Guest MonkeySee Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Roland Burris has been denied entry to the senate chambers. The democrats do not know what to do. I think they should go ahead and admit him. What do you think? Here is the latest news article: WASHINGTON – Roland Burris failed to capture President-elect Barack Obama's old Senate seat Tuesday in a wild piece of political theater, but the Democrats' opposition cracked when a key chairwoman said seating him was simply the legal thing to do. Democratic leaders, set to meet with Burris on Wednesday, were searching for a way to defuse the dispute before it further overshadows the 111th Congress. Knowledgeable Senate officials of both parties widely predicted that the saga would end with Burris being seated. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Seating Burris seemed more likely late Tuesday, when Sen. Dianne Feinstein rejected the reasoning that all of the chamber's Democrats, herself included, had cited in a letter last week — that corruption charges against Burris' patron, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, tainted his appointment. "Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes," said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee, which judges the credentials of senators. Burris marched into the Capitol earlier Tuesday, declaring himself "the junior senator from the state of Illinois." But Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson rejected his certification, as he knew she would, saying it lacked Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White's signature and the state seal. Late Tuesday, Feinstein urged the Senate to settle the matter. "If you don't seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America," the California senator said. "Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician. He has been attorney general, he has been controller, and he is very well-respected. I am hopeful that this will be settled." A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Earlier, Reid had said, "Mr. Burris is not in possession of the necessary credentials from the state of Illinois." Burris, meanwhile, pivoted from his rejection at the Capitol to the Illinois Supreme Court, asking it to order White to certify his appointment. Burris was expected to meet with Reid on Wednesday. It would be his second appearance at the Capitol in as many days. His first included an escort by Capitol police officers to Erickson's third-floor office for what was described as a highly cordial, 21-minute meeting. Burris, 71, then led a small mob of lawyers, consultants, police and reporters across the street in pouring rain, to a news conference which Burris aides said Reid had tacitly allowed. Erickson, Burris reported, had advised him that "I would not be accepted, and I will not be seated, and I will not be permitted on the floor." The former Illinois attorney general said he was "not seeking to have any type of confrontation" over taking the seat. In addition to his court filing late in the day in Illinois, Burris said he was considering a federal lawsuit to force Senate Democrats to seat him. It was a distraction for majority Democrats eager to project an image of progress with Obama on an economic stimulus package estimated to cost as much as $800 billion. Democrats and Obama have said that the corruption charges against Blagojevich would strip credibility from anyone he appointed to the seat. Blagojevich denies federal accusations that he tried to sell the seat Obama has given up for the presidency. In a written statement Tuesday, the governor said allegations against him shouldn't be held against Burris, whom he called a "good and decent man." "The people of Illinois are entitled to be represented by two senators in the United States Senate," Blagojevich said. An attorney for Burris, Timothy W. Wright III, said that "our credentials were rejected by the secretary of the Senate. We were not allowed to be placed in the record book. We were not allowed to proceed to the floor for purposes of taking oath. All of which we think was improperly done and is against the law of this land." Some of Burris' supporters have bemoaned the fact that Democrats would stand in the way of the Senate gaining its only black member. Burris himself downplayed the issue of race, telling reporters: "I cannot control my supporters. I have never in my life, in all my years of being elected to office, thought anything about race." "I'm presenting myself as the legally appointed senator from the state of Illinois. It is my hope and prayer that they recognize that the appointment is legal," he said on CBS' "The Early Show." Members of the Congressional Black Caucus said Tuesday that Burris should be seated. "A lot of people want to talk about race or the governor and his problems, but the bottom line is you have a sitting governor who has certain legal rights and authorities and he's made an appointment," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. "This is an issue that goes beyond race." ___ Associated Press writer Ann Sanner contributed to this report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GaySacGuy Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 My personal opinion is that he shouldn't be seated. He took the appointment knowing that 50 some Democratic Senators and President Elect Obama had declared that a Balagsonofabitch, or whatever his name is, sould not be seated in Senate. If the guys ego is big enough to go against all that, I doubt he will be a good representative of the state of IL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 As I understand it, one of the basic requirements is that the Secretary of the State of Illinois must sign a document to certify the appointment and, so far, the Secretary has refused to do that. That issue is apparently before the Illinois Supreme Court and my guess is they may have no choice but to order the Secretary of State to sign the form. Once/if that happens, I think they have to seat the guy regardless of the smell emating from Blago. Blago is the legal governor, he has the constitutional power to make the choice, and there doesn't appear to be any solid legal reason why the Senate could reject