Dec 31st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
More on Burris
Jack Balkin and Mark Tushnet argue that the Senate can, in fact, refuse to seat Roland Burris.
Meanwhile, since I don’t think I’ve said this before, we should all be clear that Burris and Bobby Rush are really behaving in an irresponsible manner here. It would have been the simplest thing on earth for Burris to just resist the temptations of higher office and say “no” to Blagojevich’s scheme here. It’s very hard to imagine that their actions over these past couple of days are advancing the cause of progressive politics or the interests of African-Americans. See also this, this, and this from Ta-Nehisi Coates.
61 Responses to “More on Burris”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 31st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
You think opening the Obama administration with “law-like standards” is a good idea?
December 31st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I still don’t understand all the weird outrage. Blago is the governor of Illinois, he has the power to appoint Obama’s successor. He did. Unless Burris himself is suspected of any wrong-doing, he should become a Senator. If you disagree with any of that, then you are opposed to Governors selecting Congressmen instead of organizing a special election, not to Burris himself.
And yes playing the race card that much is despicable. But if it was fine that Bush got to be President for 4 years thanks to a Supreme Court decision, then there is little relative harm from Burris holding a Senate seat for 2 years after a shady selection process. Obama and Reid should focus their rule-of-law outrage on Bush&Cheney torturing people to death instead.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
It would have been the simplest thing on earth for Burris to just resist the temptations of higher office and say “no” to Blagojevich’s scheme here.
You really think so? If Blagojevich had called me up and asked me to be senator, I would have said “hell yeah”, regardless of what groups my actions would or would not advance. Sure, I could take the high road and get to feel superior for a news cycle or two. Or I could accept an appointment that provides for a very significant probability of becoming a senator.
That’s not irresponsible, that’s good old fashioned American opportunism. Burris would have been a moron not to accept. Really, in a year from now, when Burris is in the Senate, and Blagojevich is in jail, will anyone really continue to give a shit?
December 31st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
It’s hard to know. It depends on how much damage being tied more closely to Blagojevich does to the Democrats and how well Burris’s “squeaky clean” history stands up to the insane level of scrutiny he’s going to be subjected to.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
FREE Unlimited Streaming TV Shows, Movies, Music (over 6 million digital tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, Books, and College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) http://www.InternetSurfShack.com
December 31st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Al,
Do you just have your keyboard set up so that CTRL-ALT-L gives you “left-wing hack law professors?”
December 31st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Gee, left-wing hack law professors make tendentious arguments to justify Senator Reid’s threat to commit illegal behavior.
I’m sure your sharp mind is perfectly capable of making subtle distinctions, so let me draw your attention to one.
Reid is not threatening to commit illegal behavior. He is attempting to do something that he may not have the power to do. Whatever your opinion on the underlying legal issue, it is an ambiguous case, not at all open and shut. If this goes to court, and it turns out that the Senate does not have the power to exclude Burris, then any action they have taken in that vein will simply be null and void. Harry Reid won’t have committed a crime; he will simply have tried to do something that (it turned out) he could not do.
This is nothing like ordering wiretaps that one knows are illegal. It is more like trying to revoke a pardon after you’ve already issued it: maybe you can do that, and maybe you can’t, but if the courts end up saying a pardon can’t be revoked the way Bush is trying to, it would be silly to accuse Bush of having acted “illegally.” He would have simply tried to do something that, it turned out, was not possible to do.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
1) I think Jack Balkin’s argument is bullshit. The 17th Amendment gave the States the power to decide on whether governors could make interim appointments. By Illinois law, Blagojevich has that power. By Illinois law, Blagojevich is still Illinois Governor. If the State of Illinois sends Burris to the Senate, the Senate must have a damm good reason to reject him. Anything else makes a mockery of republican government and of the Constitution’s federalist design.
2) This idea that the Supreme Court can just go limp and refuse to enforce the rights of the People and the States is malign. It is the same fucking sophistry used to justify refusal by the courts to reign in a President acting illegally. Do that enough and the People conclude that the Law is a Fraud — enforced merely against the weak and powerless, not against the elite.
3) The argument that Blagojevich was “selling the seat” is kinda hilarious, given that Senators peddle their ass every day of the week. How else do the Parties raise $1 Billion per election?
