Should Roland Burris Take Obama's Senate Seat?

Rod Blagojevich, Illinois' governor, has appointed Roland Burris to take over Obama's Illinois senate seat. The current view in the Senate is that they will disallow anyone that Blagojevich appoints because it will be "tainted". Obama agrees with this assessment.

Tribune

As U.S. Senate leadership developed an elaborate set of contingency plans Wednesday to keep Roland Burris from taking over President-elect Barack Obama's seat, the disputed appointee promised not to "create a scene" when the Senate convenes next week.

If Burris shows up Tuesday to claim the seat given to him by disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the outcomes range from a denial of entry to a limbo where he can hire staff but not vote.

I'd like to know whether the people here think Burris should be allowed to take Obama's senate seat or whether he should be denied based on Blagojevich's legal issues.

Thoughts?

I believe all Senate Appointments should be blocked till Blago is removed or cleared. Burris should not be the next Senator based on Blago dirty secrets and lies

The simple answer is no. The solutions are a little bit tougher, because situations like this occur so infrequently.

Here are some possible solutions...

1. Special election...Republicans would love this option, but it is too costly, and too long a process to fill a vacancy for less than 2 years.
2. Chain of Command...pass on the pick to the Lt. Governor.
3. Seniority...appoint the longest serving State Reprensentative to take over.

Any of the above would be better.

absolutely not.
given this man's history regarding the cruz case, i don't trust him.
the people of illinois have rejected him at the polls at least 3 times.
let the lieutenent governor decide who should fill the seat.
blagojevich is dirty.

Absolutely not.

Anyone who would support or participate in Blagojevich's dog and pony show obviously does not have the best interest of Illinois in mind.

IMO, that presser was political blackmail using race as a weapon. It was either genius or diabolical. I haven't decided which...

[edit on 1/1/2009 by kosmicjack]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Thoughts?

The right and moral or even politically expedient thing isn't always the legal thing.

Legally, he is a Senator. There's not a single thing in either the state or federal Constitution to stop him.

He should step aside, but he won't. This will go all the way to SCOTUS.

Originally posted by KonigKaos
I believe all Senate Appointments should be blocked till Blago is removed or cleared. Burris should not be the next Senator based on Blago dirty secrets and lies

Isn't that "guilty until proven innocent", though? Legally, Blago still holds the governor's position and has the right to appoint the Senator.

Originally posted by RRconservative
The simple answer is no.

But I'd like to know the reasoning behind your opinion.

Originally posted by heather65
let the lieutenent governor decide who should fill the seat.

What if the Lt. Governor appointed Burris? Or What if Blagojevich appointed someone who is squeaky clean?

Originally posted by kosmicjack
IMO, that presser was political blackmail using race as a weapon. It was either genius or diabolical. I haven't decided which...

It was LOW. My jaw was on the floor when that rep said "lynch". :shk:

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


if the lieutenent governor appointed him, then i think i would still have a problem with burris.
i find his conduct regarding the cruz case troubling to say the least.
he doesn't deserve the appointment.
let someone else be allowed to serve in the senate seat.
also, to use race is low. it negates and diminishes people who are true victims of racism.

I think he should be permitted to be the Senator. He is guilty of nothing. He is qualified. And according to the Constitution, it's the governor's job to appoint a vacated senate seat. Blago IS still the governor.

I'm surprised so many are willing to ignore the Constitution...

i'm not stating ignore the constitution. i'm saying the man chosen isn't the right choice.
as far as i'm concerned, the problems facing blagojevich aren't related to burris.
his legal troubles that are facing him are his own. he should resign.
burris is my problem.
someone who was willing to skirt the law to avoid appearing soft on crime is why i oppose this appointment.
this sort of behaviour is troubling to me.
an innocent man could have been put to death.
burris didn't seem to care about the rule of law.
there are more qualified individuals to choose from to fill the vacancy.
i guess i didn't make this clear in my earlier posts.


[edit on 2-1-2009 by heather65]

I am not from Illinois so it is not my decision or concern but my gut says that he should stay as appointed unless a majority of the general population, of Illinois, of their own volition protests the appointment. At no point should the federal government or any of its three letter agencies interfere with the State of Illinois government processes.

Any federal involvement in this matter sets another bad precedent for future abuses by federal powers against the states' senators. Let us not forget that the constitutional role of the senator has already been gravely damaged by the Unreasonable Treason of 1913 (amendments 16&17).

Senators are intended to be ambassadors from each of the independently sovereign States that make up the United States. According to the original constitution, Senators should be almost completely outside of federal scope for good reason. Any federal power demonstrated over the position of senator is power the federal government has over the States themselves!

That is my little rant. So basically: Illinois, do what thou shalt. From, New Jersey.

Jon

Absolutely not, at least not unless Blagojevich is cleared of the charges.

By the same token, I think it says something for Burris himself that he'd want the seat under these circumstances. It seems to me that an honorable person would decline confirmation until the situation was resolved. I don't think he cares much, and IMO, that says a lot about him.

Originally posted by heather65
i'm not stating ignore the constitution. i'm saying the man chosen isn't the right choice.

