DISQUS

existenz · 11 months ago

Why do you keep saying they "caved"? Can you name a single strong legal argument that the appointment could be invalidated? And since when is Burris a "crony" of Blagojovich?

If you want to be upset, be upset with the IL legislature that didn't start impeachment until AFTER Blago made an appointment. They could have (and should have) impeached his ass a month ago.

Reid was foolish to pretend he could block the nomination. Unlike the GOP, we actually believe in the rule of law and in this case, unfortunately, the law is on the side of Burris. Unless you would like to set a precedent where Senate appointments can be blocked by the whim of the majority, in which case future GOP Senates will feel free to play games.

John Aravosis · 11 months ago

Reid, Durbin and Obama said in no uncertain terms that Blago had better not send an appointee. Blago turns around and does, and then Reid Durbin and Obama go, oh okay. That's caving. If they didn't have a legal leg to stand on then they shouldn't have drawn a very public line in the sand and told Blago "don't you dare." He dared, they caved. The issue isn't whether they had the legal ability to stop it - they threatened to stop it and then they caved. You don't threaten what you can't do, or aren't willing to do.

tkd · 11 months ago

Pay close attention to which legal scholars piped up to support Reid in this catastrophe -- and which ones spoke truth to power by saying it couldn't be done, even though Reid desperately wanted to do it. Akhil Reed Amar, Josh Chafetz, and Laurence Tribe (sadly) were in the first group. Erwin Chemerinsky and Bruce Fein were in the second group. I know which ones I would more likely trust with my rights and liberties under the constitution.

Orly? · 11 months ago

Crony? I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Like you, I wish the Dems would ignore the law as well. Then they'd be as powerful as the GOP. But they'd use that power for good!

John Aravosis · 11 months ago

Crony? Okay I"m game. What do you think it means. As for me, I don't want the Dems to ignore the law, I want them to stop threatening to do things, promising to do things, then caving every time someone blinks in their general direction, making them look utterly feckless.

Orly? · 11 months ago

It means they're good friends. They're not. In politics it generally means some unqualified sycophant.

Bubbles · 11 months ago

If Reid had not have 'caved' the case would have gone to the Supreme Court who would have ruled that Reid, nor the Senate, could not block seating Burris, especially on the point of lacking the Secretary of State's seal - as that would be tantamount to giving the SoS constitutional and legal power to veto the Governor's appointment - something not written into the law. Such acts would have delayed needlessly Burris seating, would embarrass the Senate Dems, especially Reid, making them look inherently incompetent and unable to rule, all the while costing the tax payer's money, denying Illinois representation and the Senate another sitting Democrat.

If Reid caved, it was the minute he opened his mouth and said he wouldn't seat Burris, in contradiction to the stated laws.

John Aravosis · 11 months ago

Again, you guys are arguing some other point that I'm not making. Don't make threats you can't, or won't, follow through on - it makes you look weak. Reid, Durbin and Obama should have never publicly taken Burris on if they didn't have the power to follow through on their threats.

example · 11 months ago

So what? the problem is they made the threat, not that they didn't follow through illegally. Everyone was worried Blago would appoint himself or someone who really was a crony, and that would be someone they could legitimately block.

leo · 11 months ago

"denying Illinois representation"

Um, like this guy is capable of representing Illinois?

Earl Scheib · 11 months ago

Fair enough. Obama and the Senate Democrats bit off more than they could chew when they talked tough about Burris. They now have a bit of egg on their faces. But you have to admit that the law permits the appointment. I'm glad that the law is being followed, for a change.

And "crony?" Where's the evidence for that? I have the feeling Burris is going to be re-elected in 2010. He's tenacious as all get-out.

BTW, thanks for all of your efforts. Even if we disagree from time to time, your blog is good stuff.

High Crimes & Misdemeanors · 11 months ago

Look at it this way... Blago needs this appointment of Burris, then you can't really convict/impeach a guy who made a legitimate appointment of someone who didn't take a bribe. Burris is clean as far as we know.... that being the said, the FBI could not have a strong case against Blago. How do you convict/impeach a man who has made a legal appointment?

ladyinil · 11 months ago

Must read regarding Blago (funny!)

From The Inside Dope
Blago lances a boil

Jay Randal · 11 months ago

Blago and Burris are just a distraction for Congress to allow Israel to slaughter children in Gaza. Burris will get the Senate seat for two years and then get creamed in 2010 election and out the door. Blago intends to take down as many Dems in Illinois as he can as he falls from power. All this nonsense as children in Gaza are blown to bits.

John P · 11 months ago

John, if you want to criticize Obama, Reid, and Durbin for the mess they made of this, do it.

Instead, you have been criticizing Burris for days. That is why your threads have been filled with comments telling you you are off base. People want the law followed, and all that Blago did was to do his job and appoint a respected Chicago Dem, after the Illinois legislature refused to change the law last month.

Illinois deserves two Democratic senators, especially with all that is coming down the pike in the next few months.

Frankly, the worst thing about this blog is when you get all bent out of shape, as you are doing in these comments, anytime someone points our that you are wrong, as they have been doing over the last few days on this issue.

leo · 11 months ago

"Instead, you have been criticizing Burris for days."

The guy only got the gig at the end of a totally corrupt and probably criminal process. The fact that he accepted it is all you need to know about his moral character.

Illinois does indeed 'deserve' two Democratic senator but no way would this guy have gotten in under normal circumstances. He's a joke and embarrassment to the state of Illinois.

example · 11 months ago

What exactly is your problem with Burris? He was legally appointed, every other lefty blog I've been reading has been bashing Reid for acting like he could block the appointment in the first place. Precedent was on his side, and there was no reasonable reason not seat the guy.

leo · 11 months ago

"Crony' is right. He's an embarrassment for the entire state of Illinois.

ac2 · 11 months ago

"There is certainly no pay-to-play involved, because I don't have no money," Burris said before returning to Illinois.

I don't have no money.
This is the next senator for Illinois?
Nice, really nice.
Perhaps one of the requirements for being a senator should be the knowledge of basic grammar?

scottinsf · 11 months ago

I hear that Burris is a lot more supportive of LGBT folks (and has been his entire political career) than the Senator he's replacing.

Bush Bites · 11 months ago

Burris will be an OK place holder.

He's held a couple statewide job and his name is well known in Illinois.

He just better not try to run for election, tho.

There are better Democrats ready to run and, if he wins the nomination, Mark Kirk will crush him.

Seriously? · 11 months ago

Crony? How is a guy who ran against Rod B. in his primary considered Rod's crony? How is a man who wasn't on anyone's list of possible appointees - and wasn't even considered for a shakedown by Rod B. a crony? You went a little too far with that one. Burris is not a great pick - and would not have been anyone's first pick - but he certainly isn't a crony of Rod's.