NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading Navarettes political column on CNN and have to agree with much of what he has to say.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/01/navarrette.senate/index.html

I think Burris should take his seat in the Senate. What do you think?

if he was really mischievous he would offer the seat and then abruptly pull the seat back as Mr Burris is about to sit down >.>

tbh he isn't crazy enough for my liking but its nice to see something actually happening in the US senate

If he says that he'll wait for Blago's replacement to appoint him, then sure.

EDIT: And, of coruse, that Blago's replacement DOES appoint him...

Burris might have taken the seat from Roddy B, but that alone shouldn't disqualify him from the position.

On the other hand, if it turns out Burris was one of the prospective customers on Blagojevich's list, then there might be problems.

Frankly I'm surprised he, or anyone else for that matter, accepted the appointment. Unless there is a special election or an appointment by a new governor there will always be a cloud of suspicion over anyone who accepts that Senate seat.

I wonder what kind of a game the governor is playing.

I'd put my money on snakes and ladders.

Frankly I'm surprised he, or anyone else for that matter, accepted the appointment. Unless there is a special election or an appointment by a new governor there will always be a cloud of suspicion over anyone who accepts that Senate seat.

I wonder what kind of a game the governor is playing.

I believe it's called "Silly Buggers!"

Should he be allowed to, yes. Should he? No. He was nominated by a very clearly corrupt politician he has past ties to, best to politely decline.

I dont see why he shouldnt...If he gets booted later, so what? how is he worse off than before? not to mention, I believe he still gets a nice pension from congress...

and if he doesnt get booted, well, Free Senate seat...

How can he lose?

Legally he probably should be able to --- he has been appointed, as far as I know it's all technically above board, etc.

Ethically, were I him, I would not take the seat unless the appointment was confirmed by the successor to Gov Blagojevich.

Finally, I think that the reasoning presented in the article is silly --- why should his race make any difference to this? At heart, there are only two questions, the legal one and the ethical one. As a result, I believe that he can (legally), but he should not (ethically).

yes. the senate has far more important things to do than to block mr burris' nomination. he is qualified. if the people of illinois find him too connected to their failed governor then can refuse to elect him to the office.

Ethically, were I him, I would not take the seat unless the appointment was confirmed by the successor to Gov Blagojevich.

Finally, I think that the reasoning presented in the article is silly --- why should his race make any difference to this? At heart, there are only two questions, the legal one and the ethical one. As a result, I believe that he can (legally), but he should not (ethically).

I agree with this.

Why the hell not? As far as I can tell, his appointment, while perhaps politically unwise, is legal. Unless its clear he did something wrong, why not give him a crack at the job? If it turns out he payed a bribe or that he just can't do the job, the the voters can deal with that in two years right?

The writter of the article is quite wrong, the Senate CAN refuse to seat whomever it likes. It alone holds the final court of judging the qualifications of those sent. Also, the 17th amendment does NOT give govenors the power to appoint senators in case of a vacancy, it instead allows the state legislatures to give such a power to the governor if they so choose. I also think that all that race crap is just that, crap.

Now, should Burris take the seat? No, I don't think so. I feel sorry for him, he's obviously caught between a rock and a hard place here, and I hope that he would either be reappointed by a new govenor or elected in a special election, but the reality of the situation is that it is a political liability for sure if he were to take the seat; but more to the point, it is highly doubtful that he could represent IL with this cloud hanging over his appointment. He might fill the seat, but all he would do would be a warm body in a chair for the next two years.

Blagojevich is the Governor, and has been granted the power to make the decision. His position re: upcoming legal actions is irrelevant.

If the Senate is offended, let them formally refuse Burris according to the rules of the Senate. Oh, wait, Burris' opponents can't pull a 2/3rds vote? Then too fucking bad - we have a senator.

Blagojevich is the Governor, and has been granted the power to make the decision. His position re: upcoming legal actions is irrelevant.

If the Senate is offended, let them formally refuse Burris according to the rules of the Senate. Oh, wait, Burris' opponents can't pull a 2/3rds vote? Then too fucking bad - we have a senator.
it probably only takes a majority vote to keep him from being seated.

it would be a 2/3 vote to eject him.

it probably only takes a majority vote to keep him from being seated.

it would be a 2/3 vote to eject him.