him. Some have suggested the Senate can use it's constitutional power (to determine the qualifications of the appointee) to refuse to seat Burress but I can't see how that holds any water as (1) the qualifications for a Senator are spelled out in black and white and Burress does meet those qualifications and (2) the rule relates to the qualifications of the appointee and not the appointor. According to all counts, Burris is a decent guy. My only issue with him would be his wisdom (or lack thereof) in accepting any appointment from slimeball Blago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 According to all counts, Burris is a decent guy. My only issue with him would be his wisdom (or lack thereof) in accepting any appointment from slimeball Blago. If you knew a "slimball" who could further your career legally would you refuse it because he is a "slimeball"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GaySacGuy Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 If you knew a "slimball" who could further your career legally would you refuse it because he is a "slimeball"? I don't know if it will end up "further" on any career. He will always be known as the guy that some crook appointted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I don't know if it will end up "further" on any career. He will always be known as the guy that some crook appointted. That didn't answer my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 If you knew a "slimball" who could further your career legally would you refuse it because he is a "slimeball"? Well, since you asked, no, I wouldn't have accepted the appointment from slimeball Blago. Integrity and and the appearance of integrity are important values and anyone who might be offerred an appointment from Blago during this time period sure as hell ought to know that it would be natural (regardless if "right" or "wrong") that a substantial portion of the public would associate some of the taint with you. It would be natural (again, regardless if "right" or "wrong") for many to wonder what "quid pro quo" was offerred or discussed and that the end result would be at least partially demeaning to the notion of being an honorable Senator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 I don't know if it will end up "further" on any career. He will always be known as the guy that some crook appointted. At 71 years old, I don't think Burris is worried about reaching a higher station than US senate, even if it is only for two years. Just because Blago is a slimeball does not mean Burris is. I say go ahead and seat him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lvdkeyes Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 Well, since you asked, no, I wouldn't have accepted the appointment from slimeball Blago. My guess is you are definitely in the minority regarding this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GaySacGuy Posted January 8, 2009 Share Posted January 8, 2009 No...I wouldn't have accepted the appointment. It would taint everything you did from here on out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 My guess is you are definitely in the minority regarding this. Burris did not pay for the slot. He seems to be a good guy. Legally, he meets the qualifications. I think the senate democrats are wrong for not seating him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Blago was impeached by the Illinois house of representatives. I will find it interesting to see if the Illinois senate will convict. The governor has not been convicted of any crime. We will see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhorTose Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 If you knew a "slimball" who could further your career legally would you refuse it because he is a "slimeball"? Good question. No, I would not accept an appointment from Blago. What I would have done was to say I would accept the nomination, but would not try to take office until the impeachment trail is over and Blago is either Governor or not. If Blago lost his trail, then I would leave it up to his replacement to decide if I am the man he wants in the job. To be a US Senator or any kind of elected leader should require that you are not just an honest man, but you appear that way to others. This is just a little slimy for my taste. However, I doubt I would truly fault others for making an opposite choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Blago was impeached by the Illinois house of representatives. I will find it interesting to see if the Illinois senate will convict. The governor has not been convicted of any crime. We will see what happens. Impeachment and the "trial" in the Illinois Senate has nothing to do with conviction of a crime. It's a political process provided for the the state consititution (similar to the other states but more expansive than the federal requirement of "high crimes and misdemeanors") and, while a criminal act could form a basis for impeachment and conviction there, it's not necessary at all. As for the criminal case against Blago, that's being handled in federal court by the US Attorney (Fitzgerald). No need to wait or wonder. There is zero (yep, zero) chance he won't be convicted by the Illinois Senate. This guy is toast and it'll happen in 30 days or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 Impeachment and the "trial" in the Illinois Senate has nothing to do with conviction of a crime. It's a political process provided for the the state consititution (similar to the other states but more expansive than the federal requirement of "high crimes and misdemeanors") and, while a criminal act could form a basis for impeachment and conviction there, it's not necessary at all. As for the criminal case against Blago, that's being handled in federal court by the US Attorney (Fitzgerald). No need to wait or wonder. There is zero (yep, zero) chance he won't be convicted by the Illinois Senate. This guy is toast and it'll happen in 30 days or less. You are probably right, Bob. I think he will be found guilty by the senate, although many people thought Bill Clinton would be convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in his case. I am no expert, but think without the Fitzgerald conviction, the high crimes issue is a bit of a stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GaySacGuy Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 It is becoming clear that Burris is going to be seated. I think it is because msot don't want to drag this event any furthur. I hope it works out for the best!