You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Illinois Senate Seat Dispute May Head to Court
2008-12-31
The burgeoning dispute over President-elect Barack Obama's vacated U.S. Senate seat could spill into the federal courts. Embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, facing federal corruption charges, shocked the political world Tuesday by naming his choice to fill the seat, former Illinois attorney general Roland Burris.

Top Senate Democrats immediately said they would refuse to seat Mr. Burris because of the allegations surrounding Mr. Blagojevich, who was arrested Dec. 9. But some legal scholars said that such a move might not stand up in court, if Mr. Burris chose to challenge it.

A prolonged legal fight over Mr. Obama's former Senate seat could complicate the Democrats' agenda in Washington. Without senators seated in Illinois and Minnesota -- where the senate election is still being contested -- Democrats can count on the support of 57 senators. That means they will have to peel off three Republican lawmakers to defeat any Republican filibuster aimed at blocking legislation.
Posted by:Steve White

#9  My inner minotrity_tr*oll is laffing.
Posted by: .5MT   2008-12-31 16:10  

#8  Blago could have picked anyone. Picking a lawyer with lots of connections in the community wasn't such a bad choice. Might need one or two somewhere down the road.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-12-31 14:26  

#7  Wish some "reporters" had the guts to ask (and keep asking) Mr. Burris how much he paid for the seat.

Burrus can deny it all he wants, but Blago's on tape record as intending to sell it.

So how much did you and/or your "friends" pay for this "honor," Mr. Burrus?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-12-31 14:21  

#6  The Senate will lose on the issue of not seating Blago's appointment. It is a legal appointment. A reading of the constitution that would allow the Senate to decide who is allowed in would mean that if Norm Coleman were to win and the Dem. majority didn't like it, they could decide to keep him out and force Minnesota to give them someone they do like, e.g. Al Franken. That reading of the constitution would clearly take away the power of the electorate to decide who they want to represent them and of duly elected governors to make lawful appointments. It is also worth noting that when the constitution was written, senators were not elected. They are now. The Powell case will trump the Senate's desire to keep Burris out. The destinction between "elected" and legally "selected" will be one without a difference.
Posted by: Sgt. D.T.   2008-12-31 13:39  

#5  Forget Clinton, make The Blagonator Secretary of State. He'll have UN member nations paying us greens fees in no time at all. This guy has real talent!
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-12-31 12:57  

#4  A pretty good chess move by Blago.

1)He is the sitting Governor of Illinois, since the good citizens have managed to do zero about his little hickup(and won't)
2) The Illinois State Constitution gives sole authority to appoint replacements to a vacant US Senate seat to said governor, just like New Yawk.
3) The only thread Horseface Harry can pursue is that Burris is unqualified to serve. Ha! He's more qualifed than ole Harry hisownself.
4) If it goes to Fed. Court. it goes down in flames.
5) Blago wins again and is still around to cause more trouble for Bambirino. And will. Just like a big burr under your favorite saddle.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700   2008-12-31 12:38  

#3  FREE Streaming TV Shows, Movies, Music (over 6 million digital tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, Books, and College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) http://www.InternetSurfShack.com

Posted by: Sneting Trotsky1184   2008-12-31 12:25  

#2  From the Constitution, Article I, Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, ...

The Instapundit notes that this likely means that the Senate can only judge that the election/appointment was legitimate and that Burris is qualified since he's over age 30 and is an Illinois resident, and he cites a couple of USSC decisions.

Me: I think it means what it says, and that the USSC is in error: the Senate is the judge of the elections and qualifications of its members. If they find a problem with Burris' appointment they can refuse to seat him, and it isn't clear to me that the 'problem' they might find is limited to what's explicitly written in Section 5.

Later in Section 5 is this: Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Which to me means that if they really, really don't want Burris they can expel him. And the reasons for expulsion can be pretty much whatever they want said reasons to be.
Posted by: Steve White   2008-12-31 10:24  

#1  My reading of the Constitution is that the Senate doesn't have to seat Burris, but then I'm not one of the "best and the brightest" {spit}
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2008-12-31 10:12  

00:00