I do not believe so, but I may be wrong.

Anyone more knowledgable?

I do not believe so, but I may be wrong.

Anyone more knowledgable?
Article One, Section 5: Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members...
Yes, the Senate can choose to accept or reject the qualifications of those who come to it. There's no need for a 2/3rd's vote (Which is to remove a senator, at this point in time, Burris is not a senator).

As this article ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090103/ap_on_go_co/senate_burris ) makes clear that's what the Democrats are going to do. Object to the qualifications and credentials and tie it up with the rules committee until hopefully the IL legislature gets its act together. Burris will be treated as a senator-elect, but not an actual sworn in senator.

I still can't understand HOW the US electors can accept that a person they elected as senator can be replaced by someone appointed at the gov's whim. What about new elections for that place? Wouldn't that be a bit more democracy-like?

i don't have a problem with HIM. though i know nothing about HIM. all i know about the situation comes from corporate media which i don't trust, so any opinions i'm likely to form would be based on data of questionable reliability, add that to the fact that i'm not from there, and i see no point in doing so. i really think the only people who should have a saw in this are the people on the ground in his district. not federal executive branch, nor the governor of his state, whom again, all i 'know' of what he's accused of comes from media i don't trust, and suspect, whoever he recommended he'd have been accused of the same things for the same real, political reasons, if that's the case, as it might or might not be. but really the one thing i will weigh in on about this, is that whatever the deal turns out to be with the governor, whom i understand was required on his state's constitution to recommend SOME one, ought logically to have no bearing on the question of this person who has been recommended for the post.

I still can't understand HOW the US electors can accept that a person they elected as senator can be replaced by someone appointed at the gov's whim. What about new elections for that place? Wouldn't that be a bit more democracy-like?
It depends on the state. Some states' legislatures have given the govenor power to appoint an interm senator to erve out the rest of the term until regular elections can be held. Some give the power to appoint an interm, but then force the govenor to call a special election to confirm the appointment or replace. And some just call a special election.

The problem with having automatic special elections is that a. They take time, time at which the state lack representation in the Senate and b. they tend to cost a lot.

The problem with having automatic special elections is that a. They take time, time at which the state lack representation in the Senate and b. they tend to cost a lot.
1.2 months could be enough. Just the two months between the presidential elections and the presidential inauguration... in the meantime, the president elect (Obama in this case) is still senator Obama, isn't he? Anyway, even if lacking a senator (btw Illinois is lacking a senator right now, with their system), I bet they can console themselves a bit with having their former senator as president.
2.Sorry, I didn't realise the US were so poor.

Well, I think it's WRONG for Sonofabitch... I mean Blago to appoint someone. On the other hand what could possibly go wrong?

Frankly I'm surprised he, or anyone else for that matter, accepted the appointment. Unless there is a special election or an appointment by a new governor there will always be a cloud of suspicion over anyone who accepts that Senate seat.

I wonder what kind of a game the governor is playing.

This. You couldn't pay me to take the seat if everyone would assume I'd bought it from Blagojevich.

1.2 months could be enough. Just the two months between the presidential elections and the presidential inauguration... in the meantime, the president elect (Obama in this case) is still senator Obama, isn't he? Anyway, even if lacking a senator (btw Illinois is lacking a senator right now, with their system), I bet they can console themselves a bit with having their former senator as president.
2.Sorry, I didn't realise the US were so poor.

No, Obama already resigned (on november 16th) so he could devote his full attention to preparing for the white house.

Legally, the only way Burris could be sunk out of the chair is if it turns out he was on Roddy's client list.

1.2 months could be enough. Just the two months between the presidential elections and the presidential inauguration... in the meantime, the president elect (Obama in this case) is still senator Obama, isn't he? Anyway, even if lacking a senator (btw Illinois is lacking a senator right now, with their system), I bet they can console themselves a bit with having their former senator as president.
Elections last longer than that. If it was so short, you'd see a lot od complaining about how the candiates were shortchanged. Hell, California's recall election lasted IIRC, 3 months.

2.Sorry, I didn't realise the US were so poor.
The US isn't, but it isn't the US as a whole running this, it's the state of IL which has the responcibility to conduct and pay for it.