Blagojevich Impeached
When it became clear that Nixon would be impeached, he had the good sense to step down. Not so Blago, who vowed today to remain governor in spite of the 114-1 vote in the IL House in favor of impeaching him today.
In a historic vote, the Illinois House has impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich, directing the Senate to put the state’s 40th chief executive on trial with the goal of removing him from office.
The vote by the House was 114-1 and marks the first time in the state’s 190-year history that a governor has been impeached, despite Illinois’ longstanding reputation for political corruption.
Rep. Milt Patterson (D-Chicago) was the lone vote against impeaching the governor. Patterson, from Chicago’s Southwest Side, said after the roll call that he didn’t feel it was his job to vote to impeach the governor. He declined comment on whether he approved of the job Blagojevich is doing.
A Blagojevich spokesman said the governor will not resign. A 2 p.m. news conference with the governor is scheduled for the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago.
Then again, resignation is the one chit that Blago has to use with Fitz, so it’s no surprise he won’t resign … yet.
Next up, a trial in the IL Senate.
I think the value of that chit has dropped a wee bit.
It’s not quite worthless, but (as Blago might put it) it’s &$^%&%@ close.
I like this quote:
And, more to the point, I think the Illinois legislature is working about as quickly as any legislative body could, to work through an impeachment. They deserve praise for working quickly and trying to be and succeeding at being fair.
I think that they are being fair; although as they managed to do it without the Fitz evidence previously discussed in another post, it does seem that they could have done this all a lot sooner. I do hope the level of fairness maintains through the trial. They have the evidence, and a guy that can’t really speak in his defense, so there is no reason they cannot do it right and cleanly. They hold all the cards, all they need to do is play them.
Well, “Fast” is a relative term. Remember, it’s like a month since Blago was arrested, and a month more since the whole selling-a-senate-seat deal really grew wings. Not that anyone outside the people in (or writing) the criminal complaint knew about that, of course.
And, in the month since Blago’s arrest, there were the year-end holdiays and a week or two of back-and-forth between the Legislature, Fitz, the Courts and Blago, with the added distraction of the Presidential transition and all the rest going on.
And this is a legislature we’re talking about acting, here.
I’d say this is about as fast as is humanly possible given the circumstances.
Blago still has at least a week before a senate vote can be taken. Still betting he “recuses” himself rather than resign or be impeached.
He can’t challenge impeachment in court, so once that happens he’s done. And the 114-1 vote should tell him how the senate vote is going to go.
Burris is going to be seated, unless he withdraws. Reid has already accepted that he’s just doing to have to eat humble pie on that. No trading goods there, really.
Unless Fitz fears that “step aside” option, which I somehow doubt.
Boxturtle (Last card has been dealt, Blago. Whatcha got in the hole?)
If the US Senate refers the Burris nomination to the rules committee and the state Senate removes Blagojevich in the interim, Pat Quinn the succeeding Governor could nominate someone else rendering the Burris nomination moot.
that sounds good to me. are there any constitutional or other reasons not to support that process? i’d like to think the senate seat belongs to the people of illinois.
“It’s our duty to clean up the mess and stop the freak show that’s become Illinois government,” said Rep. Jack D. Franks, a Democrat
Excuse me, Jack? Can I call you Jack? Ok, thanks. Jack, if we stop the freak show that is Illinois Government – how the hell will the State run? I mean… I’ve only lived here for almost 1/2 a century and the state’s government has ALWAYS been a fardleschnockered-up freak show. Just because y’all impeached the Governor-with-Barney-Rubble-Hair we should stop our long-held tradition of dirty politics and political shenanigans?? What is this world coming to???? (/snark)
One thing I’ve learned lately (although I’m still not 100% sure that it’s true, so I’m not sure if I should write “learned”) is that people can make huge loans to Illinois political candidates, then the candidate can convert the funds to “personal use” (maybe having to wait until the election is over), and then the loaner can forgive the loan. If that’s all true, I would suggest that the House members not involved in the trial of Blago in the Senate might use the time to write a few new laws.
I agree, that process is way too cumbersome. Let’s go back to black briefcases filled with cash.
Boxturtle (Why must overt bribery be so complicated?)
