When Roland Burris shows up at the Senate asking or demanding to be seated, Harry Reid has stated that the Democrats in the Senate will refuse to seat him. There will need to be a vote on the question and the Republicans, although they don't have the power to determine what happens, will have to choose whether to support Reid or vote to seat Governor Blagojevich's choice. They should vote to seat him. In this case the right choice and the politically astute choice are the same.
Whether the Senate has the power to refuse to seat a senator who has been duly appointed by the sitting governor of a state is being debated by lawyers across the ideological spectrum. Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz argue that the Senate is well within its Constitutional powers to refuse to seat the nominee of a process tainted by the accused corruption of Rod Blagojevich. Eugene Volokh and Michael Barone disagree. The ruling in Powell v. McCormack seems pretty clear, but I'm not a lawyer. In that case the Supreme Court established that the only criteria the House could use to refuse to seat a duly elected Representative were the criteria in the Constitution. There seems no reason to think that an appointment to the Senate would be substantively or constitutionally different than an election.
Brian Kalt argues that the Senate can't refuse to seat him without holding hearings to decide if the process which led to his selection was indeed corrupt enough to justify their refusal to seat him. And it does seem that the Senate Democrats will set up some sort of committee hearing. Their plan is to delay his seating in a hearing long enough for the Illinois legislature to rush through an impeachment and trial to convict Blagojevich and eject him from office. Then the Lieutenant Governor could appoint someone untainted and the Senate could seat that person. Given that Patrick Fitzgerald is reluctant enough to share his wiretap transcripts with the Illinois legislature, we can just imagine the delay involved with the U.S. Senate trying to get information to determine if Burris was involved with any of the Blagojevich shenanigans in selling the seat. Controlling the Senate as they do, the Democrats could drag out that committee hearing as long as they wanted. Burris would be forced to appeal to the federal courts to force the Senate to apply the Powell v. McCormack precedent. However long that takes, it would give the Illinois legislature the time it needs to rush through their impeachment and trial proceedings.
Whatever happens, it is clear that the whole procedure is a mess. But it is a Democratic mess and the Republicans can just step out of the way. As Matt Lewis argues, the Republicans can stand on conservative principles and say that they, reluctantly, are supporting the Supreme Court precedent and the rule of law. They can talk about how Illinois could have and should have avoided the whole meshugas by instituting a special election as soon as the news of Blagojevich's attempt to sell the seat emerged. In the first hours after the story broke there were several Democrats who called for a special election. It's clear to everyone that the only reason they didn't do that was their fear that a Republican might possibly in overwhelmingly Democratic Illinois still be able to win in the midst of disgust over all the Democratic sleaze that has since come to light.
In that light, there is another political plus in seating Burris. The guy seems to be a towering mediocrity as Steve Chapman reminds us. He never was able to convince even Democrats that he deserved to be elected to higher office than state attorney general or comptroller. Once news of his grandiose and egotistical monument to himself leaked out, the guy became a joke. He would be a placeholder for the next two years. Then in 2010 when the next election took place the Republicans would be able to make the same arguments running against whichever Democrat got the nomination as they would have made in a special election held this year. Their chances of winning would be slight, but it was always going to be difficult to win that seat.
However, if the Democrats' machinations work out and Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn becomes governor and is able to nominate someone young and untainted by this whole scandal, that person would be in a much stronger position to run as the incumbent in 2010 than he or she would be in running for an open seat now amidst all the news of Democratic corruption.
So the Republicans can just sit back and enjoy the sight of the Democrats arguing amongst themselves about how sleazy the whole process has been and how tainted someone from their own party is. The GOP can stand on both principle and partisan self-interest. When opportunities like that arise, they should be grabbed.
Banner ad
11 comments:
This strategem would require, of course, that the GOP so-called leadership had learned something from last election. I haven't seen any proof it has.
You can count on the GOP leadership's responding the way they did to William Jefferson's fridge raid a couple of years ago: they defended Congress's rights to corruptions.
During Bubba's impeachment, most Repubs and a few Dems voted to impeach- how ironic that should Blago be impeached, most Repubs will vote not to impeach and most Dems will vote for it. Delicious!!
I've seen it suggested that the Senate Republicans can simply vote "present".
Rev-Are you referring to the Republicans in Illinois, who have stressed repeatedly that they will vote for a bill of impeachment and removal from office? Or are you referring to seating a new senator from Illinois which the Republicans have indicated that they will not oppose or vote for Burris if there is a vote?
Two different groups of Republicans!
Speaking of Harry Reid, Senate Democrats and Constitutional qualifications, seems there are more immediate issues than Burris, namely BHO himself (WHY NO MEDIA COVERAGE OF THIS?) --
MESSAGE TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:
When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama -- not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American, citizen) -- fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.
The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, would seem obvious.
As much as I am no fan of Sen. Obama this issue of his birth is simply beating a dead horse that try as one might is not going to rise from the grave. Legit birth certificate and birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser a few days after the event. And no reports of black helicopters in the sky nor cilice wearing guys in sun glasses.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Betsy,
Concur. This Illinois U.S. senate seat is only going to hurt the Dems. It could even potentially threaten Harry Reid's reelection bid. Consider these facts and then think how it would be reported if it were about a Republican. Reid campaigns to get only black man in his exclusive club elected to another job. When that is successful, he pleads with the human resources guy (Blago) not to hire any of the black guys applying for the job. Then when human resources hires a black man anyways he says he won't work with him. If Trent Lott gets castigated for saying nice things at Strom Thurmonds 100th birthday party then Reid should be kicked to the curb over this.
From Patterson's link
Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."
Great! Let's see it. Hey Barak, make the phone call. You'll notice that Fukino carefully says nothing about what's on the birth certificate. This is not the same document released by the Obama campaign which is a "Certification of Live Birth". The newspaper would print the announcement of my dog's birth as long as I paid for it. They do no fact checking whatsoever.
We have George Bush's dental records from 1972. What's Obama hiding and why is he trying so hard to keep this document out of the public record?
Even if Blago might be corrupt, if Burris isn't indicted, the Senate must seat him. Powell was thought to be as corrupt as Blago (and Powell was the congressman) and the SCOTUS ruled he must be seated. Only after he is seated, if he violates Senate rules, or is indicted, etc. may the Senate by 2/3 vote vote to expel him. Or to put it another way, if the Senate is ruling him unfit, two thirds must vote not to seat him, as stated in the Constitution.
Fukino said she "...verified that the Hawaii Stae Dept of Health..." which simply means that she is stating the obvious. That the birth certificate or certifcate of birth, Hawaii uses the latter, is accurate to where, when and who the parents were. But if one wants to continue to chase his tail for at least one more term then go to it. I think that most conservatives will rightly focus on what the new president does as opposed to grassy knoll theorists.
Post a Comment