw] are less but quite similar to Burris' to represent IL
in DE that is a quid pro quo because the Senate seat has real & tangible 'value' & is being done at the request of Joey B [who I also like btw]
but doing 'favors' in politics is biz as usual, and as long as Burris did not do any monetary transactions other than a few small political donations to Blago - then it is wrong both morally, ethically & legally to deny him his seat
and the IL SC appears to take the same stand since they stated in their opinion today that Burris is the legitimate appointed senator from IL & they did not mince their opinions on that or qualify it either in any way
Some people were curious who voted against impeachment. Not sure how to indent, but according to CNN:
'State Rep. Milton Patterson, D-Chicago, said he voted against impeachment because "I did not feel like I had enough information, based on the report, to make an informed decision to remove the governor from office."'
Am I confused? Impeachment isn't a vote to remove from office. It's a vote that there's enough information that you think the state Senate should consider removing him from office.
As for the Senate's right to not seat Burris, my understanding is that if they think they have hard evidence that his election (appointment) is improper, they can refuse to seat. But there isn't any evidence of this, other than Blago's apparent intention to sell the seat.
WV-tologin: Trolls who post threats should not only be prevented from posting, they shouldn't be allowed tologin in the first place.
What if this happens.
Illinios State Senate Removes Blagojevich from office.
Lt Governor Pat Quinn becomes Governor and decides to appoint himself to the Obama Seat. Does that mean Madigan becomes Governor.
CUGEL
I actually completely agree with you that the Senate does have the ability to deny to seat anyone they choose or to expel as well
BUT the problem is precedent as usual...
these same people refused to boot Ted Stevens & even gave character references to that felon in court last year
so standing on 'principle' is one very slippery slope imho
relying on tradition and an obscure 'rule' requiring the SoS cert is penny ante, and predictably could lead to nuclear options in the future
IF I were a GOPer looking at long odds & longer in the future, I would be concerned about politicizing who gets a seat & who does not when you are a minority or unpopular [like Powell was]
we already suffer thru it with judges & other appointments, why make senate appointments require ratification ?
IF Burris is really dirty [as opposed to Stevens ?], they can always boot him cleanly later
but since he would have to stand for election in less than 2 years - leave it to the state voters to make the final determination
the arguement to require certs did work better back when senators were all appointed by the states to make sure that only one person could claim the seat
but the IL SC definitively stated today that no cert is required since the appointment was valid & registered
how can anyone argue with that determination ? fait accompli imho
EC - Patterson is retiring, effective next week. The one person voting present likewise is out in the next session. Looks like they both just didn't want their last vote to be for impeachment/didn't care.
The only other person in the legislature was a close friend of Blago, who didn't even show up.
Burris already discredited himself by touching the Senate seat from Blag the Simoner. Anyone with half a brain would know that the public would never accept such an appointment.
Now that Blag has been impeached, Burris should resign the appointment and cite the impeachment as the excuse. It would give him SOME veneer of integrity.
Otherwise, the Senate should stall seating him until Blag is ousted and the new Gov can appointment someone, or better yet, call a special election.
I guarantee that Burris has no chance in Special Election.
NK
the IL SC opinion states that Burris is THE legitimate senate appointee
so even IF Blago is subsequently impeached & removed from office, the appointment is valid & enforceable as far as IL law
the new Gov would have no recourse to appoint himself or anyone else to the seat [even if the US Senatye refuses to allow him to take the seat] because the seat is in fact no longer vacant by IL law
so unless Burris himself revokes his appointment, can any governor or legislature elect or appoint another person to the same seat before the 2010 election
talk about your impasse
and the SC could later weigh in on the matter of equal protection or loss of representation even if they have trouble enforcing any decision
the IL SC has ruled in favor of Burris as the legit appointee & that he does not need the SoS to cert since the appointment has already been properly 'registered' as a lawful appointment by the SoS
talk about Catch 22...
