Posted on 12/30/2008 12:32:54 PM PST by radar101
Senate Democratic leaders are refusing to seat Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s choice for President-elect Obama’s former seat.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) issued a joint statement blasting Blagojevich for naming Roland Burris to the seat and said they will block his appointment.
“It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety,” Reid and Durbin said.
“Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.”
The two leaders emphasized they were not judging Burris, but simply noting the ethical cloud over Blagojevich. They also pointed out the Senate faces a heavy legislative calendar in January. They repeated their call for the Democratic governor to resign and their threat to refuse any appointment he makes.
“We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment,” the statement reads. “It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat.”
But questions remain as to what authority the Senate has when it comes to accepting or rejecting a gubernatorial appointment.
Associate Senate Historian Don Ritchie said the four examples since 1913 include Democrat Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, who died while a Senate committee was investigating corruption charges against him in 1947; Republican Frank Smith of Illinois, whom the Senate voted against seating due to corruption charges in 1928, and Democrats Henry Clayton and Franklin Glass of Alabama, both of whom withdrew their bids in 1913 after a dispute arose over the governor's authority to appoint them.
Ritchie also said senators are often seated but then investigated by the chamber’s Rules Committee to determine whether any charges against the senator have merit.
That was the case in Sen. Mary Landrieu’s case, Ritchie noted for example. The Louisiana Democrat won a narrow election in 1996 and was seated while the Rules Committee probed charges of voter fraud before ultimately exonerating Landrieu after 10 months
But Ritchie conceded the Blagojevich situation was different.
“We really haven’t had a case like this,” he said. “There’s just nothing quite comparable.”
Burris, 71 and African-American, is a former state comptroller and attorney general of Illinois. He also was Blagojevich’s Democratic primary opponent in the 2002 governor’s race and was endorsed by Obama in that primary battle. Burris and Blagojevich have long since patched over any differences — Burris praised the governor to the Chicago Sun-Times in 2006.
"I can't see how anyone can say he is not governing," Burris said at the time. "I think he is doing a helluva job."
Blagojevich’s move comes despite allegations that he attempted to sell Obama’s seat for his personal benefit, according to a complaint filed by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, which cited wiretapped conversations.
Burris was not on the list of preferred candidates that Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s incoming White House chief of staff, sent over to Blagojevich’s staff.
An Obama spokesman said the transition team had no comment on Blagojevich’s move “right now.”
After Blagojevich’s initial arrest, Reid and Durbin both reacted early, pressing him not to make any appointment. At a Dec. 9 press conference, Durbin called for a special election, saying, “No appointment by this governor under these circumstances can produce a credible replacement.”
A day later, in a letter to Blagojevich written by Reid and Durbin and signed by all other Democratic senators, the Democratic leaders told the embattled governor “any appointment by you would raise serious questions … For the good of the Senate and our nation, we implore you to refrain from making an appointment to the Senate.”
Reid and Durbin also threatened Blagojevich that “should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment, we would be forced to exercise our constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated.”
Blagojevich's move Tuesday surprised even his own lawyer, who said only a week and a half ago that the governor would not make an appointment.
Obama is positioning himself against the Chicago Machine (the Blagojevich, Bobbie Rushes of this world)...again. He’s siding with the Democrat caucus. Of course, Burris wasn’t one of the “chosen” on Obama’s list. So this isn’t necessarily surprising. But it still pits him against the Machine that runs Chicago and Cook County.
Here’s an interesting sidelight I don’t know if I told you before. Back last August my wife’s corporation ran her annual store inventory (usually held in August). As usual, they bring in a contracted “team” from Chicago to do the counts while my wife’s store crew, aided by other area store managers, oversee the event. Most of these crew members are Blacks from Chicago.
During an afternoon break, my wife overheard crew members discussing the upcoming election. To a man (or woman) they were dissing Obama, saying things like “what makes him qualified to be president” and such. Not a lot of love lost between them and Obama.
Obama may be a product of the Chicago Machine. Don’t doubt that. But he isn’t necessarily a member in good standing. And this is part of the Obama/Blagojevich dichotomy. Obama owes the Chicago Machine for past favors. Is he again showing his individuality? And what will that mean in the future?
This should have read, "The world of today is not the same world of the 1880's.
This is also related to the recent talk of "qualifications to be a Senator" that began with Caroline Kennedy. We should combine our two posts and start making this succinct argument on related threads as they continue to arise.
-PJ
These young whippersnappers sure don’t know much about history, do they!
I’m old enough to have gone to school when they actually taught history...LOL. Also being raised in Virginia helped. They actually took history — particularly the history of that era — seriously way back then. :)
Thanks for your reply, PJ. I'd be happy to do so. In fact, I've made this argument many times over the years I've posted on FR. Unfortunately, it's tilting at windmills, because the 17th Amendment will not be repealed.
Very few Americans these days understand the balance of power written into the Constitution by the Founders. In fact, "balance of power" is taught, somewhat misleadingly, as "checks and balances." Few people today understand the true relationship between the states and the federal government. Heck, since the Civil War, even the states have largely allowed the feds to turn them into barely more than regional subdivisions of the federal government rather than respect them as the sovereign entities they originally were and ought to be even now.
Still, I think it's worth trying to educate people about the finer points of the Constitution, which is why I'd be happy to join your efforts regarding the 17th Amendment.
Interesting what you wrote about your wife's experience. I am in the deep south and generally not well informed on the more liberal issues of the north eastern states unless something ‘big’ happens - as it has - beginning with Obama.
Had I ‘grown where I was planted’, I would still be in Pennsylvania and dealing with Murtha, lol.
I do quick looks at the Drudge Report to see the latest news and figured that Blago became even more ired and decided to poke his finger in Reid and other dem’s eyes.
Day by day Obama is getting more and more put on his plate to deal with. There should be no lack of ‘interesting times’ ahead for us.
I'm just spewing some of my own thoughts here as I have not read this thread at all.
You don't understand. Whoever is appointed by Blago is not to be touched with a ten foot pole - doesn't matter if the guy is Black. Reid will make sure a different Black is appointed from IL - possibly who Obama wanted in the first place. But he will get something out of Obama - support for a bill of two that The One didn't want to help. Or it will be some other Illinois Black, if Reid and Barry can't deal. The special election will not be held because the Republican might win this time...
Likely true. But it's missing something. By this, Obama is bucking the Chicago Machine...the Chicago Mob. That's who Blagojevich is. That's not a good thing to do. Obama owes them and they don't forget.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.