Posted on 09/21/2010 5:45:42 AM PDT by libstripper
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to throw Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) a lifeline in his struggle to get his name on the ballot so that he can stay in the U.S. Senate for the next few months, through the end of the current Congress. Justice Stephen Breyer, to whom the case was directed, suggested that the case simply comes too late.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
It works like this. Roland Burris was appointed to fill out the Illegal's term, which ends January 11, 2011. Some Illinois voters sued, demanding a special election to fill the rest of the term. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with them, holding that the winner of the regular election for the full term would also complete the Illegal's old term. Thus, the new Illinois U.S. Senator will be seated immediately following the November 2 election and will not have to wait until January. If it's Kirk, we just might have an essential vote to sustain a number of filibusters, including the one in the fight against the frightful DREAM Act. If it isn't Kirk, that Illinois Senator's vote is sure to be against us. RINO though Kirk is, that says we should do our best to support him just to block Reid and the Illegal in the lame duck session.
Mr. Burris should go home and learn how to work for a living.
Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) logic -
Even though there is an ELECTED US Senator come Nov 2, I deserve to hold on to the seat until Jan because....
Burris, like most IL politicians, is a crook.
All the more reason for freepers to get everyone they know in Illinois to vote.
Before his appontment BUrris was receiving 5,000/month from Loop Enterprises who was run by BIL Craig and BO BFF. (The group was also involved in the Pay for Play in Philadelphia)
Burris aside, Breyer takes his orders from the left leadership. Burris never had a chance.
Absolutely. It just doesn't matter that Kirk's a RINO. Getting him into the Senate ASAP could stymie a host of frightful things, including the DREAM Act, that the DemonRats will try to shove through a lame duck session. With a DemonRat there, instead of Kirk, they just might be able to do all that damage.
Before his appontment BUrris was receiving 5,000/month from Loop Enterprises who was run by BIL Craig and BO BFF. (The group was also involved in the Pay for Play in Philadelphia)
Burris aside, Breyer takes his orders from the left leadership.
BUMP! Thanks. BUMP!
While Burris might be one of the least appealing characters in Illinois politics, doesn’t anyone have a problem with the Courts deciding who can be on the ballot?
Not if what the court decides is consistent with the law.
So I did look for the law and now see that what the court decided was probably the Legislative intent.
(10 ILCS 5/25‑8) (from Ch. 46, par. 25‑8)Nevermind /Latella
Sec. 25‑8. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress, at which time such vacancy shall be filled by election, and the senator so elected shall take office as soon thereafter as he shall receive his certificate of election.
(Source: Laws 1943, vol. 2, p. 1.)
Kirk is pro-illegal and his latest spanish-ad language saying he "latino families deserve a Senator who will fight for them" is obviously telegraphing that (I doubt the ad was made to target English speaking latinos whose families came here legally and obey the laws). He would vote for the DREAM act in a heartbeat if it came up for a vote.
Kirk will do more damage to the GOP than tainted lame duck RAT Roland Burris ever could. Don't say you weren't warned.
I understand that a few 11/2 elected senators may be also seated immediately: Delaware, replacing Biden, and Byrd’s WV seat. I could be wrong, but does anyone know, which seats we can switch for the Lame Duck? Cap N Trade has passed the House.
Mark Kirk’s campaign keeps filling my email box with unwanted propanganda from him. I finally blew off some steam today and emailed him back a (meaningless) reply. Felt good but nobody will read it. Oh well I’d like to tell him this to his face....
Dear Congressman,
I do strongly support fiscal conservatism. That’s why I will be voting AGAINST you in November, twice.
You’ve been part of the problem over the last decade, part of the elite status quo in Washington who has spent this nation into bankruptcy. Contrary to your claims now, you can’t hide from your record of supporting the TARP bailouts, SCHIP, Cap n’ Trade, Pelosi’s minimum wage hike, Charlie Rangel’s 90% bonus tax, millions of dollars in pork-filled earmarks, and numerous other big government, spent-n-borrow policies. All the leading fiscal watchdog groups, like the Club for Growth, dispute your claim that you are a “fiscal conservative”.