It’s not good. I don’t approve. But given the past 8 years, I think this outfit is the least qualified to preach propriety.
4) Matthew’s criticism against Burris and Rush for accepting Blagojevich’s appointment is, in my opinion, bullshit. Would it have been preferable to have let him appoint an out and out crook? Someone who would have been a disaster for Illnois?
Besides, the African-American community has been the most loyal of Democratic constituencies — and has been repeatedly fucked by the Democratic leadership. As Rush noted, there are reasons why Obama doesn’t understand that. Most African-Americans never have a hope in hell of getting within spitting distance of an Ivy League college — because they didn’t have white grandparents, a white parent, and because they grew up in America — not Kenya, Hawaii or Indonesia.
I see no reason for criticizing Illnois’s African American community for taking power when they had the opportunity. Certainly those 99 White Faces in the Senate have done far worse to get to where they are.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
It depends on how much damage being tied more closely to Blagojevich does to the Democrats
The Democrats will be judged on how effectively they get shit done, not on how closely they are “tied” to a comically corrupt former governor. A 59th vote in the senate will be far more important to that end than whatever warm feeling of superiority they are trying to engineer by not seating Burris. Talk radio buffoons who rip on Democrats will continue to rip on Democrats either way. And no one else will care.
Their best option right now is to say “yeah, OK, the law says we have to seat him so we will seat him.” Then they should change the subject as soon as possible. Raising a stink about seating him is only keeping it in the news, at the expense of stuff that might actually be important.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
It’s very hard to imagine that their actions over these past couple of days are advancing the cause of progressive politics or the interests of African-Americans.
Since when have Roland Burris or Bobby Rush cared about advancing the cause of progressive politics or the interests of African-Americans?
OK, maybe the latter went too far, but both Burris and Rush are old school, ethnic political hacks. Their interest in advancing the cause of African-Americans begins and ends with “Black folks need to be represented by a black person, and that black person should be me!”
Progressive politics? LOL! Matt, you obviosuly haven’t lived in Chicago.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
If Franken isn’t seated, then the extra vote in the Senate isn’t worth much. With 98 senators, you need 59 to invoke cloture. With 99, you need 60.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Jeebus said:
This is most like introducing a series of bogus arguments in a lawsuit for the sole purpose of slowing it down, knowing full well that the arguments will eventually be disallowed. Yes, you might succeed in postponing the inevitable; but any attorneys who did this in court would be opening themselves to sanctions for abusing the system.
If Reid & Co. genuinely think they have the power to ignore a valid appointment and decide on their own who shall and shall not represent the people of Illinois, I would be greatly surprised. I think they crawled out on a limb to show how much they hate Blagojevich, and now they are too embarrassed to climb down again.
Reid seems to be so afraid of the political implications of being associated with Blagojevich that nothing else, including the rule of law, seems to matter. That’s a very unfortunate signal for the Democratic leadership to send, right out of the box, on the very day its majority soars to 58 or 59.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
To echo Spike, the idea that your average person in Boulder, CO or Orlando, FL (just to pick swing-state examples), currently scared to death about their economic future, gives 2 chits about Gov. Blago is absurd. See Obama’s approval rating for indirect evidence of this.
The Reid gambit is particulary puzzling given its likelihood of failure, once again making Dems look ineffectual.
Most people, I suspect, have the perfectly reasonable, and probably correct, view that this entire matter is the sole responsibility of the IL Governo, and its Legislature, should they deem it neccessary to act.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Here’s hoping some white cop bounces a baton off Ta-Nehisi Coates’s head sometime in the near future. And repeats Ta-Nehisi taunting call “Nigga, please!” when he does it.
We have 4 TIMES as many citizens per capita in our prisons as does Red China. And a lot of those prisoners have black faces. I’m white and I don’t care for paternalistic ,chickenshit affirmative actions programs.
But black Americans are my fellow countrymen. And the idea that African-Americans are treated fairly by our political system is a crock of shit. Their problem is not necessarily that they are black — their problem is that many of them are still poor. And the poor get fucked like dogs in our country.
