Subscribe
Notify of
27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This whole election was a fraud. No way did Obama won this election. There are so many crooks behind Obama that it is impossible that the Democrats won. Besides, your whole election process stinks. It is so easy to falsify the results. Get rid of these voting machines and organisations like Acorn.

American Power tracked-back with, “Harry Reid Refuses to Seat Roland Burris”…

Reid is basing the Senate’s legal authority to block Burris on the tainting of the process, Mike. Thus he said on Meet The Press that anyone who was appointed by Blago came in under a cloud by the tainted process.

Mind you, I’m not defending that low life, Reid. But applying the “taint” onto the right wall, so to speak, is important via statute and Congressional credibility to block any Blago appointee. It’s going to involve some “Reid’ing” between the fine lines of the Powell SCOTUS opinion for him to pull this off. It’s not a specific addressed in that opinion.

The SCOTUSblog has an interesting take from Dec 31st…

But one thing is already very clear: the Senate’s Democratic leadership is drawing a sharp distinction between its power to judge the qualifications of any Senate nominee, and its power to judge the validity of the process by which that nominee was selected. The Supreme Court decision in the Powell case bears directly on the former, but maybe not — or, at least, not so directly — on the latter.

No one doubts that former Illinois Attorney General Roland W. Burris — Gov. Blagojevich’s choice — has the qualifications that the Constitution demands of a Senator: at least 30 years old (Burris had his 71st birthday last Aug. 3), a citizen of the U.S. for at least nine years (Burris was born in Centralia, Ill., no doubt is a citizen by birth and has never renounced that citizenship), and be a resident of the state he would represent (Burris is a life-long Illinoisan). Those are the only qualifications specified in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.

But the Senate’s leaders say that is not the issue. In their statement on Tuesday, they said: “This is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat.” (The leadership statement, and a separate statement by President-elect Obama supporting their position, can be read here.)