DCM, you're arguing principle as well. And in your second sentence, you conflate your subjects, comparing the decision of the Governor of DE's decision to appoint with Burris's decision to accept. The comparison should be with Blago's decision to appoint. Who he appoints, in my mind, is completely irrelevant. I don't care about his qualifications or the qualifications of what's his name in Delaware (and by the way, if Beau Biden wants that seat, he WILL have to run for it; he is not the appointee. There is a difference between doing favor for a sitting senator and attempting to sell a Senate seat to the highest bidder. One is cronyism (and I think it sucks too). The other is criminal.
I have already argued law on this and I think Cugel, above, is right, and I don't quite see how the Illinois Supreme Court has any say on how the Senate may interpret one of its own rules.
Reid said you have to follow our rules. The IL SC said we don't see a controlling rule, just a recommendation, and we can't figure out how that trumps the Gov's rights under the Constitution.
If the Senate still refuses to seat based on the lack of a signature, or any other basis, it goes to Federal court for a writ to require seating, and potentially as high as the Supremes. All of which would be the sort of drawn out spectacle Obama doesn't want.
So during a custody fight one parent is arrested for internet child porn. His case was prevailing, so the judge is bound to turn the children over to him until he is convicted? Show me the judge or court that would do that.
Extreme example I admit. But the mitigating fact that the crime which Blago is collared with relates to the seat in question. Burris is contaminated and cannot be seated.
More nitpicking on you DCM (sorry). Let's say Blago is impeached an Quinn becomes governor. Then let's say he appoints someone, such as Madigan. Then the ILL S of S certifies him as the appointment and it is sent to the Senate. The Senate would have two competing appointments to chose from. They are the judges of who sits in the chamber. Case closed.
And don't tell me the Illinois Supreme Court can do a damn thing about it. They can't.
EC
actually based on our legal presumption of 'innocent until proven guilty'...
I have to reluctantl pol who voted against impeachment today
it is premature 'today' to vote for impeachment of Blago when all we have seen & heard were unsubstantiated allegations [as bad as they are]
Fitz has yet to even indict Blago - and may not for another 3 months if ever...
Blago has a right to defend himself & claim entrapment
but to give him the boot now even before he is found 'guilty' or even indicted is just plain wrong & smacks of unamerican loss of liberties
he could resign & spare his people, but at least until he is at least indicted & preferably even found 'guilty' of an impeachable offense against the state of IL, then Blago should not be impeached
can they recall him ? that option is more attractive legally imho
that does not require a finding of guilt in advance - just displeasure
but if the Senate can let Stevens [a convicted felon] remain in office, how can Blago get the boot just for allegations of being a schmuck ???
seems like Blago was a bad schmuck at successfully leveraging his f*&%ing golden power at that...
Kennyb,
I wasn't responding to you, but I do think the point you make is a little off. Harry Reid says there is a binding rule requiring a signature from the Sec of State. The Il SC looked at it and said, this doesn't say a signature is required, just suggested - and we don't know how you could lawfully pass a rule trumping the gov's right to appoint in the 17th Amendment. So Reid is left to consider if he wants to stick with his interpretation, which sounded awfully weak to me when he made it - basically we've always done it that way, regardless of the actual text of the rule.
In Illinois, the requirement for impeachment is more akin to that of recall. There is no crime requirement at all, let alone high crimes or misdemeanors.
I will say that you're right, he has not been indicted. All the more reason why he, morally, should not have made this appointment under a cloud, Burris should not have accepted it, and the Senate should not allow it to stand.
And while I understand that Senate Dems and Obama do not want the distraction of a legal fight, the alternative is *just* to abandon the promise to "change" government that was the foundation of Obama's candidacy.
I would think the principle of validating and/or rewarding a criminal act would make it impossible to seat Burris. Sure folks think he's honorable and untainted, but that just makes him another victim of Blago. Until Fitzgerald or some other party can give Burris a clean bill of health(how, I have no idea), he is radioactive and therefore cannot be seated. There can be no reward for criminal acts.