I certainly hope someone is running negative ads against you, and exposing the truth that you’re a far-left social liberal and big government statist, not the “fiscal conservative and social moderate” you falsely claim to be. I just hope the people running the ads will be genuine fiscal conservatives, although it is amusing when your fellow leftist Alexi Giannoulis exposes the facts about your horrible record.
You must think conservative voters are really stupid to believe you are a “fiscal conservative” when you’re running campaign ads trying to be MORE liberal than Giannoulis when it comes to spending zillions on “green” programs and forcing permanent taxpayer funding of human embryo experimentation (and after forcing billions to go down the drain in this effort, you STILL have nothing to show for it and not ONE“cure” has been found from destroying human embryos!)
Our state and country certainly need fiscally conservative leaders who support a smaller government and more liberty, that’s why fiscal conservatives in Illinois should be praying for your defeat in November.
Sincerely,
[BillyBoy]
Lifelong Illinois Republican who won’t support you for dog catcher.
The 2010 United States Senate special election in New York is scheduled to take place on November 2, 2010, concurrently with other elections to the United States Senate in other states as well as elections to the United States House of Representatives and various state and local elections. Governor David Paterson had appointed Kirsten Gillibrand to serve as United States Senator from New York until the 2010 special election, replacing former Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned to serve as Secretary of State in the Barack Obama administration. The winner of the special election will complete the term ending in January 2013. The next election for a full six-year term will be held in November 2012. The special election will take place concurrently with the regular election for the Senate seat held by Charles Schumer and the 2010 New York gubernatorial election.
That means ther are four U.S. Senate elections this year where the winner will be immediately seated. They are:
Illinois,
West Virginia,
New York; and
Delaware.
Thanks. We need to get this out to people who may be concerned about Cap and Trade, or Dream Act, or DADT, or Card Check, or any of the other stupid things the Dems may try to pass in the Lame Duck session.
I disagree. Kirk agrees with the left on EVERY major issue (he's not simply a weasley RINO, he's a full fledged DIABLO -- Democrat In All But Label Only), and would happily vote for socialist legislation like the DREAM act. Furthermore, Kirk lending his endorsement to these socialist bills would give them far more clout and credibility than Burris' support would. Kirk would ram them through with "bipartisan" support. When's the last time you heard of legislation getting momentum to pass because Roland Burris is championing it? Democrats don't want to get within 100 feet of Burris, he's tied to the hip of Blago. He is the lamest of lame ducks and if he sticks around during the rest of the lame duck session, the bills will be seen as even more illegitimate with an outgoing Blagojevich-appointed Senator pushing for them.
All things considered, I think it's obvious Burris will be able to do less damage during a lame duck session.
And if you're going to say, "But... but... but... Kirk has promised to OPPOSE Democrat schemes in a lame duck session!!". That's nice. Kirk also promised that if he was re-elected in 2006, he would "support our troops and stand by our President on the war on terror" (instead he lead the fight AGAINST the surge and demanded Bush withdraw from Iraq), and that if he won the GOP nomination in 2010, he would "lead the effort" to repeal Obamacare (he now says he regrets that pledge and WON'T support a full repeal of Obamacare even IF Republicans regain BOTH houses and could pass the bill!). Kirk is a pathological liar. I have no interest in anything he "promises" to get elected.
I live in Rep. Kirk’s district, and I agree with Bill. Kirk is probably more liberal than Giannoulias.
According to www.vote-smart.org, these are some of Rep. Kirk’s latest interest group ratings: Planned Parenthood, 100%; NEA, A; Americans for Democratic Action, 55%; AFL-CIO, 47%; American Conservative Union, 48%; Club for Growth, 42%; National Taxpayers Union, C-; Citizens Against Government Waste, 33%; John Birch Society, 25%; Concerned Women of America, 23%; and Gun Owners of America, F-.
Is the Colorado seat of appointed leftist Bennett (replacing Kenneth Salazar who was elected in 2008) not in the same category? If not, why not?
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.