The conversion of campaign funds to personal use ended on Jan. 1. Or possibly it ended with campaign committees set up for the previous election cycle, or something similar. One way or another, that barndoor for corruption is now closed. The barn is still riddled with ratholes and broken windows, though.
IIRC, one of the pressures on Nixon to resign was that if he were convicted, he would lose the benefits of a retired president: pension, health insurance, control of his papers, etc. Is there such pressure on Blago?
Illinois Reps have the “good sense” to impeach BLago for allegedly trying to sale Obama’s Senate seat. Yet our nation lived with Bush, Cheney and the rest of the thugs and liars who are responsible for the unnecessary deaths of 4200 and counting American soldiers and over a million Iraqi people for far too many years.
Go figure
Just sickening to flip through hundred and some T.V. channels and not see anything about the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plenty about Blago, economy etc.
Hey EW, a whole bunch of opinions got posted over at the OLC website.
Some were the ones in your Iraq War Memos Released: Working Thread and others I don’t remember seeing before like:
STATUS OF TALIBAN FORCES UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF THE THIRD GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1949
LEGALITY OF THE USE OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS TO TRY TERRORISTS
And finally,
ASSERTION OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE OVER COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING EPA’S OZONE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND CALIFORNIA’S GREENHOUSE GAS WAIVER REQUEST
Who the hell is the “1″?
Ah, reading is fundamental.
I’m from Illinois and I can’t wait to see the evidence against Blagojevich. I think it will amount to his being aloof and non deferential to the powers that be. They will need whatever evidence Fizt has on him to make a compelling case I think. Shaping up to look like a witch hunt to me.
Far be it from me to defend him if he committed actual crimes (opposed to “talking” about them). But I remember, it hasn’t been long ago, Republicans and Democrats allied to overthrow an elected president on very flimsy evidence.
An impeachment trial is a political proceeding not a judicial one. The state Senate determines how it will be conducted. A lot of whatever Fitzgerald has on Blagojevich will not be part of the evidence since he probably won’t release it. So while it forms the background to these proceedings, Blagojevich will more likely go down on a more general charge of failing to appropriately fulfill his duties as Governor.
That’s right, and my original assertion stands. They have been after him for years but impeachment hasn’t been seriously considered until Fitzgerald’s allegations. If it were possible or likely that impeachment would have been successful before now it would have been undertaken. As I said, the evidence or whatever they use to support impeachment.will be interesting to see.
We’ve already got that evidence–all laid out here and cataloged in the impeachment report.
It includes the pay to play testimony–both that on Fitz’s tape but also that from Rezko’s trial, the fact that Blago expanded the Family Care program after the legislature made doing so illegal, the fact that Blago has illegally ignored FOIA requests, and that he has grossly abused hiring laws.
Ordering aides to offer bribes IS an actual crime, even though it’s “just talking”.
Blagojevich told his aide to talk to Larsen at the Trib and offer $100 million in state loans if they’d change their editorial policy. They apparently had the conversation, and while it’s not clear how the Tribune actually responded, the aide came back and told B-Rod the deal was done, so in his mind, the action was taken.
Foregive me: I’m getting old; I just can’t recall you from previous posts. Did you actually read the report to the Illinois state house from the impeachment committee? If you have, then just to be sure, do you mind leaving a few more responses before I suggest waking up freepatriot? I don’t like wasting precious resources.
Freep is precious??
Whaaaa?
Yes indeed. And delicate, too.
Dear EW, I have seen many characterizations of Richard Nixon but you are unique in linking him with “good taste”.
And the price of playing “let’s protect the rule of law by putting Blago’s unprincipled liar in the Senate”…just went up, 114-1. :o)
Speaking of which:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su3C4xQYxeE
Yeah, or for eating a baby. I think he’ll go down for baby eating. It seems like it’s next on his to-do list after all the crap he spouted about selling the senate seat and then being in denial about it after it was recorded on audio.
Evan
http://www.beyondrace.com
OT-Today via Moon of Alabama, bush is planning one more war- “Georgian Foreign Minister, Grigol Vashadze, and U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, signed on January 9 in Washington a charter on strategic partnership between the two countries.
