News-Record.com

One would think he would have to get expelled. It would make a joke out of any future confirmation or vestment hearings if you can lie and then admit it after you are confirmed.

I take it Burris was not under some kind of oath at his hearings. I don't know.

You left out one of the phonies OBAMA.

Well at least we no longer have to listen "Wide Eyes" Pelosi talking about the Republican's "culture of corruption."

Was it Mark Twain who mused that, "The only true criminal class is the congress?" If he were alive today I think that even he would be amazed at the criminality!

Now that the F.B.I. has done such a great job in taking out the Mafia, the Demo-Rat "Families" of Reid and Pelosi, have replaced the Mafia as the most corrupt organization in the country.

What did you expect? Burris is part of the same corrupt Chicago political machine that Blagovich was, and just as crooked. The only difference is that he might be smart enough (unlike Blago) to avoid getting in trouble for it.

Isn't there someone else from Chicago that's a big part of our federal government? My prediction is that only time will tell until something is traced back to him.

Doug:

As disgusting as it was, the Illinois governor had the legal authority to make the temporary appointment. The Democratic leadership in the Senate, which wanted no part of this, had no recourse but to seat him once the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that his appointment was legally valid ( http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/09/burris.senate/ ).

Sen. Reid was incredibly short-sighted in saying that the Democrats would never seat Burris (it's not the first time that the majority leader has shot from the lip). However, he would have made an even bigger mistake in not following the law.

It might be useful to review the U.S. Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Powell vs. McCormack ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=486 ) where Justice Warren wrote "In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution."

Dave, I predicted immediately that the Senate would seat Burris despite the stated objections of Harry Reid and every Democratic senator because it was clear to me they would have no legal authority to deny him. It should have been equally clear to them, yet they persisted unreasonably in insisting he would not be seated -- until suddenly they seated him. That's what I fault them for.

Doug:

I'm not sure then how you come to the conclusion that Sen. Reid and other senators are phonies. Stupid and short-sighted, certainly, but what purpose did it serve to say that Burris would never be seated only to have to back down later.

Your implication that the Democrats will keep Burris because "he'll vote their way" is ridiculous. If they boot the guy, the new governor will almost certainly appoint a Democratic replacement.

Is it "too much trouble" for Democrats? Well, apparently it's been too much trouble--period. No sitting senator has been expelled since 1862 and only 7 have been censured since then. Even good 'ol Ted Stevens managed to get out the door without an expulsion vote (from either the Senate or the Republican conference). Good 'ol Ted got to cast his last Senate vote on 11/20, several weeks after his felony conviction and several weeks after losing his re-election bid.

I disagree - I think he'll be gone in a matter of weeks....and so he should.

They were phonies because they loudly and publicly took a stance that they knew, or certainly should have known, was not sustainable. They were posturing ... not sincere ... fake ... phony.

The purpose is served was political cover. They could say we would not have admitted him if it were up to us. Some people would buy that.

The fact that Burris will vote their way is a reason not to go to extraordinary lengths to get rid of him. If he didn't, they'd have greater motivation to hope the next guy would be better. But they don't really lose anything by tolerating him until someone else is elected next year.

I do not suggest Republicans would behave any differently if this were their mess. But it's not. You're absolutely right that the Senate is very reluctant to expel one of its own, which is what gives me some confidence in my prediction.

Doug:

"But they don't really lose anything by tolerating him until someone else is elected next year." Yes, this has been and will be a publicity bonanza for them. Well-played senators. Well-played.

In their defense, it's not their fault that Burris is there. As for expelling him, even if they wanted to do the right thing, they probably should wait for legal issues to clarify further.

Burris, appointed by now-ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevitch, swore he had nothing to do with any corrupt bargain.

Now it looks like he was willing to play ball ...

... he just dropped it.

Shows what a forgiving guy Blago was.* Doug

One has no idea why Senator Burris is so important to the welfare of North Carolina politics.

I would suggest to Doug that screwing around with Chicago politics is like trying to start a Tony Soprano family peace conference on the pro and con of family values......And you poor folks that thought Al Capone was dead.

You don't see similarities between Rod Blagojevich and Jim Black?

One small thing about Burris' matter. Powell vs. McCormack states "Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership."

Burris was not "duly elected by the voters", so there appears to be a little wiggle room here that might work against Burris. Burris very likely committed perjury when questioned about the conditions surrounding his appointment.

Burris is expendable "now" by the Senate Dems. He fulfilled his role of being the 60th "yes" vote on the Non-Stimulus Plan. Without his vote, the Republicans could have stalled the bill with a filibuster. They may not have been able to kill the bill, but they could have stalled it long enough for everyone to read it and object to it. Public favorability of the bill was falling daily, and Obama had to push it through before it got exposed for what it is. They can now afford for Burris to get expelled and replaced by another Dem. They do not have any essential bills coming up for vote for a few weeks. What they can't afford is for him to be expelled and have a new election.

I just heard an official with the National Conference of State Legislatures, during a media conference call, describe the stimulus bill as one of the most complex and confusing pieces of legislation ever.

It seems there are armies of analyists working around the clock to figure out what's in it. Fortunately, the senators are much faster and were familiar with every detail before voting.

I'm assuming, and hoping, that your last statement concerning being "much faster, and were familiar with every detail before voting."

But after reading your takes on Judd Gregg and Katie Dorsett, I really can't be sure.

Stormy:

There's no wiggle room. The 22nd amendment of the Constitution ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvii.html ) provides the procedure for filling temporary vacancies. Illinois followed the procedure; so, Burris' appointment is just as valid as someone who was elected.

Doug said:
You don't see similarities between Rod Blagojevich and Jim Black?

In Chicago they murder you! So how many murders did Jim Black commit at the International House of Pancakes with that bag of cash?

Let face it Doug! North Carolina political corruption is nothing but a bunch of sissies when it comes to zaping your competitors in Chicago.

You are probably right, Dave, Burris got there in a legal manner, even if he did commit perjury to do it. Of course, Harry Reid probably couldn't blast him out of there now with a ton of dynamite. It's for sure that his supporters would never allow him to be removed.

But, in so doing, the Dems may have screwed themselves in 2010, when Burris' seat somes up for an election. He'll be a tarnished incumbent, and he'll be an anchor around the necks of the Dems. The Repubs could take advantage of that and win the seat, so Burris staying in Congress would cause the Dems to lose the seat. Interesting how things come around.

I think Illinois Dems will have more trouble if they get rid of Burris than if they keep him.

If he is booted or resigns, the new governor has to name a replacement. Think there wouldn't be dealmaking over that? Plus, several of the leading candidates also could be tied in to the Blago scandal. Who knows what kind of tapes will surface between now and Blago's trial? It might not be easy to find an honest replacement.