Berkeley Bear,
I hear you, but I disagree. It is the Illinois law that does not require a SoS signature. The Senate rule does require it, and although it is an admittedly weak-ass argument, no state court can tell the Senate how to interpret its own rules. Whether a federal court can is another question, and I think the answer on it would be no, but I've seen no case law on it.
I'd much rather Reid refer the matter to the Rules Committee, then have an up or down (majority) vote on whether to seat Burris, but no one made me Majority Leader.
BERKELEY is correct
we may not like it that Burris has accepted the appointment, but it sure appears that legally the IL SC has stated that his appointment is legit
either Burris withdraws, is refused seating for 2 full years, or is seated then expelled later
or the seat remains filled by Burris but he is denied his senate priveleges - quite the precedent for REAL CHANGE we can BELIEVE in !!!
it sure is looking like Roland has a lock on the seat & forces the Senate to react & look like fools no matter what
the least foolish is to accept the IL SC legal opinion & seat the guy & move on...
the impeachment is moot as it does not change anything after the fact of a lawful appointment
if later the appointment itself proves to be legally tainted or worse, then the Senate has the remedy to expell
good luck with that since they couldn't expell Stevens or even consider impeaching Bush & Cheney !!!
DCM,
2 totally different questions, different standards, etc.
For example, entrapment is a valid defense to the criminal charges (wouldn't fly here, because entrapment requires proof you wouldn't have acted improperly without inducement, and no one induced Blago/there was no government "sting" operation) but it wouldn't be a defense to an impeachment charge, because you still acted in derogation of your duty.
Blago's main defense to the conspiracy charge is a lack of an act in furtherance. That's an element of a conspiracy charge, but "cause" to impeach can exist independently of such an act.
Let me give you an example. Let's say you are the bookkeeper for your company. Your company gets accused of tax evasion based on evidence you doctored the quarterly tax forms. Even if you never get convicted (for any number of reasons, including some deficiency in the chain of evidence or a failure to prove you were the only one with access to the forms), the company would still have the right to use the evidence to determine for itself whether there was "cause" to fire you. Similarly, the state can use Blago's statements to judge whether he was acting in derogation of duty, even if he was never able to put the plan into action and hence is not criminally liable. That's why he was impeached at this time.
DCM, we'll agree to disagree then. The Illinois Supreme Court cannot tell the Senate what to do unless the Senate wants it to. And like I said, impeachment is not moot if it leads to an alternative appointment as an alternative to Burris that the Senate can decide is the *more* legitimate appointment. And THAT decision, I contend, is one made by a majority the Senate and the Senate alone.
keep in minds, folks, that after today's IL SC ruling which states that Burris does not need judicial relief because his appointment is valid & legally registered already....
Burris has the seat locked up/tied down for the next 2 years now his own sole discretion
the Senate actually only determines whether an elected/appointed senator designate gets seated with priveleges at any time
but the SEAT itself now is in the hands of Burris - and no one can take it from him until 2010
in the past, numerous senate seats have been 'filled' - sometimes for years - by an appointee or elected person who chooses for whatever reason not to ask for seating
BUT the seat is not 'vacant' - at best it would be in purgatory until 2010
check out Huey Long did something like that in LA back in the day...
as I recall, he was elected to a senate seat whiule GOV, but he held BOTH positions for quite some time so he could still control LA state house - then a year or 2 later he finally took his senate seat
in the meantime, the seat is not vacant - it is on hold in effect.... but no one else could take it away until the next general election
The Illinois SC had no standing to rule on this as the US Constitution clearly states that the Senate validates elections and seats its members.
In other words, their ruling is completely unenforceable.
***********
MR has always posted like he was severely bipolar, this is why some people think there are at least two of them. Other then a few obvious sock puppets, the two extremes of MR posts always share consistent writing styles. He has also made threats in the past. This is nothing new for this disturbed troll.