…
“The U.S. supports and will always support Georgia’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity, as well as its Euro-Atlantic aspirations,” [Rice] continued.
“On January 6 South Ossetia raised again alarm:
“South Ossetia Press Ministry warns that Georgia and foreign advisors are planning a large-scale operation in South Ossetia.
“The South Ossetian Press and Social Communication Ministry declared on Monday that a major offensive is being planned by Georgian and foreign forces to strike at Russian servicemen in South Ossetia and this Republic´s security, defence and law enforcement authorities….
“On the other side winter closes the tunnel between South Ossetia and Russia. That tunnel is the only route for possible re-enforcement of Russian troops in South Ossetia and the open tunnel was the reason why Saakashvili lost his little war back in August.”
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2……html#more
more details – http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20248
Let’snot give him too much credit. If you’re looking for the “good sense” of Nixon in avoiding his impeachment, which would have almost certainly led to his conviction, you’ll find it in his pension, which would be lost in that case. He grabbed the gelt and ran for the exit.
Hugh@16:
Sounds like a plan. :o)
With every day that passes, I think that Burris’s chances get slimmer.
It’s kinda like he’s being “incapacited”. :o)
WGN just reported on their cable news that the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled “That the Secretary of State does not need to sign the Burris certification”.
MSNBC now confiring that the Illinpois Supremes are saying it is valid without the SoS countersignature, and that Burris is cleared to take his seat in the Senate.
It is a curious decision; but I still read it to mean that the appointment is effective as is, that the Secretary of State’s signature is irrelevant. Here is the best report I have found so far:
Again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su3C4xQYxeE
Burris is nothing but a political hack and a proven liar. If, after the vote today, the dems in the Senate are cowardly enough to seat him, instead of putting him in the Senate Cloakroom, while this plays out, they will deserve the shit that’s going to come down on them from doing that.
What does bravery or cowardice have to do with the law?
are you saying that it is illegal or unconstitutional for reid to send the question to the rules committee?
serious question. i’m not asking what you think the outcome from the rules committee should be, only if you see any legal or constitutional reason why reid can not do that.
It is illegal and unconstitutional to take the law unto yourself and deny a person, legally and properly selected pursuant to their state law, their seat in the Senate.
i fail to see how deferring the question to the rules committee is denying anyone anything. if the rules committee finds for burris, he gets to be senator.
i’d seriously love to know what law or constitutional principle is being violated. i’m not a lawyer, and i don’t know what the law says.
That was laid out quite clearly in this post, and by Bruce Fein and Erwin Chemerinsky.
Tanbark, that is a matter for the Illinois legislature to ascertain, and I see no evidence that there are any improprieties quite as clear as you indicate; not at all like that. But until the legislature takes some action that make such a conclusion, and they most certainly have not, the law as cited still controls.
Lastly do not confuse my desire to follow what I see as the clear cut law with any love of Burris; I have no love of Burris nor do I wish we were in this position. He we are nevertheless and I think that Burris is entitled under Illinois law and the US Constitution to be seated. The Democratic caucus is free to do what they will once he is seated.
did i miss the bit about rules committee? didn’t see that, only that everyone you cited agreed what the outcome should be.
>a person legally and properly selected …
All well and good, but you’ve tripped rather lightly over the question, since everyone opposed to you argues he wasn’t properly selected. What do you think the argument against Burris is? That we don’t like his ties?
If it wasn’t a question of the manner of selection, then how could 50 Senators possibly have voted not to take anyone Blagojevich sent? Really, the only way your position can be reconciled is if you’re asserting they already knew it would be Burris?
>That was laid out quite clearly in this post, and by Bruce Fein and Erwin Chemerinsky.
And refuted by equally able legal scholars. BMAZ, you deal with the central questions by just wishing them away.
I’m merely stating that if the law says Burris meets the qualifications to be seated he must be seated. I don’t like the guy either but it’s high time the laws were followed in this country by all concerned. You said “if the Dems are cowardly enough to seat him” I just mean if the law says he must be seated he should be.
Not to mention I’m more than a little tired of Democrats growing a pair when they are after another Dem and shrinking violets when it comes to Rethugs.
i did NOT say that. i asked the question about the rules committee.
