http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4739732Oh my.
This is about Blagobama's nomination of Burris to fill the U.S. Senate seat recently vacated.
itsrobert (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 06:44 PM
Original message
Poll question: Seat or not Seat Burris?
Poll result (94 votes)
Seat (51 votes, 54%)
Do Not Seat (43 votes, 46%)
Unlike most primitive polls, this one's a nail-biter, a cliff-hanger.
The foul bitch of Baltimore primitive:
faygokid (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ain't gonna happen.
The president-elect has made that clear.
So has the Senate. Goodbye, Rod. You're finished.
Taverner (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. He's tainted. This is Blagojevich's last "**** YOU" to Illinois, the USA and the world.
He wants to taint the otherwise stainless Burris with his own wrongdoing
He is, simply put, a dick
And on this one he won
If Burris sponsors any bill, Blagojevich knows the history will come up in the news
The silly primitive:
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message
3. When Plaxico gets out of jail, let HIM decide
trof (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. 1. If the Illinois gov has the power to name an interim replacement...
And i have no idea if this is true or not.
But if it is and...
Blago is still the sitting governor of Illinois...
2. Then he would still have the legal power to name a replacement.
Is there any provision for the U.S.Senate to negate a State governor's appointment?
Murky business.
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Theoretically the Senate can refuse to seat a would-be senator.
As far as I know, it's never happened before, so the legal precedent is questionable.
The stubby primitive:
Freddie Stubbs (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
5. Follow the Constitution
ashling (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. BINGO!
The Constirution puts that power in the hands of the state, not Reid, or Obama. If Obama is worried about tainted government (or former)officials, he's got enough to deal with in Washington.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al.
Anybody have any idea what this "Constirution" thingamajig is?
LBJDemocrat (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Seconded
The law is the law. As long as Blagojevich is governor of Illinois, he has the right to appoint the senator.
ProdigalJunkMail (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. by that logic Bush can run AMOK in the last days of his presidency...doesn't make it right...
trof (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Never confuse 'right', or 'justice' with THE LAW.
The silly primitive, being silly again:
SoCalDem (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. and he will.. His Poppy "gifted" Clinton with Somalia in his waning days..
and Junior has some doozies left up his sleeve too..count on it..
I would like to see legislation that BARS any lame-duck president (when the party changes) from making ANY pollicy/regulation changes after the elction, without congressional approval..and the same for pardons..no pardons after the election. they have YEARS to make pardons..no more 11th hour F-U pardons as they exit..
femmocrat (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
21. That's my opinion as well.
Unless it is proven that Burris has some shady arrangement with Blago, it seems legit to me. I don't think Burris should be tarred with the same brush. Right now he looks like an acceptable candidate who could capably represent IL if given a fair opportunity.
notesdev (856 posts) Tue Dec-30-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Article 1, section 5
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,..."
The Senate can choose not to seat him if that is their will.
The stubby primitive, again:
Freddie Stubbs (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. There was no election, so there will be no returns to judge
The only other thing to judge will be his qualifications. As long as he is 30 years old, a citizen for at least nine years, and a resident of the state he represents he is qualified.
In 1969 The US Supreme Court ruled in Powell v. McCormack that someone who meets the constitutional requirements cannot be excluded. The only option the Senate has is to try to expel him, which would require a 2/3 vote.
elocs (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. Tsk, tsk. This is DU, where we do not allow facts get in the way of opinions.
Veganistan (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. I agree with Obama.
rvablue (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Me too....and frankly find it shocking that the majority of DUers who responded to this poll Do not.
Sad, sad commentary.
Imagine the heads exploding around here if Blago were a Repub.?
Let him go ahead and seat whoever.....and not a one of the Dem Senators will have the least thing to do with him.
Bonn1997 (576 posts) Tue Dec-30-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. On what grounds would they keep him out?
That he was appointed by an accused but not convicted governor? There are no plausible grounds for keeping him out other than that they don't "feel" like seating him. I'd rather have any loyal Democrat in the seat than have an open seat and need one more Republican vote on all bills.
camera__obscura (714 posts) Tue Dec-30-08 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
17. I have no respect for Blago. BUT they should seat him provisionally - & hold a special election in November of 2009.
pitohui (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. i'm leaning toward "seat the guy"
he seems like a good guy, he seems untainted by the scandal, and it's another democratic butt in the chair during those crucial first months
what's not to like?
we can't undo what has been done, we can only go forward
not saying i'm right, i'm saying this is how i'm leaning, i'm sure a good argument could persuade me the other way -- but right now how do we benefit by NOT having burris in that seat?
The commode-sitting sparkling husband primitive doesn't want to share the seat:
Husb2Sparkly (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-30-08 08:19 PM
Response to Original message
20. No, do not seat him. And as Burris himself said, this isn't about him.
I agree with Obama and the Democratic caucus on this one.