It seems like he also has delusions of grandeur and believes he has earned the respect(and money) that Nate has. It goes far beyond simple jealousy.
This blogging software is third rate( and Nate needs to hire a competent admin to set up this website correctly), but it should have enough tools to keep the hapless MR at bay.
***********
mdjabaley,
Too bad you don't understand networks, and addressing as much as you think. I could send you an email that unless you are an expert in forensics(which you obviously are not) that is not only from your email address, but looks like it was sent from your computer. The hard thing to hide would be the SMTP server, since it probably won't be from the one you use(maybe it would be if your understanding of security is as poor as your understanding of networks), you certainly can't be 100% sure of any IP address by examining packet and protocol headers.
Oh, and you can't directly get a SSN from an IP, and if you traced him enough to find it out you could be charged with ID theft and stalking.
Good work on the extremely long, and incoherent post!
***********
Good luck finding someone working completely over a public network, unless at some point he/she let enough info slip, or used an account tied to his/her name.
For example, pay for a cheap USB wireless dongle(with cash), connect to some public access point==total anonymity(unless physically caught in the act or did something stupid like retrieve email or something more identifiable).
KennyB,
The IL SC specifically based its view on Rule 11 of the Senate, the same one Reid cited. Courts take very dimly the idea that anyone can have an absolute right to interpret rules without their input. Plus, my understanding is the text literally says the second signature is a "recommended" form, which would make what Reid's doing not an interpretation but a mutilation. Under even a generally deferential standard, they won't let a body unilaterally invert the rules (contrary to Bush's view of his power using signing statements).
Looking at the VACANT SEATS in CO,DE,IL,and NY.
When Salazar(CO)was appointed Sec of Interior - Governor Ritter appointed Michael Bennett- CEO of Denver Public Schools and chief of staff to Mayor John Hickenlooper. Most of the top tier candidates including Hickenlooper,Salazar's brother,DeGette,and Perlmutter,and Romanoff decided not to run.
Regarding the Biden Seat(DE)It was common knowledge that Joe wanted Beau to run for that seat. Had Governor Minner appointed John Carney to the Biden Seat. Beau would have still ran for the US Senate and defeat Carney in the primary- making him the Rolland Burris of DE. Republicans don't have any top tier challengers.
Before the scandal- Blagojevich was going to appoint Lisa Madigan to avoid a tough primary challenge for his 2010 re-election campaign or Jesse Jackson Jr. After he got caught He appointed Roland Burris-
Getting rid of Blago and allowing Pat Quinn make the appoint will send a non caretaker appointment to the Illinios US Senate Seat will give the Democratic Nominee that incumbency advantage.
In New York- Andrew Cuomo and Caroline Kennedy are top candidates for appointment because of his name recognition and money to win a tough statewide election campaign.
Quote: "no state court can tell the Senate how to interpret its own rules"
Exactly!
The ILSC simply doesn't have standing to rule.
So the legal maneuver to rid themselves of Burris is to seat him until Blago is successfully impeached, then expel Burris as the gaining from the criminal acts of Blago? That's a tough row to hoe. I think Blago has done in the dems. I think he is crazy too.
DAVID
the IL SC may not be able to enforce Burris' seating in the US Senate
but they clearly CAN put a stop to allowing anyone else to take the seat while Burris is still the legit appointee
this means, the IL SC can stop any other appointment or special electrion if they determine that it is illegitimate
that is the impasse - the seat is filled in their eyes
how could the IL SC allow anyone else to take it away from Burris now ?
in IL they have all the power to bluff the Seante until 2010 it would appear
"but they clearly CAN put a stop to allowing anyone else to take the seat while Burris is still the legit appointee"
By the US constitution, they can not stop the Senate from seating anyone else.