It’s interesting to see that Bmaz opposes Holder’s nomination because of his (alledged) injudicious choices, but is frantic to see Burris sitting in the Senate for the repubs to point to, when the roof finally falls in on Blago.
I am certainly not frantic to see Burris seated. I am a creature of legal process. I want the law and Constitution followed. And I don’t want the mendacious twit Harry Reid screwing up and twisting the law to suit his fucking political whims because it makes people feel good. The process is more important than Roland Burris.
There are lots of reasons to oppose Holder and by law the Senate can prevent the nomination.
Like it or not, Burris was lawfully appointed in accordence with the Ill constitution. And after the last eight years, it’s about time we started following the law. Regardless of how inconvienent it might be at the time.
Boxturtle (A wise man would never have accepted the appointment. A stupid but honorable one would withdraw)
It has to do with being strong enough to resist caving to the idiotic pissing and moaning about “racism” and “rule of law”, and dropping Blago’s personal turd, Burris, into the U.S. Senate, while that same rule of law is moving along nicely in the Illinois legislature, to force the crook that appointed him out of office.
So, tell me Stagger:
What’s the rush? Why aren’t you willing to put Burris on hold while this plays out? :o)
I admit; it’s a question to which we already know the answer:
If you guys can’t grease Burris in, instanter, you won’t be able to grease him in at all. :o)
Selise: bingo. :o)
What part of “rule of law” are you having problems with?
The part where it actually supersedes political and faux moral expediency.
Bmaz@34 I do appreciate your indictment of Reid as a “mendacious twit”, but it would carry a little more weight if you could somehow discuss Roland Burris’s demonstrably lying in front of the Illinois House Committee which had subpoenaed him to testify about Blagojevich appointing him to the United States Senate. :o)
I think he didn’t lie–I think he fudged and–given that he claims not to have read the complain, is not on the hook for anything. (He might have been with his Lon Monk conversation, but given that Monk isn’t technically an employee of Blago and given that, short of reading the complaint and knowing that Monk was lobbyist 1, he wouldn’t have reason to consider Monk an aide to the gov, I think he’s legally safe. (Or make it worthless by refusing him any committee seats.)
That still doesn’t mean the Senate can’t choose to expel him, later. It does seem that hte law suggests he was duly appointed.
Precisely. She always says things so much better than I.
Monk was the governor’s college roommate and then his bagman during the campaign and the early days of the administration. Every lobbyist in the state knew Monk was a direct conduit to Blagojevich. It’s not credible that Burris thought he was just chatting with some dude.
OT – U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Bush administration to release White House visitor logs.
Please don’t be mad, I’m sure your standing will have me flamed unmercifully if I cross you. How does the Senate pulling some procedural horse shit make them brave?
Sorry about the expletive it’s my way of using CAPS.
“It’s high time the laws were followed in this county by all concerned.”
Good idea, StaggerLee. Let’s put Burris in the Senate Rules committee (which legality I note, you didn’t question…) while the Illinois legislature meticulously follows the law you are so concerned about not subverting, as it goes about the business of removing the governor who is trying so desperately to get Burris into the U.S. Senate. Not because of Burris’s qualifications (One more time, the clip shows him lying through his teeth to the House committee. :o) ) but because he wants to embarass the democrats in his scorched-earth policy.
And can you tell us why you’re in such a hurry?
“Illinois legislature meticulously follows the law…..” That’s amusing since that law is so vague it allows impeachment on “cause” which tells me they could successfully impeach and convict a ham sandwich.
Again I’ll state my lack of love for Burris or Blago but when you make assertions of “lying through his teeth” I would hope you can back it up, you can’t. I watched those hearings and while Burris was evasive and confessed to having a poor memory it doesn’t rise to lying yet. If you or the Illinois legislature can prove there was a quid pro quo between Burris and Blagojevich I’m all for it. They haven’t and you haven’t. So keep the pitch warm soon you may tar and feather some Illinois Pols…just not quite yet.
go Illni
Stagger; nothing wrong with using an expletive. As you may have noticed, our host, Ms Hamsher, is a regular wizard with the things. :o)
As for the idea that putting Burris on hold by LEGALLY moving his appointment consideration to the Rules committee, is “procedural horseshit”, I would just say that that term more readily fits Blago’s use of his waning powers, to punish the democrats by sticking them with an unprincipled liar like Burris. And in any case, I haven’t seen anything that would convince me that for the Senate to do that is illegal.