But that's just an opinion, right? I'm not really asking for people's opinion of Burris, I'm asking, under the circumstances, should the governor be permitted to appoint someone, AS THE CONSTITUTION STATES.

I understand that you don't approve of Burris, but that's not the question I'm asking.

If Blagojevich appointed a squeaky clean person and someone that you liked, do you think, in light of his legal problems, that he should be allowed that power?

And even though the Constitution gives Blago that power, nearly everyone here is willing to ignore it for this case. Everyone here would vote to go against the Constitution and I find that amazing, really. Especially since some of the respondents here are the same people crying "Constitution!" as regards Obama and his elegibility to be president.

vor? Have anything to say about that? Why doesn't the Constitution count here?

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

The Constitution counts, but so does common sense. This is a situation where the governor may well have abused his power. If the governor has been accused of attempting to sell the Senate seat, the prudent thing to do is to investigate the allegations prior to allowing Blagojevich to appoint someone.

I am not saying that Burris should be denied the seat, merely that his appointment should be delayed pending the findings of this investigation.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Absolutely he should take the seat... he Democrats in the Fed Senate and the Illinois State senate stopped a special Election in Illinois and this left Blago with no choice but to appoint one. Illinois like all States have a Right to equal Representation and suffrage in the Houses. The State of Illinois has two ways to fill a vacant seat like Obama's. One is to call a special election and the other is to have the Governor appoint one. Since they took the special election option out of the play there was nothing left.

Blago is the LAWFUL and Sitting Governor and had a DUTY to appoint a Senator to make sure Illinois was represented. He has played this like a CHAMP!!!

If the Federal Senate does not seat this UNIMPEACHABLE man in Burris they will effectively tell all Blacks in America that they don't care about the only Black Senator being seated, and I for one would love to see the Blacks in America run away from the Democrats, as long as they don't tun to the Republicans that is...

Blago may be a dirty politician, but tell me one that aint really! But if anyone thinks that Burris is NOT Unimpeachable in his civic life you have to be nuts, I guarantee you Blago appointed someone that can not be touched on that point. The Senate only has the lawful Right to not seat a Senator not Certified by the State Sec. of State, other than that they MUST seat the Senator. Since there is no reason to stop a Lawfully Appointed Senator from seating the Harry Reid crowd is on thin ice with Americans, and particularly Black Americans...

I think the funniest thing about all this is that the Dems played right into Blago's hand in everything they did here. They had the Right to Impeach him and stop him from Appointing, but they refused to do that. They had the Right to call a special election and take Blago out of the process, but again they refused to do that. So don't come crying now that he can' appoint one when you had several opportunities to stop him but chose NOT TO DO IT!!!

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
He has played this like a CHAMP!!!

"Played" it is right. Blago picked someone who the Democrats would have a really hard time denying and then let the old geezer (representative) play the race card, like you have done in your next paragraph, to make the Democrats look bad.

This is not about race for me at all (except that I think Blago picked a black man to make Democrats look bad by denying him). Black people aren't like a group of lemmings that run toward the light. So don't hold your breath that they're all going to turn into Republicans.

I think the funniest thing about all this is that the Dems played right into Blago's hand in everything they did here.

I agree. Blago has the upper hand here and he knows it and he's lovin' it! If the Democrats had had an election or impeached him, they could have taken his power away, but they were afraid to lose the seat to a Republican.

Now, they should just shut up and accept the lawful appointment and not fight it. Especially since it's a "guilt by association" thing. Democrats railed against people for judging Obama because of his associations with Ayers and Rezko, speaking out against "guilt by association" and now, it seems they're doing the same thing here...

Burris is gulty of nothing and should be accepted as the new IL Senator. He will have to run again in 2 years to keep the seat.

vor, if the Democrats didn't want Blago appointing someone, they should have held a special election.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
vor, if the Democrats didn't want Blago appointing someone, they should have held a special election.

I'm not going to defend anything that has been done up to this point. The whole thing is a mess from start to finish.

On the other hand, I see no harm whatsoever in delaying his appointment now to bring all of the facts of the situation to light. At this point, I think its a case of 'better late than never.'

if burris was a different person in my eyes, then yes, he should be able to fill the seat.
that was my only issue with burris. otherwise, he's fine by me.
i think we are definitely agreeing to disagree.

I am not from Illinois so I do not know the history of Mr. Burris. I am given to understand that he is an egomaniac and that there are better choices. As I understand the issue, the Dems are worried that when Burris goes for reelection, that the People of Illinois may select a Republican because of his reputation.
That said, I do not see how Mr. Burris can legally be refused to be seated. 1. The Governor shall appoint a replacement for the Senator.
2. The Governor is legally the governor.
3. He has appointed Mr. Burris
4. The Senate cannot legally refuse Mr. Burris

The Governor is tweaking the Dems and the Senate while he can. This will be an interesting political sideshow.

reply to post by pteridine

You have it down as far as I can see. That's exactly what this is. A political sideshow. A perfect show of the 2-party system distraction in play.

So stupid. :shk:

I heard on MSNBC or something that Burris will not be permitted to enter he Senate on Tuesday when all the others are sworn in...