I’m not one to play the “flip-flopper” card that often. Every politician has the right to change his mind, and, I actually prefer a pragmatist who changes his opinion in light of new evidence over an ideologue who sticks to his guns even after reality slowly exposes the falsity of his viewpoint. But I can’t help pointing this out- this was Obama’s position on Blagojevich’s appointment just a week ago:
“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.”
Now that 2009 has rolled around, it seems that Obama is the one giving Reid and the Senate the go-ahead for seating Burris. This somehow reminds me of when David Axelrod first said that Obama had discussed his vacant Senate seat with Blagojevich and then later said that there had been no communication between the two. Now, I’m not quite sure, but, I think something is amiss!
It looks like in doing so, Obama has convinced the Senate to allow Burris his seat, seeing as how recent articles show the Senate has quickly backed down, appearing to be (keeping in line with our professionalism policy) ‘pushovers.’
Well also the Senate cannot legally refuse a Senator appointed by a governor if he meets the Constitutional requirements of a Senator, which Roland Burris does. Even though he is connected to this scandal, legally nothing is stopping him from being a Senator. This argument was brought up on Fox News, and was probably what finally made the Democrats give in. If this is the case, then the Senate are not being “pushovers”, but are in fact following the law. If they really don’t want Burris in, though, what they could legally do is appoint him to the Senate, but then immediately kick him out due to his corrupt ties (This is authorized by the Constitution but I don’t know exactly where; do your own research if your that curious). While this is sort of an underhanded way of refusing him the seat, there is nothing illegal about it.
Ah, that is a very interesting piece of information, Jmb. I had no idea. That would be quite the statement if they accepted him and then proceeded to immediately boot him out.
In my opinion, I think Blago’s going to win this one.
I think so too. If they do in fact do this (which in my honest opinion is unlikely), it would be one of the most profound political low blows in memory. Im actually currently in the process of perusing the Constitution and am having trouble finding exactly where the article authorizing that action is; perhaps the absence of prohibition establishes its legality. Maybe its a Supreme Court case, I don’t know. If I find it I’ll post a link.