Burris refused seat in US Senate

[Terminator]

WASHINGTON -- The secretary of the Senate has turned former Illinois attorney general Roland Burris away from taking the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.
Burris left the Capitol offices of the secretary, Nancy Erickson, after a meeting of about 20 minutes.
Outside the Capitol, Burris and his attorneys told reporters that they're considering their legal options.

[Five-0]

Since when can the Senate secretary determine whom a state picks to represent itself. Hell I'm all for eliminating the popular election of Senators anyway. The states have no representation in Washington. As it stands today, Senators are no different from Congressmen except for the length of their terms.

[213th]

I think that since the governor is under investigation for attempting to sell the seat, then the person he appoints is automatically suspicious. I don't think that the apointment should stand unless Burris is cleared of any wrong doing AND is confirmed by his state (hasn't happened last I checked)

[countybear]

They have no legal option. They must seat him, as soon as the Secretary of State certifies him. The Secretary of State has no other (legal) option but to certify him.

Blogojevich has not been impeached, otherwise relieved from office, nor has he been convicted of any crime. This is the problem that inherently occurs when you short-stop an investigation and attempt to try a case in the media, instead of as constitutionally provided. The situation facing both Illinois and the Senate is purely due to political grandstanding and prosecutorial misconduct.

[Morris]

He's being accepted by the Dems now.

Repubs are snickering as the ChiTown machine grinds on.

[Bob Loblaw]

I think that since the governor is under investigation for attempting to sell the seat, then the person he appoints is automatically suspicious. I don't think that the apointment should stand unless Burris is cleared of any wrong doing AND is confirmed by his state (hasn't happened last I checked)

+1

[Captain America]

Illinois could have stopped any appointment by their tainted Governor by holding a special election and letting the people decide who they wanted to be their senator but the Democrats were afraid that they might loose the seat to a Republican. Now they have no option. What clusterf#@*.

[Jenna]

He's being accepted by the Dems now.

Repubs are snickering as the ChiTown machine grinds on.

Maybe they can put whoopee cushions on his seat.

[countybear]

I think that since the governor is under investigation for attempting to sell the seat, then the person he appoints is automatically suspicious. I don't think that the apointment should stand unless Burris is cleared of any wrong doing AND is confirmed by his state (hasn't happened last I checked)

What you are saying is that an investigation should automatically bear a presumption of guilt, not only on the subject of that investigation, but also on anyone whom he chooses to appoint. To that, I say 'foul'.

That argument is contrary to the 'presumption of innocence' which hallmarks the American legal system.

Now, as unwilling as I am to defend (alleged) corruption, I am even more unwilling to advocate the State having to bear no burden of proof and successfully acting unilaterally based only upon allegations and press-fueled sensationalism.

By the 'rule of law', these actions by the Secretary of State in Illinois (refusing to certify Burris), and the Senate (refusing to seat Burris) are nothing but political powerplays, and in contradiction of every statutory procedure currently in place.

The corruption case against Blogojevich should have been fully investigated, even if that meant a 'tainted' appointment to the Senate was made.

The investigation, as it sits now, is nothing more than allegations of 'attempted' or 'intended' misconduct by the Illinois Governor (and, of course, a media frenzy). No lives were at stake based upon what the investigation had uncovered before being made public, nor was there risk of any irreversible impact upon government or society. In fact, had the investigation been conducted through fruition of the act(s), more corruption would have doubtlessly been uncovered, and arrests and indictments untainted by sensationalism, would have been realized. Those arrested would have been facing more serious criminal justice exposure, and the people's interests would have certainly been better served. In my personal opinion, the investigation was subverted and undermined by the very federal prosecutor who is charged with representing the people's interests.

As things have been allowed to transpire, the old-school powerbase has been allowed to position itself into a 'best-case' scenario, when in fact, its very leadership would have been exposed for the continuous patterns of fraud, extortion, corruption, pandering, and political pay-to-play prostitution that it has been guilty of for years.

The federal prosecutor in this case, Patrick Fitzgerald, is guilty himself of prosecutorial misconduct, in that he refused to allow the enforcement arm of the Justice Department do its job, hand him the case, and then do his own (through indictment and criminal prosecution of the accused). Instead, he saw fit to grab some camera time, blow the lid on the investigation, and allow the guilty to distance themselves and walk away scot-free. Blogojevich is now a fall-guy, when really, at no time was he the end-all, be-all kingpin of the organized crime 'family' that is Chicago politics.