The only thing that will change that is political power. Ta-Nehisi’s argument that black politicans need to get “on the track” translates in reality to “find some rich white man’s dick to suck”. He forgot to mention “You’ll have to push Hillary out of the way”.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Re KCinDC’s comment “If Franken isn’t seated, then the extra vote in the Senate isn’t worth much. With 98 senators, you need 59 to invoke cloture. With 99, you need 60.”
———–
It’s cheaper to buy one Republican Senator than two. Waste not, want not.
Er..correction. When I said “buy” I meant to say “to cooperate with my distinguished colleague in a collegial way to allocate scarce taxpayer dollars in the most equitable and fiscally responsible manner.”
December 31st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
It would have been the simplest thing on earth for Burris to just resist the temptations of higher office and say ‘no’ to Blagojevich’s scheme here.
No, it wouldn’t have. This is a guy who, for a good portion of his adult life, has sought higher political office, presumably thinking himself capable and worthy of such a position, and lost. There aren’t many people who could walk away from an offer like this, under those circumstances. I think this is particularly true for minorities and women in particular (and I don’t meant that in Bobby-Rush-sorta way, just speaking in terms of the availability of opportunities).
December 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Don, my point was that (assuming Franken is on hold) needing 59 out of 98 (without IL) or 60 out of 99 (with IL) requires exactly the same number of Republicans. There is no buying one rather than two.
December 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I am with spike. I would accept the nomination.
December 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
This is most like introducing a series of bogus arguments in a lawsuit for the sole purpose of slowing it down, knowing full well that the arguments will eventually be disallowed. Yes, you might succeed in postponing the inevitable; but any attorneys who did this in court would be opening themselves to sanctions for abusing the system.
It’s like that if you believe that Reid doesn’t actually think he has the power to do this, and is just bluffing and/or stalling. I don’t have any real strong opinions about this, but if forced to guess I’d say Reid probably does, or at least did, think he had the power to do it, partly because everyone else seems to have assumed that he did as well, and legislators, sadly, aren’t usually any more knowledgeable about the law than anyone else.
It also depends on whether you truly believe it’s an open and shut case that the Senate cannot block the appointment. I, for one, do not believe it is. Powell is pretty close to being on point but I could see a good faith argument that this case is different.
December 31st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Here, there is Supreme Court caselaw directly on point that makes it illegal to do what Reid is threatening to do. So everyone knows it is illegal … Yet Reid is about to commit the illegal acts anyway.
Two reasons this is wrong:
1. The case law is not “directly” on point. Reid is apparently basing his argument in part on the fact that Burris was not elected; in Powell, the candidate had been duly elected by the voters. Whether or not you agree with this argument, or whether it will ultimately prevail, it is clear that the holding in Powell will have to be extended if Burris were to win in court. (The Powell court did seem especially concerned by the fact that the candidate had been elected, and thus being blocked by the House would be thwarting the will of the people; that is less of a concern here (though not entirely absent, since the appointment procedure is a democratically enacted law).)
2. Even if you were correct, and the precedent made this case open and shut, it would still not be accurate to say that Reid is “about to commit illegal acts.” He would be about to commit a legal nullity. To use another analogy, it would be like Congress passing a law banning flag burning-not an illegal act, but beyond Congress’s power. The statute would be null and void, but the act of passing it would not have been “illegal.” The same is true for the exclusion of Burris, if the courts decided against Reid: the “exclusion” would be void, Burris would have to be seated, but there would be no illegal act committed.
December 31st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
The problem mindless trolls like Al have is that there is no evidence that the Bush DOJ limited itself to “foreign surveillance” with its illegal wiretaps. In fact, there is considerable evidence that many targets were purely domestic. In other words his “case on point” is what we call “irrelevant.” But because he has to mindlessly defend Republicans no matter how egregious their violations of the law, Al resorts to simple lying.
December 31st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
The Senate may have a much better argument to make based on Frank Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_L._Smith), who was elected, then appointed to the Senate, but never allowed to serve.
It’s not entirely clear if Smith was “excluded”, which the Court held could not be done in Powell, or if (as Reid is trying to do now) the Senate had rejected his qualifications.
I also dunno if Smith ever argued to a court that the Senate HAD to swear him in.
But clearly there is more to the law than Powell v McCormack.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Okay, I have to ask: Is there anyone in America who doesn’t live in a trailer park in their innermost soul?
