Reports yesterday indicated that Illinois Sen.-designate Roland Burris would be seated by the U.S. Senate after all. This represents a complete reversal from previously state positions by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others. Burris, initially denied admission to The World's Greatest Deliberative Body, said Wednesday that he expects to be seated to fill out the remainder of President-elect Barack Obama's term.
Reid and others had declared that Burris would not be seated because he was appointed by disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Anyone appointed by Blago would be tainted by his alleged attempts to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder. Guilt by association is legal in politics.
I had commented on another blog about the conundrum the Burris appointment presented for both Democrats and Republicans. Politically, opposing Burris would be difficult for both political parties. But the larger issue is simply this: Burris has been legally appointed to fill the remainder of Obama's term. Blagojevich is still the governor (like it or not). He has not been impeached. He has not been convicted of any felony. He still has the authority to appoint persons to fill vacant congressional seats. Until he is impeached or convicted, you can't take that away from him.
The other element is that the Constitution gives both chambers of Congress the authority to judge the qualifications of their members. The Senate can choose to accept or reject anyone elected (or appointed) to that body, and there is even precedent for kicking members out. However, no one wants to delve into arbitrary judgments about members' qualifications.
For all these reasons, Burris will be seated. Then we'll find out whether he can win an election in 2010.
Posts
4 comments:
What's up with "Duly appointed African American"? Couldn't you just say American? I never hear anyone say Duly appointed Caucasian American? You may want to think about that a little.
The point in referring to Burris' race, if you read the link to my comment on another blog, was that Democrats could not afford to oppose an African-American. Being African-American actually gave Burris an advantage in trying to persuade the Democrats to seat him. References to race are appropriate when such references are relevant. In this case, race was relevant. Burris himself made the point -- that he would be succeeding the only African-American in the Senate.
The next time any Democrat criticizes someone of 'waffling' on an issue, I'm sure (ha!) they will think twice. Can't wait til 2010.
....ain't that the truth. Waffling.
I think it had everything to do with what might fall out of harry reid's closet. Snake oil, the dude is.
Post a Comment