Obama Rejects Replacement

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
Barack Obama says he agrees with Senate Democrats that they should not accept the man chosen by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to replace him as senator.

Mr Blagojevich is the subject of a criminal inquiry and has been charged with attempting to "sell" Mr Obama's now-vacant seat to the highest bidder.

The governor defied pressure and picked Roland Burris, the state's former attorney general, to fill the position.

The controversy is set to hang over the Senate when it convenes on 6 January.

Democratic senators have vowed to veto anyone appointed by Mr Blagojevich.

More at link...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7805412.stm
 
Damocles said:
BTW - There does not appear to be any authority for the State Senate to "veto" his selection.
Click to expand...


I think the "Senate" in question is the United States Senate, but it doesn't appear to have the power to refuse to seat Harris either.

It's all posturing. Necessary posturing, but posturing nevertheless.
 
Damocles said:
BTW - There does not appear to be any authority for the State Senate to "veto" his selection.
Click to expand...

The senate has power over its members, as has been shown before when they've done recounts that have changed the final makeup of the body. I'm not sure it that applys to appointments.

If it doesn't, they can always expel him. Which my sound mean to Mr. Burrs, but he made an awful decision in accepting the seat.
 
it is certaintly an intersting issue:

In a 1969 decision, the Supreme Court held that Congress, when judging the qualifications of its members, is limited to the qualifications listed in the Constitution, such as age and citizenship. In that case, Powell vs. McCormack, the court held that the House of Representatives had inappropriately refused to seat Adam Clayton Powell.

...

Senate Historical Office associate historian Don Ritchie said there have been 24 people in the history of the United States who were not seated in the Senate, but there is no situation directly analogous to the one in Illinois right now in which a governor making an interim appointment is accused of seeking a bribe for that appointment

...

The Senate does have some other options. The Democratic Caucus could refuse to admit Burris as a member. The Senate could also conduct an investigation into the circumstances of Burris' appointment or appoint a special prosecutor to satisfy itself that no corrupt activity took place.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=6550262&page=2
 
I think that Burris will serve 2 years as a Senator then lose an election, probably in the Primary.
 
He will likey have to be seated by law.

They pretty much have to throw a coniption fit at his appointment though.

If they did not oppose any Blowdownabitch appointment they would be hammered by the right as being part and parcel to a crime.
 
I think throwing a hissy at such a high level is making them appear childish and petty.

They know they have no legal status to "swear to veto" any choice he makes, it makes them look ineffective and petty.
 
Damocles said:
I think throwing a hissy at such a high level is making them appear childish and petty.

They know they have no legal status to "swear to veto" any choice he makes, it makes them look ineffective and petty.
Click to expand...

Well that is your projection then.

At best, they are standing up against perceived corruption, and at worst they are making a cynical posturing ploy. But you know perfectly well that it was absolutely necessary. Obama cannot be seen as being remotely supportive of Blagojevich's choice.
 
I posted the following at another site. I usually don't feel comfortable doing here, whether it's AHZ or another:

I must say, it's more fun now that the whole country has become familiar with Ill. politics. Some people to watch be called in impeachment/trials are bolded:

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/blagojevich-legal-counsel-quinlan.html

Blagojevich's legal counsel resigns
December 30, 2008 at 5:08 PM * Comments (9)
William J. Quinlan, general counsel to Gov. Rod Blagojevich for the last four years, resigned today to return to private practice.

"We should not let recent events diminish the pride in our accomplishments or the commitment to public service with which we approach our job each day," Quinlan wrote in a letter to his co-workers in the governor's legal office.

The resignation comes three weeks after FBI agents arrested Blagojevich at his North Side home on political corruption charges. Among them was an allegation Blagojevich tried to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama to benefit himself and his family.

Quinlan is the latest high-level Blagojevich administration official to leave. John Harris, Blagojevich's co-defendant, resigned as chief of staff. Deputy Gov. Bob Greenlee and Jeff Daily, the new executive director of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, also have resigned.
Click to expand...


Will Burris be seated in the Senate, looks like a yes:

http://volokh.com/posts/1229032345.shtml

Could Senate Refuse To Seat a Senator Appointed by Gov. Blagojevich?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) seem to say "yes":

Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.​

But Supreme Court precedent suggests "no": The Court held in Powell v. McCormack (1969), that "in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution," such as age and citizenship. Now perhaps the Senators are right and the Court was wrong, and perhaps today's Court would overrule Powell....
Click to expand...

and Blago didn't get where he is by being stupid, unethical, yes; stupid, no:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-burris-31-dec31,0,1367315.column

For sheer brazenness, nobody surpasses Rod

John Kass

December 31, 2008


Since he was federally charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder, Gov. Rod Blagojevich has been wrongly caricatured as some kind of hapless jester prancing on the edge of madness.

