What should happen with Burris?

[Moby]

OK, Blago legally appointed Burris Senator and that's the rule of law. There's no evidence in any way that supports Burris was involved with anything shady even though Blago was.

It appears to be a completely legitimate appointment as required by law and the state Constitution.

Still, I don't think anyone wants to seat Burris. There is presidence that allows congress to choose it's own members so they can toss Burris or at least not allow him on the floor. It does seem that Blago could legally escort him on to the floor though but then his votes could be tossed.

Should they accept Burris?
Toss him and and not allow anyone to be appointed for now?
Try to ignore the law and do something different?

[Mr. Blue]

Burris should have known better and not even went for the job...so I think it speaks towards his general character.

[luciano]

Seat him, then vote to expel him. I think they can get 7 or 8 republicans to vote to expel a democrat.

[Cat slave]

I dont think anyone should be seated at this time if they have been picked
by Blago. So its the law, so what, apparently Blago wants to pick and choose
which laws he abides by. Wrong idea.

Wait and see how this shakes out and go from there. No one knows how
deep the corruption will go.

[Smurf-Herder]

Hmm, we'll see.

Reid: Democrats won't seat Burris

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 (UPI) -- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday Democrats will not seat Roland Burris, the man named by Illinois' embattled governor to Barack Obama's seat.

Reid, D-Nev., appearing on the NBC news show "Meet the Press," said the problem is Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who has been charged, but not yet convicted, by federal authorities who allege he tried to profit from his office.

"Blagojevich obviously is a corrupt individual. I think that's pretty clear," Reid said. "And the reason that he's done what he's done is to divert attention from the arrest that was just made of him and the indictment which will be coming in a few days, according to the U.S. attorney in Illinois. That's why President-elect Obama agreed with us that Mr. Burris is tainted."

Reid cited Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., who turned down the seat. David said his constituents simply would not accept anyone appointed by Blagojevich.

The majority leader also said he agrees with President George Bush on Gaza and the Israeli air strikes and ground invasion.

"If this were going on in the United States from Vancouver, Canada, into Seattle, would we react? Course we do." Reid said. "We would have to. I think what the Israelis are doing is very important. I think this terrorist organization, Hamas, has got to be put away."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/01/04/Reid_Democrats_wont_seat_Burris/UPI-81901231107043/

[Cat slave]

I saw him on the news tonight.....what a putz! Cocky too.

[Smurf-Herder]

I saw him on the news tonight.....what a putz! Cocky too.

"Freaky Al" is quite the pompous ass too.

[Hog Trash]

OK, Blago legally appointed Burris Senator and that's the rule of law.
Should they accept Burris?
Toss him and and not allow anyone to be appointed for now?
Try to ignore the law and do something different?I think he should be shot on sight....Yes, a bit extreme, but what the hell....One less corrupt politician. :thumbsup:

[Hog Trash]

Seat him, then vote to expel him. I think they can get 7 or 8 republicans to vote to expel a democrat.The republicans may opt to seat him, thinking he would be their best chance of defeating an incumbant democrat Senator in a blue state in the next election.

[disrupter]

Let's get this in perspective,

the SAME democrats who have subsidized a white house torturing war criminal who clearly stole the 2004 election from these very SAME democrats are getting on their high horses against Burris?

Burris should not be the victim of their anger or embarrassment. That would be illegal according to current [lack of] evidence.

Democrat anger & resentment is completely misplaced.

Democrat indignity would be laughable if it weren't so fucking dangerous.

These dumbfuck, pig wallowers should get over their fucking COMPLETELY UNEARNED EGOS!

That is why they are blindly allied with a genociding Israel.

[Binky]

Since there seems to be so many corrupt politicians, judges etc., why don't we go back to the old days where people of that sort were burned at the stake? Hell, why not burn or tar and feather the child molestors and rapists as well? I bet you'd see a drop in those crimes. Surely there would be more honest politicians. Ya know!

[Cat slave]

Sounds like a plan to me! It sure would make someone evil think twice....
especially it if were done publicly. Stocks should also come back, complete
with baskets of rotten veggies and meat to throw at the stationary victim.
Hey, we could become sadistic couldnt we?;)

[Bill]

Not my state.

Not my concern.

Nor do I rightfully have any say in the matter.

Much as with Lieberman - I personally think he's a rabid skunk, but it's not my state, not my business.

[Roadvirus]

I think his appointment should be blocked. Burris is too close this Blago thing and should not have been named by Blago. But since he has, the damage is done.

Now Reid and the other Dumbos have a big problem. Either seat him and lose Illinois as a Blue state or not seat him and risk losing the African-American voting bloc.

[Smurf-Herder]

I hate to say this. But after everything I've heard today, Burris is within his rights to be sworn in.

Technically, he's not known to be guilty of anything.

Blaggo hasn't even been indicted, so he still has the legal authority.

And the Illinois Secretary of State has no constitutional authority to deny his certification.

Reid's only legal case for refusing to seat Burris is based only upon the Secretary of State's refusal to certify, which itself has no legal standing.

On principle it's - Innocent until proven quilty.

[Moby]

I hate to say this. But after everything I've heard today, Burris is within his rights to be sworn in.
It gets to be an issue since there's no precedence. Fox would be complaining about him steam rolling in without proper paper work and endorsements if they seated him today.

Another issue comes in the Constitution:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
However it appears that this means that congress can vote some one out but it requires a vote. Once he's ratified by the state they must seat him but can then vote him out.

It appears that as long as he hasn't been properly ratified by the state he's out. Once that happens he's in but can still be voted out later.

[Smurf-Herder]

It gets to be an issue since there's no precedence. Fox would be complaining about him steam rolling in without proper paper work and endorsements if they seated him today.




No, actually part of what I heard was Hannity and Buchanan saying he should be seated. I listened to their arguments and they are right.

It would be like saying Clinton's decisions as President shouldn't have been followed, when he was under investigation; just because he was under investigation.

[disrupter]

Holier than thou Democrats?

Who have remained embedded with a war criminal president who stole the 2004 election from them?
Who gave away 3/4ths of a Trillion of your taxdollars to drunken bankers?

Oh PUUUUUHHHHHHHH-LEEEEEEZZZE give me a break.

HEY DEMOCRATS,

GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELVES!

I have an idea, lets put them in the path of a US weapon being dropped by Israel on innocent Palestinians,
it might help save a few Palestinians, AND better get rid of these self-absorbed Pompous assholes.

[Moby]

No, actually part of what I heard was Hannity and Buchanan saying he should be seated. I listened to their arguments and they are right.
Read my post again.

Hannity was complaining that he should be seated even with invalid paperwork. If they had seated him then Hannity's position would have changed to complain that he was seated without being fully ratified by the state.

Hannity is always going to take whatever side of the argument his boss wants, which happens to be the man that manipulates the information that you get.

Don't you understand how it works?