And, I ask again, what’s the rush? None of the legalists seem to want to answer that little question.
I mean, just think how fine it would be if, after the rule of law takes it’s course, Blago is found “not guilty” in the Ill. Senate. It will mean that Burris can go into the U.S. Senate as pure as the driven snow.
Next time you call me a fucking “legalist” I am going to get upset.
I don’t recall seeing mention of this ,but Blago’s trying to get Fitz yanked
http://media.suntimes.com/imag…..recuse.pdf
Posted on it here, when the motion was still sealed.
It’s a bit of a weird motion in my NAL opinion, since it relies heavily on stuff wrt the wiretaps that may or may not be true. If that part is thrown out, the whole thing might be, regardless of whether there is merit on the press conference issue.
oopsie
missed that
must be paying too much attention to my job
Someone’s got to be gainfully employed around here!
As for the press conference isssues,
yeah, that was out of character, and (NAL) not what I generally want to see from a preosecutor.
That said, we would be recusing an awful lot of prosecutors from an awful lot of cases if we fired em for shooting their mouths off.
Especially the elected officials.
Now hold on here, ‘Wheel:
Here’s Burris in that Dec. 13th presser:
“Illinois is too important to it’s 13 million citizens to have a chief executive who is now incapacitated and the state will have problems functioning.”
Then, yesterday, presumably after being confronted with the earlier statement, he says flatly: “I did not say the Governor was incapacitated.”
And guys, I gotta tell you , if we slide this as being anything other than a lie, then we don’t even have the right to be talking about Eric Holder, or Rahm Emanuel, or for that matter George Bush, when he said that:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein has recently sought signifigant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Burris wasn’t fudging, he was lying… in front of a committee of the legislature of the State of Illinois, giving sworn testimony, and he lied because he was caught in the situation of having spoken the truth about the Governor’s situation…and then, a few days later, and AFTER the same Governor whose ouster by the Illinois Supreme Court he had directly supported, he changed his opinion 180 degrees, of Blago’s fitness to govern, solely because Blago had by then given HIM the appointment to the Senate. I would say that no matter the legality of it, there will be nothing on those tape that Fitz has that can be sleazier, now could there be anything more illustrative of why a given politician has no business being within a mile of the U.S. Senate.
The people pushing for Burris to get in, including the asshat repubs who want him there to use to beat on Obama and the dems when Blago goes down, can spin this any way they want, but there are some bottom-line aspects.
The evidence for Burris’s right to be seated is at least countered by the part of the U.S. Constitution that says that the House and Senate will have the say on whom they seat. The best that Burris’s legalists can claim is that there is some disagreement there.
And, as far as I know, there is nothing illegal about the Senate referring Burris’s seating to the Rules Committee.
and there is also the fact that I’ve already pointed out, that if the people supporting Burris in this don’t get it done VERY soon, they won’t be able to get it done at all.
Is anyone supporting the seating of Burris willing to tell us the harm in putting this off for a few weeks while the Illinois legislature moves to determine the fitness of Rod Blagojevich to stay in office and make appointments?
You know, I started to respond to your same tired warbling and your insulting, pejorative term “legalist” again. Then I realized that your incessant, petty and insulting BS just isn’t worth the effort. If you don’t give a damn about the law or Constitution; fine, then proceed in ignorance. But do not stand here and repetitively demand the same answers you have been provided over and over and over again.
Sorry, Bmaz, but your hairsplitting on behalf of Blago’s for-sale liar is just that.
You can walk around barefoot if you want. :o)
Staggerlee; if you want to start sliding giving outright lies in sworn testimony because of “bad memory”, then you’re going to be doing rehab on some real jerks.
Scooter Libby
Dick Cheyney
Abu Gonzalez
All come to mind instantly.
“I’d seriously love to know what law or constitutional principle is being violated.”
So would I, Selise, but evidently this is something that, just like with the almighty rush to get Burris seated, they don’t want to talk about.
