Burris is surprised that his appointment is controversial?

In a way he's right. The controversy is not with him and his qualifications, but with the shadows of impropriety and possibly criminal behavior on the part of the governor involved with this appointment.

 

Are you just talking about Burris or all democrats?

Actually he was legally appointed and should be seated, otherwise the Supreme Court will seat him.

 

I think he should be seated. He's done nothing wrong. The Illinois judicial branch is not moving to take care of this. Not Burris' fault.

 

From what I am hearing one way to handle this problem is for the lieutenant governor of Illinois to state that if the governor leaves or is removed from office that he would appoint Mr. Burris to the U.S. Senate seat. Therefore, there would be no reason not to seat him as he would be appointed by either the sitting governor or the possible future governor.

 

Wow, that's like Hitler saying, "I don't know why the Jews feel I don't like them"...

 

Legally appointed, must be seated... Ah...Illinois politics...

 

Absolute absurdity. You expect me to take anything you say as an informed opinion after this garbage ?

 

We got O'bama whom we know associated with unsavory characters, including Blagojevitch, and traitors and racists. Now Harry Reid and his fellow democrats don't want to seat a legally appointed Senator. But what can you expect from these paragons of virtue and defenders of Sociali...er democracy?

By the way did anyone see O'Reilly last night when Greta van Sustren ask Bill Clinton what was the difference between an association with David Duke and Jeremiah Wright. It was downright comical. First time I have seen Bill Clinton stumped.

 

Think so?

Still think so?

Ed

 

Is this a situation covered by Powell v. McCormack?


"CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have determined the following: (1) This case has not been mooted by Powell's seating in the 91st Congress. (2) Although this action should be dismissed against respondent Congressmen, it may be sustained against their agents. (3) The 90th Congress' denial of membership to Powell cannot be treated as an expulsion. (4) We have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this controversy. (5) The case is justiciable.

Further, analysis of the "textual commitment" under Art. I, § 5 (see 395 U. S. B(1)), has demonstrated that, in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. Respondents concede that Powell met these. Thus, there is no need to remand this case to determine whether he was entitled to be seated in the 90th Congress. Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership."

- http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/case.html

 

Yes!Yes! and Yes!

 

I take it you think that is the way it should be, no doubt, which I will certainly grant to be a legitimate opinion.

[Incidentally, would you have said the same thing, had Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) been re-elected by the people of Alaska (and he obviously did come close, missing by only about 4,000 votes cast, out of more than 325K, even after both indictments and subsequent convictions, which just happened to get announced a week before the election, since there is nothing like non-political timing, no?? ),

or had Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), run again and been re-elected by the people of Idaho, or had some, including Sen. Robert Torrecelli (D-NJ), and Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), Dan Rostenkowski (D- IL) or James Traficant (D-OH) chosen to run again, been elected by the people of their state, and seen the Houses refuse to seat them?

Should the Houses instead, seat them, and then expel them, as was done to Rep. Traficant, and would have been done to Sens. Harrison Williams (D-NJ) or Robert Packwood (R-OR) had the latter two not resigned immediately before the vote that would have resulted in their almost certain expulsion?

And regardless of the actual words of the U. S. Constitution, still? (Which the Supreme Court chose to override, via the interpretation, FTR. I agree with the dissent of Mr. Justice Stewart, in that case, although I do not think that the House should have ever refused to seat Congressman Powell, in the first place.)]

Incidentally, there is precedent for the Senate to refuse (multiple times, no less) to seat one individual as a Senator, who had both duly won an election, and was appointed by the Governor of the State, to fill an unexpired term, that, in this case, opened due to the sudden death of the outgoing sitting Senator, whose term was to expire only a few weeks away, anyway.

This occured more than 80 years ago in - ["May I have the Envelope, please?!" (a la Karnac, the Magnificent " 'Tap! Tap!' 'Tear-Rip!' 'Puff!' 'Slide!' ) "And we have a winner, Ladies and Gentlemen! :thumbsup: The Governor, who had been indicted (along with the Lt. Governor, for good measure) thus setting a high standard for mis-conduct that at least five future Governors of that state will later seek to emulate - (since any Adlai E. Stevenson, II (D) or Richard B. Ogilvie (R), they ain't - ), had sent his replacement pick, for Senator, to the United States Senate, which refused to seat him.

Utterly amazingly, believe it or not, that state was ILLINOIS!"]

Illinois??

Wow! Talk about knocking me over with a feath...

Ed

 

There was a fellow visiting the seminary in Prague last week. Three of us were talking to him and the subject of Burris came up. He said, "His wife and I are very good friends. They are Christian and she has done some amazing and good work for the poor in Chicago." I take the fellow at his word as I know him from a few years ago and he is also a wonderful Christian.

Just another data point.

 

Yes... :thumbsup:

 

Yes, and yes.... and I don't like the situation any more than you....

 

Unlike the democrats I would not vote for a sexual pervert. If Senator Stevens had been reelected he should have been seated and then let the ethics committee or the courts deal with him. [By the way you will notice that Republicans rarely return crooks or sexual perverts to congress.] Senator Craig should have resigned immediately but according to Senate standards there was no reason to expel him. Robert Torrecelli (D-NJ), Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), Dan Rostenkowski (D- IL) or James Traficant (D-OH) all should have resigned or not run for reelection. If they had been reelected they should have been dealt with the same as Ted Stevens. I believe Torrecelli chose not to run again and Cunningham resigned. I believe Rostenkowski and Traficant wound up in jail.

As for Williams I am not familiar with that case but I still believe Packwood, a RINO, got a dirty deal.

All that being said I believe the appointment of Burris was legal and he should be seated. Frankly I hope the dems drag this out for months since i don't think they are fit to govern except perhaps a banana republic.

 

I can respect your post because you listed guys from both sides of the isle but you left out Jefferson for LA. Now that guy, I wonder where else he hid money?

I think there was also Mark Foley of Florida, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, and no list can be complete without the infamous Ted Stevens.