January 06, 2009

Laws Have Meaning

I realize that Blago is either the dumbest or the most corrupt politician (or both!) in America these days. I follow that much.

What I don't get is why the US Senate is refusing to seat Burris. Follow me here:

1. Blago is the governor.

1A) He might not be for long, but he is now.

2. The laws in Illinois say that the Governor gets to pick someone to serve out a seat if a Senator leaves.

3. Obama (a sitting Senator) left.

4. Blago choose someone (Burris).

What am I missing here? I understand that everyone is worked up over Blago, and that Burris has said some odd things, but in what legal way is Burris not a Senator? I understand the politics here (Blago = BAD!), but this is stupid.

Between refusing Burris, Feinstein hosing Panetta, and wavering on Franken, the Democrats in the Senate seem to be trying to showcase why Americans like to vote Republican.

Posted by baltar at January 6, 2009 12:12 PM | TrackBack | Posted to General Stupidity | Politics


Comments

Well obviously Reid wants to hold onto the title of dumbest politician and is fighting hard to keep it.

Posted by: ryan at January 6, 2009 01:41 PM | PERMALINK

Well the legal blogs have been divided on Blago/Burris, so we'll have to see how that plays out. I don't think it's quite as clear as you suggest. Though yeah, Reid's handling of it raises questions about his leadership. I wish Durbin was Leader instead.

As to DiFi, I wish she'd go away - but then I've often not been a fan. Arrrgh, the harm done by Dan White ...

Posted by: Armand at January 6, 2009 02:44 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't done the legwork on the law, but I don't think it's about Blago being bad, it's about the appearance of impropriety. I fail to see how any pick by Blago at this point can credibly be said to be a legitimate pick animated by the sorts of concerns that ought to animate a gubernatorial selection for a Senate seat. Put simply, what assurance do we have that Burris achieved the pick on merit rather than, taking the most obvious route, as a product of some sort of direct quid pro quo; or, more subtlely, as a product of Blago trying to play toward the defense he inevitably will have to mount by showing magnanimity or whatever. He has no credibility, and while, as a matter of law, he may remain the sitting governor, the fact remains that there is no confidence in his tenure or his acts. And he dishonors the office by lingering.

As for Franken, I'm sympathetic to hesitancy on that. To the extent the state certification is subject to challenge, and as I understand it it is, it isn't really what can be called a "final" act. The letter of the law may permit Franken to be seated, but the spirit of it remains that a senator should be seated only upon final resolution of his status as the triumphant candidate as sussed out by the appropriate state instrumentalities. Franken, one hopes, will be that guy, but he appears not to be yet. And while the current situation is unseemly, it's not as bad as it would be to seat him and then have the state rescind his certification and grant it to Coleman. That would be a much bigger mess, and I can understand the desire to avoid it.

Posted by: moon at January 6, 2009 05:32 PM | PERMALINK

I accept that there is a "taint" around Burris; I see the "appearance of impropriety." However, it is just that (an appearance). As I said; I understand the politics here (Blago is clearly tainted; Burris, just by accepting, looks tainted). However, as I understand it, the state of Illinois gets to determine who is their Senator, not Harry Reid. Until Blago loses his power to appoint, the US Senate doesn't get to say who is or is not a Senator. That seems a very dangerous road to start down.

As for Franken, I know that nothing has happened yet. However, I'm seeing signs in the blogosphere that the Republicans are threatening to throw a hissy fit if Franken is seated before all legal challenges by Coleman have been exhausted. And that Reid moving towards avoiding those hissy fits by leaning towards not seating Franken (even after the political process certifies him later this week). That, again, isn't a good sign.

Posted by: baltar at January 6, 2009 07:05 PM | PERMALINK

Re Franken, the spirit of the law governs in many cases, and for those of us who are left of center, we don't want to be caught saying otherwise, because that approach to the law is an important part of the jurisprudence associated with our orientation. Were the challenges to the certification frivolous, there might be a gripe. But where the courts have clear jurisdiction to entertain such challenges, he simply isn't the choice any more than you're the winner of a lawsuit because you prevail at trial. Only when the appeals are exhausted can you be said to have prevailed, and if state law governs and permits these challenges, that's the way it goes. For the Dems to appreciate that this is the case, and decline to fight this loser of a battle seems to me smart in this climate, with a massive stimulus package requiring bipartisan support mere weeks away.

As for Blago, is your position that he should be able to act in every way as a governor until there is a conviction? The Senate has significant control over itself, and if Illinois can't get its s*&t together and do what they have to, then maybe someone else has to. I refuse to be upset by this either.

All of this subject to modification in case I should ever get up off my ass and actually look at the law.

But to be clear, in the absence of a clear legal reason either of these things are inappropriate, I prefer them to the alternative, and do not believe this road leads to lawlessness, or whatever. Seating Franken for six weeks and then yanking him, on the other hand, strikes me as far more unseemly -- what do we do about his votes during that span? What if the stimulus passes by a single vote? Is it void ab initio, as he was never properly the certified senator?

Posted by: moon at January 6, 2009 08:13 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?