Staggerlee, if you looked at that clip of Burris giving testimony to the committee, and you don’t think he was lying through his teeth when he claimed to not have said that the Governor was incapacitated, then you and I just have a different definition of lying.
Anyone there? if so, how does this ruling effect seating Franken. He needs the governor’s signature, IIRC.
Can we make some lemony delight for Minn. out of the lemon of a Burris.
A
To extend the metaphor of lemondelight into happy hour.
Lemon liqueur seemed like a good place to start. Danny DeVito’s, on record for Bush bashing on The View, would be a good place to start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46wakJ8oggM
Well, after that, all I can say is that I’m not the one doing pro-bono legal work to help a demonstrated political sleaze AND liar like Burris, who was picked by a crooked governor who’s about to be removed from office, to get into the U.S. Senate.
That would be you, Bmaz.
And if you did put up your opinion of why referring Burris’ appointment to the Rules Committee for a few weeks would threaten the american system of government, I’m sorry, I missed it.
What post was that on?
Frankly, most of the newfound “respect for the rule of law” comes from people who are scared of the policis of rejecting Burris. If you respect the law, we certainly have time to examine the question of how an appointment was made, in a time of stress, by a man who is on tape trying to sell that same office 3 weeks before.
If you think my respect for the law is “newfound’ you are either on meds, or need to be. Since you claim to have such great Constitutional authority on your side, bring it on bubba. Because i have put up mine from the outset and then supplemented it with some of the best scholars available. Funny, I haven’t seen any from your supposed side.
If you are going to cavalierly bandy about the law, I suggest you try bringing some instead of the constant pablum.
I would be thrilled to admit I am wrong, because I share your and tanbark’s underlying feelings and sentiments; but the law just doesn’t support that. I would kill to support and argue your side; show me the basis. So far, you and tanbark have shown nothing but sentimental mush; admirable, but still mush.
>bring it on bubba.
You can’t be serious. You were unaware of the dissent from Amar and Chafetz, law professors at Yale and Cornell respectively?! Wow!
Maybe some CLE would help.
And then you a silly little lawyer’s trick in saying I accused you of a newfound respect for the law. I did nothing of the sort. That comment was clearly not applied to you. “Most of the support … comes from people who” is not “I accuse BMAZ of …”
Trust me, I know how to point out when people have stumbled. Like when you used George Bush’s “bring it on” to suggest that there was no substantial legal reasoning for excluding Burris. Like Bush, you should have looked around a little longer before proclaiming victory. Fools jump in.
Now I suspect we’ll be treated to another multi-paragraph response explaining how you don’t have time to respond …
Oh, I have the time to respond, I just grow weary of covering the same ground with people with no legal training that don’t give rat’s ass about process and care more about political or personal expediency. That is how I view your arguments, which you have relentlessly refused to support with one lick of anything. I have spent a lot of time responding patiently to you, repeatedly, only to have you insult me. I grew tired of it. Still am. You finally throw out a couple of names like that means diddly squat on its own. It doesn’t. I laid my arguments, and those of Chemerinsky and Fein out meticulously. Yet you insult me with names and pablum. I am a big boy; I can take it, but there is no reason i Have to. And no reason you should be such an insolent guest.
As to Amar and Chafetz, I am familiar with their argument. It is effectively the same one I described as propounded by Jack Balkin back when this long national nightmare was started by the mendacious and politically self serving Harry Reid. I compared and contrasted to the counter argument of Scott lemieux, which I found far more compelling, and still do. Frankly, Amar and Chafetz have such a sense that they are on weak ground that they, themselves, suggest that their weak tea on Powell v. McCormack be backed up by a sense of the Senate resolution of expulsion. As I have repeatedly said, the seating and expulsion is the way to attack this. Why fuck around with bastardizing, contorting and twisting a bunch of precedent, setting bad precedent for the future and tying up time and effort in the courts and creating an ugly scene when you can just do it right to start with. For this reason, among all the others I have previously stated since this imbroglio started, I find, as i believe the majority of people studying this issue have that Reid’s position is wrong.
