Comments on: Burris Is The New Palin http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/12/30/burris-is-the-new-palin/ Illinois, From Misery Sun, 21 Mar 2010 07:29:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Senate may have right to block Blago appointee « Illinois Reason http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/12/30/burris-is-the-new-palin/comment-page-1/#comment-18838 Senate may have right to block Blago appointee « Illinois Reason Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:48:37 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11103#comment-18838 [...] at ArchPundit, traditional media like the Chicago Tribune, national political pubs like Politico, and many others [...] [...] at ArchPundit, traditional media like the Chicago Tribune, national political pubs like Politico, and many others [...]

]]> By: Rob_N http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/12/30/burris-is-the-new-palin/comment-page-1/#comment-18826 Rob_N Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:20:28 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11103#comment-18826 Powell v McCormack was about the qualification of the individual. Reid is basing his argument on the integrity of the process, claiming that because the current governor is alleged to have tainted the process none appointed by that process can be free of the stink. There's nothing in the Constitution declaring one way or another whether each chamber can take a position on the quality of an appointment to an open seat, but Section 5 does clearly state each chamber is the sole judge of the elections for its membership ... a bit of gray area (can an appointment be considered to be like an election, requiring integrity and transparency in the process). Regardless, the Powell case was about excluding a Representative-elect from ever taking a seat to which he was <i>elected</i> and the SCOTUS decision specifically cited that the House failed to attain the required 2/3rds majority when it voted on HR278. Burris has been appointed, not elected, under what can politely be called a "cloud of suspicion". And I'd have to imagine that given the entire Democratic Caucus' public statements getting to 2/3rds will be relatively easy in this Senate, even if McConnell + Co. on the other side make the most of such a gifthorse before voting with the Dems to expel, exclude, whatever. But I'm not a lawyer... ;) Powell v McCormack was about the qualification of the individual.

Reid is basing his argument on the integrity of the process, claiming that because the current governor is alleged to have tainted the process none appointed by that process can be free of the stink.

There’s nothing in the Constitution declaring one way or another whether each chamber can take a position on the quality of an appointment to an open seat, but Section 5 does clearly state each chamber is the sole judge of the elections for its membership … a bit of gray area (can an appointment be considered to be like an election, requiring integrity and transparency in the process).

Regardless, the Powell case was about excluding a Representative-elect from ever taking a seat to which he was elected and the SCOTUS decision specifically cited that the House failed to attain the required 2/3rds majority when it voted on HR278.

Burris has been appointed, not elected, under what can politely be called a “cloud of suspicion”. And I’d have to imagine that given the entire Democratic Caucus’ public statements getting to 2/3rds will be relatively easy in this Senate, even if McConnell + Co. on the other side make the most of such a gifthorse before voting with the Dems to expel, exclude, whatever.

But I’m not a lawyer… ;)

]]> By: ArchPundit http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/12/30/burris-is-the-new-palin/comment-page-1/#comment-18823 ArchPundit Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:33:39 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11103#comment-18823 Look at the precedent with Adam Clayton Powell though--the precedent is pretty hard to argue against. Look at the precedent with Adam Clayton Powell though–the precedent is pretty hard to argue against.

]]> By: Rob_N http://archpundit.com/blog/2008/12/30/burris-is-the-new-palin/comment-page-1/#comment-18822 Rob_N Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:30:38 +0000 http://archpundit.com/blog/?p=11103#comment-18822 "...I don’t think the Senate refusing to seat a Senator is necessarily legal..." As you know, Article I, Section 5 says different. Burris can try to fight Article I, Section 5 in court if he wants (it is his right to do so)... but SCOTUS is full of Joe "Strict Constructionist" Sixpacks nowadays. That said, even if by some bizarre chance he were to win such a case Reid has said the Democratic Caucus will refuse to seat any Blago appointee so Burris will have nowhere to go if he gets there. (...This from a caucus that still accepts Lieberman.) “…I don’t think the Senate refusing to seat a Senator is necessarily legal…”

As you know, Article I, Section 5 says different.

Burris can try to fight Article I, Section 5 in court if he wants (it is his right to do so)… but SCOTUS is full of Joe “Strict Constructionist” Sixpacks nowadays.

That said, even if by some bizarre chance he were to win such a case Reid has said the Democratic Caucus will refuse to seat any Blago appointee so Burris will have nowhere to go if he gets there. (…This from a caucus that still accepts Lieberman.)

]]>