I am not sure what you find difficult about this. The IL SC can't tell the Senate to do or not do anything.
as I interpret the IL SC opinion, IF the Senate continues to refuse Burris & puts it in writing that he will not be seated because of their lame recommendation 'rule' [as they stated today]...
THEN Burris can come back to the ILSC for relief & get his mandamus to compell the SoS to cert the appointment as well as the 'registration' as required by IL law
but the IL SC ruled that Burris is the legit senator so he holds the cards or the seat remains 'unseated' - but it is not legally 'vacant' as of today
"as I interpret the IL SC opinion, IF the Senate continues to refuse Burris & puts it in writing that he will not be seated because of their lame recommendation 'rule' [as they stated today]..."
Geez, the IL SC decision is not legal. The Constitution gives only the US Senate the authority to decide these matters.
Their opinion is irrelevant and not binding.
the crux of the matter seems to be that yes, the US Senate can refuse to allow Burris to be seated with priveleges - and the IL SC alone cannot compel them to act...
BUT the Senate cannot compel the IL SC to allow anyone else to revoke this appointment or force a special election before 2010 or substitute another 'appointee'
all the senate can do is leave the seat 'inactive' [like Burris is in a coma]
then the US SC might step in & render an opinion... ugh !!!
If the IL SC refuses the new governor the power to appoint someone new, the Senate can simply expel Burris. Unlikely, but it could happen.
If the Senate had someone with a backbone in charge, that is.
Awwww, that's our Mulie! Yelling meaningless obscenities as passers by.
===
I'm not in favor of a "que" system of moderation; we'd lose the back-and-forth commenting that has made some of these comment threads pretty enjoyable. I'd prefer a more active moderator, deleting the more death threat-y and obviously troll-y kind of posts with impunity.
w.v. - ourgon: one of many mispronunciations of the name of our 33rd state.
DAVID
you are dead wrong
the IL SC opinions DO matter, and trump the senate rules in the state of IL for controlling these matters
same in MN re: Franken. there is a legal process & states rights in both
the US Senate cannot just say Lisa Madigan will be the next Senator from IL - all they can do is REFUSE to allow someone to take the seat, but they cannot control who or when except to stall until 2010 general
the constitution gives the state that power, and the governor [Blago] has the sole power to appoint - which he has done in a timely manner
case closed - Burris IS the junior senator whether the Senate likes it or not
all the Senate can do is refuse him his priveleges - but the IL SC stated that Burris is THE duly appointed legit senator from IL & they have that power alone in the end
unless Roberts & Alito want to try to muck up 'states rights' some more anyway...
I think Burris should now be seated ASAP. We need every vote possible in the Senate to pass Obama's Stimulus and TARP and who knows what else that Repugs. will try to prevent.
Also, the committee makeup will depend on the composition of the Senate. By holding off, the 2008 composition will be used.
Finally, if Burris is Seated, then it would become easier to justify Seating Franken before a final MN SC decision.
Weeks ago it was mentioned that Franken could be Seated "provisionally". No one has elaborated on this lately. Why is no one talking about this? Last week it was assumed that Franken would be Seated shortly, even if Coleman were to Sue. What has changed?
Franken and Burris should be seated ASAP so that Senate Committees could then reflect a 59-41 makeup instead of 51-49 at present.
David said...
"If the IL SC refuses the new governor the power to appoint someone new, the Senate can simply expel Burris. Unlikely, but it could happen."
YES, that is true. BUT the Senate would have to waive their silly rule & seat Burris before they expel him by a 2/3rds vote.
no way the senate musters enough to expel him with their history of felons & crooks.
BUT that is a legal option none the less, especially IF Burris is later proven to be illegit
still, the 2010 election is just 2 years away, and Burris is not likely to win so why fight this silly tempest & make it a constitutional precedent for making seating a popularity contest ?
hold your nose & let him stay - I mean they allow Cheney in the Senate & Stevens & Craig & Vitter ad nauseum...