Thanks to Mr. Fitzgerald, we may never really know just how far-reaching and truly corrupt this aspect of our political system really is, and we certainly nearly-missed an opportunity to clean up (at least) the Chicago political machine that we've heard so much about for so long.

Was he gunshy of the involvement of the Obama camp? Is he actually a servant of the powerbase itself? We might now never know.

We do know though, that with Obama's bold pre-election promises of 'transparency' and strong stands against political corruption, Mr. Obama has been true-to-form with old-school political corruption, coverup, smoke-and-mirror games, and he has run for cover when he and his own fell under shadows of suspicion. Transparency must mean "only when it doesn't involve me directly", and his stance against political corruption must mean that he opposes it only when it serves him to do so.

[213th]

What you are saying is that an investigation should automatically bear a presumption of guilt, not only on the subject of that investigation, but also on anyone whom he chooses to appoint. To that, I say 'foul'. That argument is contrary to the 'presumption of innocence' which hallmarks the American legal system.

Well I must say that I hadn't considered it from that angle. WHen placed in that light, as resistant as I am to Burris being granted the seat, I must say that to deny him would be a grave violation of "innocent until proven guilty". I'm still apposed to him having the seat, but that should be approached after the investigation and trial is completed, the result of which proving that the seat was offered Burris illegally. I think the honorable thing to do would be to refuse the seat until it is proven that he was appointed legally. But, that would be a bit much to expect from most politicians.

Unfortunately, the prosecutor likely screwed the pooch and no indictments will be filed.

Was he gunshy of the involvement of the Obama camp? Is he actually a servant of the powerbase itself? We might now never know.

We do know though, that with Obama's bold pre-election promises of 'transparency' and strong stands against political corruption, Mr. Obama has been true-to-form with old-school political corruption, coverup, smoke-and-mirror games, and he has run for cover when he and his own fell under shadows of suspicion. Transparency must mean "only when it doesn't involve me directly", and his stance against political corruption must mean that he opposes it only when it serves him to do so.

No, Obama going back on his word already? This is gonna be a let down for all the sheep if/when they accept the truth about the slimebag

[countybear]

As it currently stands, the Dems basically had the race card played on them. Fitting and ironic, perhaps, as they have made long and arduous use of it themselves throughout the quest to regain power in the beltway. Blogojevich played an obvious political angle, appointed Burris, who is basically reproachless, especially in regard to the existing pay-to-play scandal, and found (some) redemption in the ranks of the African American political block. In so doing, he basically thumbed his nose at Reid, Pelosi, Obama and the entire Dem political elite. Blogo gave them a great big 'up yours' by ramming Burris down their throats (legally), and basically calling their bluffs.

Dem-elites ran out of other real options (had they even feigned at a 'special election', the African American outrage would have been far too much for them to deal with, and of course, the risk of a Republican win secondary to all the exposure of corrupt Dems was too great). Basically, sticking to the refusal to seat Burris would have showed them to be exactly what they are, pander-ponies constantly conning an angle for power, even at the expense of the minorities that they so wish to woo into their own private block-voter base. So, they are in the process of caving into the Burris appointment. (Double-stacked toejam sandwiches for table 6, please, size 11D).

Once again, Republicans sit and giggle inanely at the Dem bumbling, when they should actually be on the attack. Rather than asking 'what best serves the people, and how shall we assist in seeing it done?', they just sit on the sidelines and gawk. They should be rushing to Blogo's side right now, dusting him off and telling him that 'everything's just gonna be great, Big B', we're going to help you out. Now, just tell us about this thing, and who's ass we need to be gunning for as the honcho el' bandito? How about we move for a special prosecutor to investigate the Justice Department's ridiculous mishandling of this entire fiasco? If we're going to do it, we'd better do it before January 20th, when the new broom sweeps this entire mess under the rug in the Oval Orafice.

You think 'outing' a friggin' secretary for the CIA was a heinous crime? How about compromising a major political corruption investigation in order to cover the tracks of 'the anointed one'?