LOL: Blago to Appoint Fmr. AG to Senate Seat

[muon2]

This is not so surprising. He promised before the arrest to fill the seat by Christmas, and he's only a few days late. I think that White and Reid have little choice but to object, and let the courts force them aside.

[muon2]

This is not so surprising. He promised before the arrest to fill the seat by Christmas, and he's only a few days late. I think that White and Reid have little choice but to object, and let the courts force them aside.

Indeed, White and Reid will be shoved aside by the courts if Blago and Roland truly wish it (I suspect Burris would step aside and let Quinn appoint him perhaps rather than go to the Senate and be shunned/denied committee slots).  The Senate does have the nuclear option after Burris is forcibly seated however - a 2/3rds vote to expel him.

The key is that the courts give political cover to deal with a situation that White and Reid can't afford to touch. The special election bill that was blocked by state Dems now may be back in play - it had a provision to replace a gubernatorial appointment if it occurred.

[muon2]

So I guess my question is why would Burris accept Blago's offer to be appointed a senator he's going to have to go through [winnable] legal challenges only to be shunned by fellow senators and possibly expelled? Seems an awful lot of trouble to go through for merely being a seatwarmer....

I don't think Burris would be shy to take on the potential legal and political challenges. He publicly volunteered to take the seat after the arrest, he is a former AG, and he's run three times since being AG losing in primaries for Gov in 1994, 1998 and 2002.

[muon2]

Well, Burris said on MSNBC that he'll challenge any decision by the Democrats to not seat him.

This is going to get ugly folks.

As I said I think the law is on his side.

[muon2]

I think it's pretty clear this guy has to be seated.  Reid would have to be a complete idiot to not seat him, and even if he didn't, the law is on Burris's side.

Are you kidding? Why?

Blago should just be impeached. If the Constitution only allows those Governors who have committed a crime to be impeached, why not just amend the Constitution? Or why not just impeach him anyway, let him appeal it to the state Supreme Court, and have the State Supreme Court stall indefinitely?

The impeachment is moving forward following the IL constitution. The chair of the special committee suggested yesterday that there may be articles ready sometime next week. That would be consistent with the return of the General Assembly on Jan 12 for two days of lame duck session and the swearing in on Wed 14th for the new GA. Either the old or new House could take up the articles. After the 15th the Senate won't be in session for a trial until Feb as many will be in DC.

However, even if Blago is impeached and removed from office that doesn't change Burris' appointment. That appointment is lawful since Blago was Gov at the time it was made. It can be cut short only if the IL legislature schedules a special election.

[muon2]

I wonder if, after Quinn is seated, if he could "reappoint" Roland while Roland is still serving in order to grant him legitimacy

I don't see that that would have any legitimacy unless Burris resigns first. Quinn can't fill a vacancy that doesn't exist. I don't think the theater of a paper appointment helps matters.

[muon2]

I guess the problem is that the legislature empowered the governor to make an appointment, no legislation revoking this power was ever passed, and an appointment has now been made.

Perhaps the law empowering the governor has a provision that the legislature has a window to nullify the appointment, but I don't know if that is the case or not.

OK, gotcha.  So, if Reid tries to throw up roadblocks, to prevent Burris from being seated, and the courts ultimately rule in Burris's favor, then it's impossible for the Illinois legislature to cut Burris's term short by passing a special election law (maybe)?  It presumably wouldn't matter if they passed such a law as early as today, because Blago has already made the appointment.  If Blago's appointment of Burris is found to be legally legitimate, then it's already too late for the IL legislature to act, I guess.

It's not too late for the legislature, if they choose to act. The bill that was to be considered on Dec 15, but pulled back, provided for the special election to be effective even if an appointment were made. If at any point that form of the legislation becomes law, any Senate appointment would only last until the special election results were certified.

Democrats in IL are not going to pass a special election law because the odds are too strong that they would lose the election.

So, we head to court.  The Senate's position is incredibly weak, unless they expel him after seating him.  I'm not as familiar with the IL state constitution/statute - can the SoS choose to not certify a validly appointed candidate for Senate, or is there any language there which would not make him a validly appointed candidate?  muon2?

This is the constitutional language controlling the SoS:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Emphasis added.

This is the law:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This looks like the SoS has a non-discretionary duty to countersign and register the appointment.

I'm informed that the document sent to the US Senate for the Gov's appointment of Burris includes his signature, but the line for the SoS signature is blank.