Jesters hold rattles with a likeness of their heads on the end of a stick, and they hop off into a corner, prattling to themselves. That's what jesters do.

Jesters don't pick up the race card in a nationally televised news conference and slam it into the face of every Democrat in the U.S. Senate, a palm heel strike to the tip of the nose, leaving all of them watery-eyed, their lips stinging.

Yet that's what Blagojevich—aided by former Black Panther-turned-Daley-machine-functionary Bobby Rush—did at that stupendous news conference in Chicago on Tuesday. That's when the governor appointed Democratic empty suit Roland Burris, an African-American, to fill the Senate seat vacated by Obama.

...

Senate Democrats are talking tough now, saying they won't seat Burris, but that won't hold. The debate has been framed. The only African-American in the Senate leaves for the White House, another African-American is appointed to fill that spot, and Democratic politicians know they owe their livelihoods to African-American voters.

That talk about transcending race was just talk. Skin pigment trumps ideas, and Blagojevich, who may be facing a jury soon, wants all the friends he can get.

Of course, Tuesday's fiasco could have been avoided. Democrats in the state legislature could have stripped Blagojevich of his appointment powers and imposed a special election. Obama also could have demanded it. But as he has done so often in his career, Obama avoided a confrontation and looked the other way.

Democrats tried to finesse this, and they allowed Blagojevich the opening he needed, to hold that news conference and defy everybody. And so I'm forced to tip my hat to Gov. Dead Meat on this one, for sheer brazenness.

He's no jester. And it takes guts to keep a straight face while Democrats about you are losing theirs.
Click to expand...
 
Epicurus said:
Well that is your projection then.

At best, they are standing up against perceived corruption, and at worst they are making a cynical posturing ploy. But you know perfectly well that it was absolutely necessary. Obama cannot be seen as being remotely supportive of Blagojevich's choice.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be "supportive" to not swear to do something you can't.

Obama did not do that. I wasn't critical of Obama, I'm critical of the Senate Democrats "swearing to veto" what they cannot. It makes the Senate Ds look petty, ineffective, and appear that they do not know the restrictions on their own power. What will they be saying when they find out they can't do what they suggest and it either cost us a bunch of cash for no real effect or they just have egg on their face?
 
Watermark said:
They should expel him.
Click to expand...
For what purpose? The SCOTUS ruled already that the only determination is either a crime (his not Blago's) or he is unqualified per the constitutional restrictions. Dude is well over 30 and a citizen, they have no legal standing on which to expel him.

And if you were a Senator, I'd expect you to know that, because it is your job.

They can posture all they want, but they suggest action that is not within their power.
 
Damocles said:
For what purpose? The SCOTUS ruled already that the only determination is either a crime (his not Blago's) or he is unqualified per the constitutional restrictions. Dude is well over 30 and a citizen, they have no legal standing on which to expel him.

And if you were a Senator, I'd expect you to know that, because it is your job.

They can posture all they want, but they suggest action that is not within their power.
Click to expand...

Yep, unless SCOTUS decides worth overturning Powell. My guess, they'll seat, if they think it can do good, they'll expel, which is within their powers. Likely, they'll shut up and hope it goes away.
 
Annie said:
Yep, unless SCOTUS decides worth overturning Powell. My guess, they'll seat, if they think it can do good, they'll expel, which is within their powers. Likely, they'll shut up and hope it goes away.
Click to expand...
Yeah, like I said earlier. I suspect we'll have Senator Burris for two years and then he'll lose a Primary election, run as an "Independent" and lose to whomever beats him in the Primary.
 
Damocles said:
For what purpose? The SCOTUS ruled already that the only determination is either a crime (his not Blago's) or he is unqualified per the constitutional restrictions. Dude is well over 30 and a citizen, they have no legal standing on which to expel him.

And if you were a Senator, I'd expect you to know that, because it is your job.

They can posture all they want, but they suggest action that is not within their power.
Click to expand...

They can expel anyone they want with a 2/3 vote.
 
For instance, in 1918 they voted to expel a guy. Why? Because he was from the Socialist Party. It was perfectly constitutional, and it's outlined in the constitution. They can also simply refuse to seat him with a majority vote, although he'd still technically be a senator and a new special election wouldn't be called. For a number of reasons, expulsion is preferable to the Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top