December 31st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Jeebus wrote:
The distinction between the Powell and Burris cases is that Powell was elected and Burris was appointed — but this is a distinction without a difference. I have yet to hear any reason why the Court might think Congress has no power to block someone validly elected, but carte blanche to block someone validly appointed. Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution, or in the Powell ruling, that points in this direction. I can’t think of any reason, either. So I think Powell is directly on point.
Jeebus also wrote:
Rejecting or delaying Burris would deprive the people of Illinois of fair representation in the Senate, which is a significant harm — and ironically, one of the accusations against Blagojevich himself. Reid & Co. seem bent on retaliating against Blagojevich at any cost, including doing the very same thing Blagojevich is accused of doing.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Responding to an Al-bot just because it’s a holiday . . .
The Supreme Court case law is not directly on point. Powell was rejected because the Senate considered Powell himself corrupt, not the process by which he was selected to serve. In Burris’ case, it is the process which is under question.
Article I, Section 5 gives the Senate the prerogative to judge its members’ “Elections, Returns and Qualifications.” The Powell case was about the last item on this list; a putative Burris case would be about the first two.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
If evidence emerges which establishes that Burris engaged in corrupt practices, then he can be impeached at that time.
If not, then everyone is out of line.
Trailer Park Nation
December 31st, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Does it trouble any of you advising that we Democrats all need to rally around Blago/Burris to show our strength (and anyone who disagrees is a concern troll) that the Republican trolls are enthusiastically agreeing with you?
December 31st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I have yet to hear any reason why the Court might think Congress has no power to block someone validly elected, but carte blanche to block someone validly appointed.
TKD, the argument would be that just as Congress has the right to refuse to recognize an election result tainted by fraud, they can similarly refuse a tainted appointment. It’s precisely the validity of the selection process that Congress is allowed to judge prior to seating a member (rather than the moral rectitude of the member, as in Powell).
December 31st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Comment #2 represents my views entirely. Happy new year!
December 31st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
are advancing [the cause of progressive politics or] the interests of African-Americans
What next, are you going to tell us that they “are not a credit to their race”?
December 31st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I think what Harry Reid needs is some evidence from Patrick Fitzgerald that Blago actually tried to sell the seat to someone, that someone being a witness. That would taint the process and give them grounds to refuse to seat anyone Blago appoints. Without that….. Democrats refusing a Democrat? What kind of shit is that?
December 31st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
I like how African-Americans are painted by the actions of a couple of guys. I guess I can look down on Whites because of what the RNC guys are doing.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I think Reid et.al. are not looking at the “glass half full” aspect.
Blago could have cut a deal with the Republicans — appointed a REPUBLICAN in Obama’s place in exchange for the Republicans protecting him from impeachment in the Illnois legislature.
Actually, Blago could STILL do that if Burris takes Matthew’s mealy-mouthed suggestion and drops out as an appointee.
Are they serving Stupid Juice at the DNC’s New Years Eve Party?
December 31st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
You should pace yourself, Don. It’s 7pm and you’ve already gotten into the bad acid; you might not make it to the new year.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
A Blago deal with the Republicans would be seedy and unseemly, of course. And irresistible to both parties.
So the fact that it didn’t happen means an equally unseemly deal probably has been cut: Blago appointed Obama’s choice and Obama agreed Fitz’s investigation will go nowhere.
I remember the FBI raiding my former COngressman’s offices two years ago — about 10 days BEFORE the election. NOTHING ever came of it — Curt Weldon lost the election (which was probably the purpose of the raid) but is walking around free as a bird with no charges filed.
There are a few aspects of “democracy” that we haven’t gotten around to explaining to the Iraqis yet — although I suspect they will nod in recognition when we do.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Don, could you explain the part where after the Republicans rally around the corrupt governor with the 4% approval rating and save him from impeachment, they somehow manage to brainwash the voters into rewarding them for it?
December 31st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
In keeping with Harry Reid’s insistance that the Senate should only consist of Morally Superior (i.e, White) Men , word is just in on Hillary’s likely replacement: Bill Clinton.
Yep. Only the Second President to ever be impeached in 228 years of our republic — impeached for lying under oath while sitting as President. Lying about getting blow jobs from a young intern.