We should not stoop to sophistry when doing it right is available from the outset.
you know, as much as i disagree with bmaz over this one, this is just wrong. when have you ever read anything from bmaz that remotely could be characterized as disrespecting the law?
it’s really a shame you’ve used such a provocative accusation – because i’d really like to know the answer to the question you asked:
and i bet you just pissed bmaz off so much we’re never going to be able to get answer.
Thank you. I think there is a hint; but I have not seen anything more such that would be sufficient to bar Burris from being seated; the caucus is free to marginalize the hell out of the guy once seated, deny committees assignments etc. and then expel him if they do collect up sufficient evidence of malfeasance.
i’m a big fan of process too.
here’s where i think (big disclaimer about the law ignorance thing) where we’re going off the tracks. reid has made such a mockery out of his involvement that no one who’s been paying the slightest bit of attention can possibly think that his actions are guided by the law or even a mistaken sense of what is right. and i think that’s confusing the question. we’re reading, i think rightly, the intention to circumvent the law on to reid’s actions. but that doesn’t actually make them illegal (at least i don’t think so).
what if reid hadn’t played games with the state sos, or any of the other bs. what if reid had always been an upstanding play by the rules and what’s right kind of guy….. and he wrote up a list of concerns and questions about the process by which burris had been named that he said put enough of a taint on the process that he wanted the rules committee to review the issue and his questions. would that really be an illegal or unconstitutional act? how about if there was good evidence that burris had bought the seat? do you really think that reid can and should do nothing?
Selise,
I didn’t accuse him of that. See above. Though I’m sure the above will actually provide the provocation that he tried to pretend I had made in my previous post.
Oh well. I really would have liked to see the answer to that question, and there was nothing personal in my first few posts except mild amusement at his “I can’t respnd post”.
But when some knucklehead says “bring it on”, I take him at his word.
ok. but i don’t think bmaz was out of line to read it as that you had.
p.s. who were you accusing?
Oh maybe Barbara Boxer and anyone else who thought they should keep him out till they suddenly realized they might lose some African American votes.
So BMAZ, examining his appointment and keeping him out is dangerously bad precedent giving the Senate a horrendous power to decide things best left in the hands of a governor … but examining his appointment and expelling him is just good constitutional law, good precedent and a sound method for dealing with the issue?
You’re ludicrous. You make absolutely no sense, legal, moral or practical. If it’s dangerous to give the Senate that power one way, it’s dangerous the other. The court has not addressed this issue, so there’s no existing precedent that would be broken.
I still think Nixon was such a greedy son of a bitch that he left before he was thrown out so he could keep his pension. They don’t get the pension if you chuck their criminal ass out. Plus, there was the possibility of prison.
>You know, I started to respond to your same tired warbling and your insulting, pejorative term “legalist” again. Then I realized that your incessant, petty and insulting BS just isn’t worth the effort. If you don’t give a damn about the law or Constitution; fine, then proceed in ignorance. But do not stand here and repetitively demand the same answers you have been provided over and over and over again.
LOL. I’m glad you decided you didn’t have time to respond!
But he asked a question whose answer I haven’t seen. What would be the harm in letting the Rules Committee look at the relationship between Blags and Burris. In a situation in which the Governor is on tape trying to sell the seat for personal gain, and in which Burris gave substantial donations to the Governor’s campaigns, (and we know for a fact many Illinois politicians gave nothing or only small token amounts, just to clamp down on a false objection that was frequently raised by someone here who never bothered to check) and in which Burris received substantial state contracts …
Is there really not one hint of improper selection? Nothing that might take a closer look?
Many states do have special elections — meaning they’re left without representation for longer than we’ve been. It’s no big deal. Let’s look at the Burris-Blagojevich relationship, really look at it.
Agreed. Seat him, deny committee assignments and when you get the proof then expel him. That way you comply with the law, you do not set some of the shittiest precedent imaginable and you have marginalized the guy into an untenable corner. That is the remedy; not perverting the law.
By the way, it is actually against what the constitution SAYS to have a governor appoint someone for the rest of a congressman’s term , they are supposed to do it temporarily, and then have a special election, according to the 17th amendment. This bullshit that a governor should be able to do interim appointments was decided in an appellate court, and is a shitty decision, if you ask me. Read the 17th amendment.