JERRY
excellent comment on the 'provisional' seating of Franken
the entire Burris affair would seem to make seating Franken untenable until all the MN SC legal decisions are resolved...
yikes - anothjer states rights issue involving the Seante
sure seesm slippery slope there
The MN law gives the one week legal challenge period after the cert, so the Seante is biding their time at least until next week...
but they need to resolve BOTH of these duly 'elected' [appointed] seats in a timely manner & equitably even if 'provisionally'
BOTH Franken & Burris should be seated even if with an asterisk
no one seems to be questioning the right if the MN SC to make that determination...
Back to Mrs B's question about grounds for impeachment and the role of the prosecutorial process...yes, as others have said, they proceed on separate tracks, and as a practical matter, there's a real risk of collision.
What I mean by that is that evidence used to secure an impeachment and conviction by a legislative body --a political remedy to a political problem-- can have the effect of screwing up a criminal prosecution.
For instance, I've got to believe any criminal trial of Blago would have to be held out of state, and for the simple reason that it will be exceedingly difficult to find, from a pool of Illinois residents, a dozen jurors and a few alternates who are both mentally competent to serve on a jury and who haven't formed a pretty solid opinion of Rod's guilt or innocence --especially after the newspaper headlines screaming BLAGOJEVICH CONVICTED hit people's doorsteps after the Illy Senate does the deed in a few weeks' time.
As a practical matter, I reckon it doubtful that the Illinois General Assembly will find it necessary to lay out every conceivable charge against Blago pursuant to his ouster.
A legislative impeachment and conviction is actually akin to a no-confidence vote in the political sense --all that they're doing is trying to fire him (and, as would be the case with the President, deny lifetime benefits granted to former presidents such as a pension, funds to pay a staff and other emoluments).
It's not necessary to impeach and convict on charges that are mated to criminal law. In Blago's case, they're nailing him on, among other things, "abuse of power" --which isn't anything that's against the law per se.
As it is, they'd sack his dumb ass for farting out loud in the House chamber --and there wouldn't be anything in the law or the state constitution to stop them.
Oh, and...
... completely off topic but I just clicked on the link on the left "how much is a Bush speech worth?" and saw an advert for a 20mm brass female bush. What exactly is THAT about?
I'm guessing a euphemism for the new millennium --"Bush speech" to convey the same meaning as "drink from the furry cup"
new thread
time to walk the dawg...
David,
Had to walk away for a while and missed your posts. Here's the conflict:
Art. I does give the Senate the right to judge elections and returns, true. Pursuant to that, they've adopted a "recommended form" for a certificate that as a matter of custom, no one has ever violated. However, custom and interpretation don't substitute for the actual rule - and there doesn't seem to be much precedent of someone actually being refused where the gov appoints and the SofS doesn't sign.
Moreover, the 17th Amendment (which was part of the IL SC ruling) gives the absolute appointment power to governors. Having been passed after the rule and the original provision, if the two come into tension the ordinary rule would favor the 17th - just like the 13th amendment abrogates the state sovereign immunity under the 11th amendment when the two come in conflict (and just the opposite when a power of the Congress in the main body - such as to regulate commerce - comes in conflict with the 11th amendment, as his recently hapenned in the Florida pre-paid education case and court cases stripping much of the application of the ADA to state action).
So if the rule creates an impediment on the power of appointment, as applied, it may not be consititutional. I'm not sure that's ever been looked at with specificity.
Also for anyone who thinks the Supremes can't weigh in on this, don't forget the subject matter of Marbury was whether an appointment was required to be delivered and made effective once signed by the President. While that seemed like a matter committed to absolute executive discretion, the Court disagreed and gave us the concept of judicial review of statutes, even though they ultimately rejected the request to deliver the commission.
Just wanted to put these ramblings out there.
Man fired from hotel for being gay.
Call your Senators and Reps to demand that ENDA pass if you care about preventing tragedies like this
@ jerry25
Also, the committee makeup will depend on the composition of the Senate. By holding off, the 2008 composition will be used.