[muon2]

It's traditional to cite Marbury v. Madison in the SCOTUS, because you are basically telling the Justices how important they are.  Powell v. McCormick will probably be the one.

I wasn't saying Powell is irrelevant - it clearly states that the Senate cannot reject Burris on the circumstances of his appointment.  I was just pointing out - for the constitutional law junkies - that the facts of MvM, which are usually forgotten because they have so little bearing on why the case is usually cited, mirror another aspect of this situation, which is the SOS's refusal to certify.  Whether it is binding, I don't know, because it deals with executive-level appointments.  There might be a more recent, state-level case that would allow Burris to seek a court order.  In any case, Powell and MvM deal with two different issues.

Burris filed late yesterday with the IL Supreme Court to force White to sign. However, the US Sen may have the power to at least delay any seating for 90 days by referring the appointment to Rules.

[muon2]

I remember some bloggers mentioning Seals' name back in the very, very early stages of this (pre-Blago implosion). I suspect Seals could beat Kirk statewide.

You mean in 2010, running for reelection?  Probably, I doubt Kirk would give up his seat to run unless he smelled blood.  The advantage of a special election for him is that there'd be no loss.

Although it's important to remember that the swing vote in Illinois looks a lot like Kirk's district

Another factor for Kirk to consider is the fate of his district in 2012. It is likely the IL will lose a district and that Dems will control the map. His seat could well end up on the chopping block or with a higher D fraction.

[muon2]

I remember some bloggers mentioning Seals' name back in the very, very early stages of this (pre-Blago implosion). I suspect Seals could beat Kirk statewide.

You mean in 2010, running for reelection?  Probably, I doubt Kirk would give up his seat to run unless he smelled blood.  The advantage of a special election for him is that there'd be no loss.

Although it's important to remember that the swing vote in Illinois looks a lot like Kirk's district

Another factor for Kirk to consider is the fate of his district in 2012. It is likely the IL will lose a district and that Dems will control the map. His seat could well end up on the chopping block or with a higher D fraction.

Maybe..., but he still won by >10% the last two election cycles in an Obama domination district

But he could end up split between Bean and Schakowsky. There's no Senate seat in IL in 2012 for any one to jump to after the map eliminates one House seat. A jump in 2010 could be a calculated risk.

[muon2]

Well, if they really specifically targeted him, they could make it a challenge.  But his proven ability to soundly win in a liberal district + fundraising skillz means that he's a big elephant to take down -- and I want you to name a Democratic Representative that wants to take on Kirk in the process of eliminating him.  It'd be a pretty epic fight that Bean and Schako wouldn't really want to do.

Since Kirk votes pretty liberal, it results in less of a net gain as well...


And it could require the entire focus of the redistricting scheme to be targeting Kirk, and obviously so at that

I generally agree. I was just suggesting that all the GOP Reps are going to be looking over their shoulders towards what the Dems will do with a map, and they may have to decide before knowing the outcome of that map. If there are no retirements in 2012, then one of the suburban districts is the most likely target for elimination, since a downstate district was cut last time. That points to Kirk, Roskam, or Biggert for elimination.

[muon2]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1360191,harry-reid-blagojevich-jesse-jackson-010209.article

Ah, looks like Reid called Blago personally in an attempt to block JJJ, Davis, and Jones in exchange for pushing non-black candidates.   Looks like Reid has put the hate down on Chicago's black political establishment

Reid also seems to have switched many IL Dem minds against holding a special election after their initial statements were to have one. None of his actions with respect to the Obama vacancy seem to be in the interest of who may best serve the people of IL. Rather it seems to be about who would best serve his caucus.

[muon2]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1360191,harry-reid-blagojevich-jesse-jackson-010209.article

Ah, looks like Reid called Blago personally in an attempt to block JJJ, Davis, and Jones in exchange for pushing non-black candidates.   Looks like Reid has put the hate down on Chicago's black political establishment

Reid also seems to have switched many IL Dem minds against holding a special election after their initial statements were to have one. None of his actions with respect to the Obama vacancy seem to be in the interest of who may best serve the people of IL. Rather it seems to be about who would best serve his caucus.

Well, you can say that anyone who would be unlikely to win [re?]election would not be serving the interests of the majority of Illinois because Illinois voters would reject the candidate

At this point I wouldn't sat that at all. There was serious talk and significant support in IL for a placeholder who would serve the people well for 2 years then allow an open race in 2010. Reid was clearly not interested in that possibility either.