That definitely shows the new Democratic commitment to a high moral tone.
Shouldn’t we be selling tickets to this Circus?
December 31st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Re KCinDC’s question “Don, could you explain the part where after the Republicans rally around the corrupt governor with the 4% approval rating and save him from impeachment, they somehow manage to brainwash the voters into rewarding them for it?”
———-
1) 50 percent of the voters will forgive Blago if he finds Jesus, expresses regret for his sins, and acknowledges that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church.
40 percent of the voters will either not know who Blagojevich is (because their minds can’t recognize names that long) or, if they do, won’t give a shit and will demand to know why you don’t switch the channel to the NFL football game.
The remaining 10 percent can be fobbed off with the “beyond a reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty” schtick.
All 100 percent would burst out laughing if you asserted that a politican from Chicago should be an honest man.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
PS 2 years to the next election is an eternity.
Besides, another Republican Senator in DC is worth a few marginal Republicans in the Illinois legislature.
Worth about $1 Trillion is sabotaged tax increases on the Superrich , actually. Time to tell the Illinois guys to get ready to take one for the team.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Southpaw wrote:
There are several problems with that.
First is that there has been no finding of fraud, and indeed, not the slightest suggestion that there has been anything tainted about the selection of Burris. If, as alleged, Blagojevich engaged in illegalities with regard to other contenders for the seat, that doesn’t invalidate the selection of Burris. If A bribes B to appoint A to the Senate, and B appoints C, C is not guilty of fraud, and it would be improper to reject their appointment as if they were.
Second, Reid & Co. have already denounced and rejected the appointment of Burris and vowed to block him from serving in the Senate. So much for any pretense of a fair investigation of the circumstances of his appointment. The idea of an investigation is clearly an afterthought, once Reid began to realize that he did not have legal authority to block the appointment. Any investigation by Reid’s team is tainted, because Reid has already prejudged the outcome, and in the most vehement terms.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Does it trouble any of you advising that we Democrats all need to rally around Blago/Burris….
Argument based on a fallacy. I don’t want anyone to rally ’round B/B, I want the letter and the spirit of the law followed. I want Dems to not act like Republicans (think Shivao). I want to believe that the Democratic leaders of the Senate do not have their heads up their asses. When handed lemons, I would like to see us make lemonade and not a clusterfuck.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Repeating Spike, for a firm grasp of the realities:
Raising a stink about seating him is only keeping it in the news, at the expense of stuff that might actually be important.
I’m from Illinois (though not at the moment) and Burris is a good man who has been given a lousy hand to play. I thought the blanket refusal to seat anyone Blago would appoint unseemly: what if he appointed someone perfectly unobjectionable? And he has. This was a cunning move, but in a way just about the only move he had, and should have been expected. Blocking this appointment is a time-waster when we have none to spare.
January 1st, 2009 at 1:20 am
FREE Unlimited Streaming TV Shows, Movies, Music, Games, Money, Books, and College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) http://www.InternetSurfShack.com
January 1st, 2009 at 1:22 pm
You only want the Congress to refuse to seat a Senator or Representative under the most pressing of reasons. Until
Blagojevich is convicted of something, he’s got to be treated as legit. Burris isn’t suspected of actually buying the office. So seat him already.
January 1st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Until
Blagojevich is convicted of something, he’s got to be treated as legit.
Nonsense.
January 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Nonsense.
Even though he is, in fact, governor?
January 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Blago’s been banging Burris’ daughter for months, according to insider pols. Quid pro flagrante delicatio.
January 1st, 2009 at 5:42 pm
re duBois at 48:
For one thing, he can (and IMO should) be impeached and removed without having been convicted of any criminal offense.
More generally, his wrongdoing is clear enough that “treating him as legit,” whatever you mean by that, can’t simply be taken as the only way to proceed. There is an obvious cloud/taint/whatever-you-like-to-call-it hanging over everything he does now, and it’s silly to say we should pretend it’s not there because he hasn’t actually been convicted of anything. Do you think, e.g., Spitzer should have stayed in office until an actual conviction came down?
March 1st, 2009 at 5:17 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 1st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:26 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:07 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:11 am
Great site, Good info viagra