Read the Constitution yourself. Jeebus, there is just no end to people wanting to misrepresent the law is there?
I quite like the argumentation from opposing passionately held views.
I do hope that the two of you will be able to set aside and get past the near to outright ad hominem and strawmen. Over the next several years we truly need to be not just capable to work together to fix what’s wrong with the country and the world but be willing and able to work together efficiently. At least imho.
perhaps I should rephrase the “near to outright” to “clearly perceived as”
since we as humans all to often will respond to our perceptions of the truth rather than the truth — after all that’s all we can do on the occasions that our vision is occluded.
But somehow, Bmaz’ love of “process” doesn’t extend to letting the Illinois legislature decide on Blago’s fitness to be in office and make appointments…particularly, with regard to Blago’s attempt to hang a political sleaze like Burris around the necks of the Senate dems.
And one more time; some more sentimental mush:
What is wrong with referring Burris’ appointment to the Senate Rules committee, while the…uhhh…process of deciding about Blago’s fitness to make this appointment moves forward?
And just to make it easy on the legalists, here’s the answer again:
What’s wrong with it is that the people pushing Burris know damn well that if they get this done in about a Chicago minute, they won’t be able to do it at all.
Let’s put it this way. If Burris is sitting in the waiting room of the Senate Rules committee when Blago is removed from office, how many posts will be we be seeing telling us that “rule of law” is being gang-raped by Reid and the Senate Huns? :o)
bmaz:
Hear, hear.
tanbark:
Not answering for anyone but myself, there is nothing wrong with any investigation at all so long as the lawfully appointed Senator is seated first. The Senate can then immediately expel him, as they are Constitutionally entitled to do if a 2/3 majority is available, but there is no legal basis to refuse to seat him in the first place. We mess around with the law of transfer of power at our great peril.
so just to make sure i have this straight – if burris had been caught on video, preferably shown live on cnn, handing over a a few hundred thousand to blago in payment for the appointment, if they’d discussed it in clear unambiguous language, in your opinion it would be either illegal or unconstitutional for reid to put the matter to the rules committee? there is nothing that burris and blago could do that would change that?
do i have that right?
because i was thinking that this was in some ways similar to the issue of bush’s hiring and firing of the USAs. yes, he can do it for any reason or no reason – but he can not make the appointment for an improper reason.
doesn’t that apply here? that even if blago can make the appointment, he can’t make if for an improper reason?
Hi selise. You know I respect your position on this and I don’t think we’re going to change one another’s minds about this. But to carry through with the civil exercise of the discussion, I think the IL Supremes put it very well:
Assuming you mean refer to Senate Rules Committee without seating Burris first, then I completely understand wanting to proceed as you propose, and completely don’t understand what legal basis there is for doing that. Saying Burris is dirty and the transfer of power needs to be delayed while he’s checked out is (to continue the Alice theme of the other thread) very Red Queen: “Verdict first, trial after!”
i’m not sure exactly what i think…. really just trying to figure it out. thanks for the reply. it would really help me understand if you could address the question i posed – are they’re any conditions under which it would be legal and constitutional for the majority leader to put the matter to the rules committee. i tried to make up an over the top situation just to push the limits of the question. if the answer is “no, not under any circumstances, it is always illegal or unconstitutional for reid to put the matter to the rules committee” that would help me understand your (and bmaz’s position).
thanks. not trying to be an asshole, really do want to understand what seems inexplicable to me.
And thank you for engaging too. To answer: No, I can’t think of any reason why not seating would be OK because that’s what the Constitution says is to be done. But to turn it around, I don’t understand why you see that as a problem, because if Burris were to be caught (to continue with your fun how-bad-would-it-have-to-be scenario) on live coast-to-coast TV murdering someone with his bare hands and teeth — unlikely *g* — then the Senate could vote to expel him. Then he would no longer be a Senator. No problem, right? If anyone can show some actual evidence that Burris or his particular appointment (not just Blago’s prior seat-selling plans) is actually crooked, and not merely suspected of being crooked, then the seating can be undone through the Constitutional expellation process. Do you have some objection to expelling Burris from the Senate?
thanks Hmmm. just in case any lurkers are crazy enough to want to follow our conversation…. it continues several threads later.