The Senate Democratic leaders’ spokesman, James Manley, told news organizations on Tuesday: “We are not making a judgment about the qualifications of the appointee, but about whether [the] appointment itself was tainted by fraud. We believe we are entitled to do that. This is like judging the integrity of an election, free from fraud or corruption.”

~~~

Thus, the Senate may well be in a position to look behind a Blagojevich appointment and apply a federal Senate standard of propriety regarding the appointing authority (the governor) — so long as it did not add a new “qualification” as such for the individual chosen.

“Taint,” in that sense, may well be a federal question, and a “political question,” at that, and that could put the issue beyond the scope of judicial review — again, so long as the Senate were careful to make clear that the “taint” attached to the process, not to the appointee.

Of course, attorneys for Blagojevich, and for Roland Burris, no doubt would argue that the process and the appointee could not be separated so neatly, and that any reliance upon a perceived “taint” would necessarily attach to the appointee and be, therefore, a new “qualification” that would run afoul of the Powell precedent.

Now the simple cure would be to have Blago step down (right about time cows graze on the moon…), have Lt. Gov Quinn appoint Burris, and it’s a done deal.

Depending on how long this drags out, and if Blago/Burris’ legal objections can be subject to judicial review… scary to think *any* Congressional procedures are beyond judicial review – but that’s another story… there could be a 99 seat Congress for awhile.

Or would that be 98 until the ensuing lawsuits for Coleman v Franken settle in?

I figure the crooks and liars from both sides pretty much control far more than a supermajority already. So what’s one more? (yes… sarcasm off)

Mata: Are you suggesting that Reid and friends, who insisted Obama’s links to known bad guys was “guilt by association” are NOT being hypocritical?

Not quite, Mike. I am suggesting that Reid’s argument that Burris should not be seated is not guilt by association to Blago, but guilt by association to the appointment process, which is under suspicion of corruption. Burris has a good argument that… if that is the case… what about all the bills signed into law while under this cloud.

Pandora’s box at best.

I am not qualified to determine whether Reid’s decision not to seat is legal, or will be eligible for review by the courts. This is way beyond my layman legal mind.

But, that said, I have no problems agreeing that Reid is most certainly one of the most hypocritical of Senate leaders. Perhaps not solely, or defined by this event. But certainly a hypocrite by any and all standards for other sundry reasons.

Who was it that said, “it does not matter who votes, it is who counts the votes”??????

Democrats tried the same thing in Florida, but the Supreme Court put a stop to the change in the elections mid way thru the count.

They did this also in Washington State. And the Democrat won.

No matter what anyone says, Democrats are only in it for the power and do not care how they get elected. One man One Vote, is out the window with them. and if you are a soldier overseas, you might as well not vote, because they will get it thrown out any way they can.

They are making a mockery of our election laws and taking every election to court until they get what they want. We have lost confidence in the election process because of these shenanigans.

The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at what has become a circus.

Mata: Who appointed Burris?

No doubt Larry, et. al. will be heartened by your reply.

Sounds like hairsplitting to me.

The same kind of hairsplitting that Democrats usually employ to cover their misdeeds while they vocally condemn Republicans.

But I won’t ask for your conservative card.

Nonetheless, Larry will be pleased.

Stix: The quote you cite is attributed to Josef Stalin:

Photobucket

OMG! FA “infighting”! Alert the press! Dang, guy… I didn’t know you were the “conservative badge checker” at the door. I’ll make sure I have my papers in order next time! :0)

My point was not to disagree with your ultimate assessment of Reid, but only your reasoning for getting there. There is the reason *you* think Reid is pulling the George Wallace “Katie bar the door” act. And then there is the legal grounds Reid is using. So in your final analysis, you should differentiate between the two.

Example: your theory would hold water if, say, Lt. Gov Quinn or the IL AG appointed Burris instead by impeachment/resignation by Blago – and Reid still refused to seat him. However your theory of guilt by association would be severely diluted if Burris *was* seated under the same conditions.

Tough “room”…. LOL

@Mike’s America: I actually knew that. Just checking to see if anyone else knew. I figured you guys would know. Just anyone else that came along.

Sorry Stix… I spoiled the test.

Mata: Such equa·nim·i·ty does you credit. Unfortunately, that’s not a characteristic much in evidence from our opponents as will be clear when I post on the possible overturning of House Fairness Rules.

I’m sure Larry is smiling. Unless of course he has already succumbed to CO2 poisoning at the same time Arctic Ice has reached record proportions from the last 20 years.

@Mike’s America: NO problem.

Well, Mike… as I said: if your theory holds water, Reid will refuse to seat Burris if he is appointed by either the AG or the Lt. Gov. So I guess, only time will tell.

Me? I try to stick to the legal arguments. Those you can grasp onto a fact and hold tight. But trying to debate the perceived morality and ethics of Reid and ilk (and other oxymoronic notions) is like p*ssing into the wind, ya know? (my best “Harvard grad” imitation there… like it?)

And don’t worry about Larry smiling. If it takes so little to make a human happy, who can argue?

Burris Can’t be appointed by the AG and that’s not the point.

Careful you don’t end up on Craig’s watchlist.

Sorry… my brain fart error. Got AG on my mind with Burris… LOL Serves me right for multitasking today. Definitely not doing it well.

The Stalin poster reminded me of the old joke of Russians under Stalin about the man who broke into the Kremlin and stole the results of next year’s election.

Gaffa: I had not heard that one.

Mata: Also, the Lt. Gov. cannot make an appointment either.

On the legal side of this Blago is well within his rights to make this appointment. Just because Harry Reid says he shouldn’t doesn’t make the slightest difference.

Mike, I’m not *that* bad at multitasking. Or perhaps you hadn’t known that AG Madigan was petitioning the IL Supremes to temporarily remove Blago and appt Lt. Gov Quinn as acting guv so *he* could make the appointment.

Which is where I kept tying the AG to the Lt. Gov for appointment power in my mind. And yes, the Lt. Gov is 2nd in line to the IL throne of corruption in the event of Blago loss of office.

So sorry… you are incorrect there.

They still need the siognature of the Secretary of State and he refuses to sign off on anything Blago does. I do not know how they can get around that.

Stix, not entirely sure about the requirement for IL Secy of State White. Burris hit up the IL Supremes at the end of December to get a writ of mandamus to kick him in the butt, and remove doubt of his legitimacy.

Excerpt from the brief:

Pursuant to 10 ILCS 5/25-8 and the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Mr. Burris’ appointment as United States Senator is effective immediately and there is no need for further confirmation by any other official from the State of Illinois, including but not limited to, Secretary White. Nevertheless, 15 ILCS 305/5 5(1) requires the Secretary of State to “sign and affix the seal of the State to all commissions required by law to be issued by the governor.” Accordingly, Secretary White is required to exercise these duties with respect to Mr. Burris’ appointment. His failure to do so may cast doubt in the minds of the public as to the legitimacy of Mr. Burris’ appointment, all to Petitioners’ damage and in derogation of their rights.

This is also being talked about on that liberal cyber whore house, TMP.

A spokesman for Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White (D) confirmed to Election Central that White knows he does not truly have the authority to stop the appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate, but he withheld his signature from it earlier today in order to make a statement. But the door does appear to be open to some legal ramifications.

“His feeling is we studied the constitution of Illinois, we looked at the statutes, and there was nothing there that said he had to sign the paperwork,” said David Druker, White’s press secretary.

“We don’t believe he has the authority to hold up the appointment or veto it, to put it that way,” Druker added. “How the U.S. Senate views the action, that would be for the U.S. Senate to determine.”

In an update at the bottom, Reid says he’d use it as a second set of grounds for entry refusal anyway. Then again, ol’ Harry doesn’t mind blowing off the courts when they aren’t issuing decisions in his favor. So I guess it’s yet another legal bone of contention. But not yet cut and dried.

Incorrect? Moi!

Pish Tosh!

If the Lt. Governor became acting governor he would no longer be Lt. Gov.

As Lt. Gov he cannot make the appointment.

Stix: I don’t know what the law requires in Illinois. I haven’t heard that the Sec. State has any grounds to refuse to sign. A court may have to decide. This comedy just keeps on giving.

Now now, Mikey… if you’re gonna indulge in word parsing and the meaning of “is”, I’m gonna have to ask you to show your conservative credentials at the door! :0)

There doesn’t seem to be anything spelled out in the statute that says when White must affix his seal but I also don’t see how he can refuse.

P.S. regarding the Lt. Gov. thing…. just going for accuracy here. A Lt. Gov. cannot make the appointment.

Good grief! Isn’t there a single democrat in the White House that knows how the Senate works? What a bunch of losers. Blind leading blind.

He will be seated within a week. This will be nothing more than a forgotten bump in the road…

“This will be nothing more than a forgotten bump in the road…”

Correction: This was a supreme example of the contempt for state’s rights on the part of the Senate and Democrats.

What’s to stop them from doing this if the candidate wasn’t black or was appointed by a Republican governor?

“This will be nothing more than a forgotten bump in the road…”

Ya sure, and the Jr. Senator from Illinois better get any committee appointment he desires or all that Senator “Big Talk” Reid said against him can and will be used. I think there will be more bumps ahead.

That’s your leadership at work. They managed to take a simple task and blow it proving them to be not to good at forward thinking.