Via the LAT: Senate leaders plan for arrival of Blagojevich appointee
Should Roland Burris show up for duty in the Senate on Tuesday, armed police officers stand ready to bar him from the floor.
That would certainly be a dramatic outcome. But whether it comes down to physically barring Burris remains to be seen:
If Burris prevails by Tuesday and presents valid paperwork, it will be harder for senators to refuse to seat him. In this case, Senate guards might not bar him from entry, but leaders could refuse to swear him in.Upon presentation of a valid certificate of election or appointment, past practice for senators whose credentials are disputed has been to grant office space and payroll for a staff, as well as floor privileges — but not a Senate seat — while the dispute is pending.
But Senate Democrats also have a follow-up plan: refusing to seat Burris until the Senate Rules Committee completes an investigation into whether the appointment process was tainted by corruption.
The plan is for the Senate investigation to extend longer than the Illinois Legislature’s impeachment process underway against Blagojevich, leaving open the possibility that a new governor will make a rival Senate appointment that the Democratic leaders could seat.
It seems to me that it will be possible for the Senate to drag out Burris’ seating for some time. If they can stretch it out until Blagojevich is ousted, assuming that that will be the outcome in the Illinois legislature:
the safest route may be for the Senate to wait to see whether Blagojevich is impeached and then replaced by Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn — who could then make his own appointment to Obama’s seat.The Senate then would simply choose between two people with competing claims for the post, something it has done in the distant past.
Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog looks into the question: Must Senate seat Burris?
Sphere: Related Content
January 1st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
OK, political science class, raise your hand if you knew that governors have floor privileges in the US Senate.
According to the LAT article, they do, and one of the scenarios the Democrats dread is that Blagoevhich shows up to escort Burris onto the floor. Just becauce he can.
January 1st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
I didn’t know it, I must confess.
I meant to note it in the post, but forgot to do so. Can you imagine the spectacle of Blagojevich showing up? I must confess, part of me hopes he does, just so we could see it!
January 1st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
“I must confess, part of me hopes he does, just so we could see it!”
Ha! The chaos and drama is what keeps me interested in politics. Issues? Nah! Drama? Hell ya! lol
January 1st, 2009 at 10:30 pm
How interesting. Everyone seems to think that just because a crime is alleged to be committed (No trial, no impeachment yet, no crime) that Illinois does not have the right to have a Senator seated that was LEAGALY appointed (No trial, no impeachment, no crime). Let the courts sort it out they say. Even Obama commented (Obama is the President elect and no longer a Senator which means this is none of his business). This is Senate business and since there is no one who has any reason why Burris should not be seated other than unproved actions (through our legal system) that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the man appointed perhaps someone will tell me why Illinois is being denied their right to have a Senator seated. I was always under the impression that quilt by association was illegal in this country. - raycar - San Jose, CA
January 1st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Am I the only person in this country who is wondering why members of the Democratic Party think they don’t have to obey by the United States Constitution? First we had Barack Obama’s unconstitutional appointment of Senator Clinton as Secretary of State. Democrats know it’s unconstitutional and yet have done nothing to stop it. Now, Gov. Blagojevich’s has exercised his Constitutional authority in a legal appointment of Roland Burris and Senate Democrats are saying they will won’t allow Burris to enter. What part in The United States Constitution says Democrats are exempt from honoring it?
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:23 am
What’s this “Constitution” thing you keep talking about? Sounds like crazy talk. You know, like how they used to run this country. Welcome to the 21st century.
January 2nd, 2009 at 7:03 am
Roland Burris is obviously not the wonderful person he and Blago would have us believe.
Just by associating with Blago after his arrest (and all that that entailed) he has shown, irregardless of the statutes concerning the entire matter, a contempt for what is “right and wrong”.
Given what has been said about Blago and his impending appointment since the day of his arrest Mr. Burris should have declined any offer of any sort from the Governor, that he didn’t and is now fighting for the appointment shows an incredible amount of arrogance and, in my opinion, a total lack of respect for the people he wishes to represent and for the Senate seat itself.
His arguments (or excuses) for the validity of his appointment by Blago may be legally correct but they are most certainly morally wrong, and he ought to be able to recognize that.
Roland Burris is a self-involved, shameful and opportunistic man and his appointment to the Senate should be rejected.