Huh? Where did ypu get this idea from?
@ Opus132
I read the story a couple of days ago in regards to Eric Holder being approved by the Judiciary committee.
Once Biden resigns, it will be 9-9 D/R on the committee.
They will not be using the 58(59)-41 election results until the 2 remaining contests are resolved. There apparently are behind the scenes discussions about how to handle committee assignments, that we are not privy to.
This is a MAJOR story that is not being covered.
Following the law hasn't always been a pretty thing.
But, the Constitution is the Constitution.
And either we ARE a country of laws again after 8 years, or we are not.
Seat Burris.
This is a MAJOR story that is not being covered.
It sure is! And if the Minnesota seat stays vacant for several weeks,the Democrats will remain underrepresented on the Senate committees during a crucial period.
Is this another Reid failure?
Burris should not be seated until the outcome of the impeachment against Blago. Why? Because only a troublemaker would accept an appointment that carries such a stink of corruption. The Democratic Party will severely regret seating Burris if the Senate chooses to do so.
If the IL senate convicts Blago then the Lt. Governor should assume the job, whereupon he can name the next IL senator. I agree with David on this--the buck stops at the US Senate insofar as who is or is not a member. The IL SC would no doubt refuse to consider any legal challenges, so would Appeals, and so would SCOTUS.
The IL senate has been given very wide latitude in terms of reasons Blago should be removed from office. He does not have to be convicted, or even accused, of any crime. Sufficient grounds exist already, as voiced by an IL house member yesterday--Blago has turned the IL state government into a circus, and a tidy remedy for that malady would be his removal.
Coleman Sues Franken for Damages Caused by Winning
Just when you thought this recount could not possibly get any more absurd
Yes, Nate should have a new topic on seating Al Franken provisionally.
A new R2000 poll from Daily Kos is out. The poll shows MNs favor that Franken be seating provisionally. The MSM are not discussing this subject. Its time that we spread the word and force them to make this an issue.
Unfortunately, Reid is making this more difficult with the Burris case. By demanding a full Senate vote on Burris, the same would be expected for Franken. I doubt any Republicans would vote to seat Franken provisionally.
Just what is the Senate mechanism for seating a provisional senator? What is the rule and what are the requirements?
@ Opus 132
I was hoping that Nate could research this question. Specifically is there precedence for Provisional seating, since that it is how Reid seems to think.
At least if this issue would become a big news story, pressure would be placed on Reid to act.
The last senator seated provisionally was Mary Landrieu in 1996.She was seated by a Senate vote.
I sincerely hope that the Democrats hold off appointing Burris until such time as someone does a thorough investigation into whether he paid for the appointment. I find the fact that Burris' business partner helped Blago's wife get a position on a Board. That was one of Blago's "pay" options for the appointment.
If the Democrats seat Burris and then later find that he "paid" for the appointment, it's going to be a huge problem. A much bigger problem than holding off the appointment until the Democrats are sure than Burris is clean.
jerry25 said...
Unfortunately, Reid is making this more difficult with the Burris case. By demanding a full Senate vote on Burris, the same would be expected for Franken. I doubt any Republicans would vote to seat Franken provisionally.
It wouldn't matter if zero Republicans voted to seat Franken. There are only 42 of them. What they would do would be to filibuster the vote.
I'm so looking forward to the first time the Republicans threaten a filibuster. I'm thinking that the Democrats will be handing them a phone book and telling them "Have fun". If they don't do that, we are all in a lot of trouble because the Republicans don't care about us or this country, all they will care about is scoring points against Obama.
David said...
If the Senate had someone with a backbone in charge, that is.
It makes me sad to see Democrats become just as big a bunch of hypocrites as the Republicans. Democrats have been flogging Reid for years for not having a spine. Then when he gets a spine and stands firm on not seating Burris, Democrats are flogging him for that. Reid can't win for losing, can he.
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
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