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shebavon Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 You are probably right, Bob. I think he will be found guilty by the senate, although many people thought Bill Clinton would be convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in his case. I am no expert, but think without the Fitzgerald conviction, the high crimes issue is a bit of a stretch. The big question is whether or not the Illinois Senate will vote to remove Blago before the US Senate is forced to seat him, since the Illinois High Court ruled that the State Secretary does not have to sign off on the appointment. This forces it back into Reid's court, with Burris heading to DC to claim what he feels is his. What a drama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 The big question is whether or not the Illinois Senate will vote to remove Blago before the US Senate is forced to seat him, since the Illinois High Court ruled that the State Secretary does not have to sign off on the appointment. This forces it back into Reid's court, with Burris heading to DC to claim what he feels is his. I understand Reid and his fellow senators have relented and will seat Burris. I think it was a wise thing to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think he will be found guilty by the senate, although many people thought Bill Clinton would be convicted of "high crimes and misdemeanors" in his case I remain staggered that the US Congress found Bill Clinton' misdeeds - a bit of smoking in the Oval Office and a lie in a junior court to cover up this or other philandering - worthy of the whole panoply of impeachment when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld get away, literally, with the murder of hundreds of thousands on the basis of souped-up false intelligence, their invasions of privacy, their lies etc. The hypocrisy borders on the sickening. It's going to be really interesting to see what happens as more facts about the Bush administration's excesses are revealed in the next few years. And I wish someone could dig up his service records. I understand he signed an order that locked these away for many decades. If they had to be locked away, what are they hiding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I remain staggered that the US Congress found Bill Clinton' misdeeds - a bit of smoking in the Oval Office and a lie in a junior court to cover up this or other philandering - worthy of the whole panoply of impeachment Do not take this the wrong way because I admire Bill Cinton and think he was railroaded by the right- wing wachos, but old Bill's deed was a little more than a bit of smoking and a lie in a junior court. As a lawyer and an officier of the court, to lie under oath could be interpreted as a high crime or misdomeaner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 worthy of the whole panoply of impeachment when Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld get away, literally, with the murder of hundreds of thousands on the basis of souped-up false intelligence, their invasions of privacy, their lies etc. The hypocrisy borders on the sickening. It's going to be really interesting to see what happens as more facts about the Bush administration's excesses are revealed in the next few years. And I wish someone could dig up his service records. I understand he signed an order that locked these away for many decades. If they had to be locked away, what are they hiding? Vincent Bugliosi's book looks like an interesting read. A nice video at http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/video.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shebavon Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Re: "Roland Burris has been denied entry to the senate chambers. The democrats do not know what to do. I think they should go ahead and admit him. What do you think? Here is the latest news article:" Getting back to the original point of this thread, the answer is Yes. The Dems have spoken. See below. "SENATE DEMOCRATS TO SWEAR IN BURRIS THIS WEEK (AP) Email Written by adamwhiles on Jan-13-09 8:40am From: adamwhiles.com Illinois U.S. Senate appointee Roland Burris gestures, right, during a news conference in Chicago, Monday, Jan. 12, 2009. U.S. Senate leaders announced earlier Monday they'll accept Burris as President-elect Barack Obama's Senate successor and expect to swear him in soon. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)AP - Eager to put the scandal-tainted standoff behind them, Senate Democrats accepted Roland Burris as President-elect Barack Obama's Senate successor on Monday and said they expect to swear in the new Illinois senator this week. "He is now the senator-designate from Illinois and, as such, will be accorded all the rights and privileges of a senator-elect," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said in a joint statement." Now if we can only seat Franken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Vincent Bugliosi's book looks like an interesting read. A nice video at http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/video.php Fascinating video clip! Cant wait to read the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MonkeySee Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Fascinating video clip! Cant wait to read the book. I hope one of the many attorney generals take up this issue. I would like to see Bush receive what he deservses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GaySacGuy Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 WE MAY NOT HAVE A JUNIOR SENATOR FROM iLLINOIS!! Now that Burris has admitted contacts with the Governor's brother before his appointment about campaign finance, etc....which is pretty much admitting perjury....I don't think he will last long. He should be on his way out shortly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
