Now admittedly I only saw this in the mainstream media, but wasn’t it more or less the case that Reid et al really didn’t have a legal leg to stand on to deny Burris the seat?

That said, Burris should resign, but given the sort of megalomaniac he appears to be (wtf is up with that mausoleum?!) he probably won’t.

For the love of God, why hasn’t Harry Reid been dumped? The guy has no spine.

Now admittedly I only saw this in the mainstream media, but wasn’t it more or less the case that Reid et al really didn’t have a legal leg to stand on to deny Burris the seat?

I don’t think so.  I was in a decided minority on this, but it seemed to me that the constitution allowed the Senate to investigate and judge Burris’s appointment (his “return” in the constitution’s language).  And that if the Senate decided that the process which produced that appointment was so tainted by fraud, they could refuse to seat him.  It’s never been clear that Reid had the votes to turn Burris away, but the Elections Committee process probably would have drawn things out long enough to discover Burris’ apparent perjury.  It’s all a moot issue now. 

With both the White House and Chicago’s ministers leaning on Burris to resign, I actually think it’s reasonably likely that he will.

Well, it’s always the Democrats’ fault. First their elitists who won’t seat the only black Senator we’d have, and now they’re craven vultures, unable to oppose a corrupt jerk because they are, too. It’s a well-known narrative, and it’s depressing to watch it all unfold repeatedly.

There was no legal way to block Burris.  The state senate and Mike Madigan, who is as much to blame for my state’s woes as Blago, wasted time before trying for an impeachment.  Mike’s daughter, Lisa, our atty general, did try to have him declared incompetent, but she lost the case.

Blago was still governor and could have appointed anyone.  I was glad it wasn’t Jim Oberweis, rich racist asshole who wants to run the state but can’t win an election to save himself.  That would have really been sticking it to people.

Blago asked Danny Davis first, and Davis turned him down.  I think Jesse Jackson Jr turned it down, too.  Burris was just the first one to say yes.

I was for seating him b/c there was no legal reason not to, and Burris is a Democrat.  I have a junior senator and he voted for the stimulus.  He’s a place-holder—he had no chance of retaining that seat even if he had been squeaky clean—but he was there and voting the way I wanted him to vote.

I don’t care if he stays.  I’d prefer it, actually, as we need all the Democratic votes we can get.

Reid’s not bad.  I’ll always give him big points for engineering the Harriet Miers nomination, which was a better chance than I expected we’d get at making the Republicans waste a Supreme Court seat.  If Biden and Feinstein hadn’t dropped the ball in Judiciary, we might’ve been able to sustain an Alito filibuster too—Reid was trying to get people not to come out and say “we won’t filibuster” before the caucus met, but people were coming out and saying that anyway. 

Lots of people get upset at Reid for letting the GOP get away with filibusters, but there’s really nothing he can do about that. A while ago mjb explained in comments how successful filibusters work, and I’d encourage anyone interested in the issue to go there and just read what mjb said.

Reid was an idiot for ever trying to block the seating of Burris: if you are going to let the majority party in the Senate block any lawfully selected Senator than you can expect single party rule.

Frankly, I am pretty sick of hearing progressives try to figure out ways to skirt the law when it comes to this, and other issues, they don’t like. After eight years of watching the Republican party try to nuance their way around the laws you’d think we would have learned some lessons about the need for consistency and the rule of law, but no it seems the only lessons some progressives learned is that expediency make right.

If Burris lied under oath, charge him and convict him. If Burris has betrayed the trust of the Senate and the people of Illinois then impeach him. If he’s done neither, and you simply don’t like him, then run against him or vote against him in 2010. This is governance by law and democracy by weather vain and pitchforks.

Gov. Quinn is clean, right?

This seems pretty straightforward , as far as we can tell: Burris swore under oath that he hadn’t made a deal for the appointment, hadn’t even talked to Blago about a deal; now he seems to be saying that he did make a deal.

Since really only Burris and a couple of indicted people know the truth of the matter, it was incredibly stupid for him to either perjure himself and admit it or not perjure himself and then claim that he did. But realistically, the senate didn’t have any grounds for resistance when they had someone legally appointed, with sworn testimony saying the appointment wasn’t the result of a deal, and no testimony at all saying it was.

I don’t care if he stays.  I’d prefer it, actually, as we need all the Democratic votes we can get.

My biggest concern with Burris staying is that it could mean handing the seat to a Republican in 2010.

I realize that even if he sticks around, Burris will wind up getting primaried out by another Democrat in 2010, but I worry that the primary battle could be really ugly and really divisive, and leave the Democratic electorate quite polarized in the state.

I worry that the primary battle could be really ugly and really divisive, and leave the Democratic electorate quite polarized in the state.

Then again, this is what a lot of people said would happen if Obama and Insert Other More “Serious” Dem Candidate Here went head to head in the ‘08 primaries.  And in the end, the opposite ended up being true.

Which isn’t to say that you couldn’t be right.  Just that I don’t think it’s something we can say with any certainty.

I understand the problem with lying under oath and agree that he should not be Senator anymore.  I’m having trouble understanding, though, what it is about talking about whether you’d like a nomination that is immoral or illegal.  There doesn’t seem to be any indication that he agreed to pay for the nomination, or do any special favors.  When I want a position in my company I ask about it.  I talk about it with people who might be making the final decision.  I express my interest.  What’s the deal?

Eileen: He talked to a man who was taking monetary favors for it, and offered to raise funds for said man. Are you so blind that you can’t see the difference here?

Anyway, I’m sick of people who want to blame Democratic leadership for everything - it’s the right-wing media getting what it wants, and our own are complicit in it.  That’s what we really ought to be angry about.

Undercoverage of serious scandals by Conservatives that undermine the character of our country, like, say, torture, and overcoverage of behavior by Liberals that media desperately, desperately want to be majorly scandalous, make me laugh to hear the media called Liberal.

I’m glad that Reid came out against the seating of Burris, even if he couldn’t actually do anything about it.  The Tribune can say what it wants, and good on Jesse for pushing back, but in any event the polling data to date suggests that Democrats as a whole aren’t seen as tainted by any of the Blago scandals.

Fighting aggressively against Blago and his appointments, even if the fight was a losing one, kept the taint from spreading.  I’d rather my Majority Leader look foolish than corrupt.

I love your extended metaphor.

Oh now wait a minute, Jesse. Your first citation from the Tribune was a column by Eric Zorn, and your second was an editorial. The two are not the same at all. Zorn, as a columnist, is entitled to have opinions that differ from the Trib’s unisigned editorials, which speak for the paper as a whole. The Tribune editorials have been consistent in saying Burris never should have been seated.

This is the equivalent of taking something in a New York Times column by David Brooks or Bill Kristol, contrasting it with a Times editorial on the same topic, and claiming that this proves the Times is inconsistent.

(Although God knows I’m not comparing Zorn, whom I greatly admire, to either of those two useless windbags.)

Reid was an idiot for ever trying to block the seating of Burris: if you are going to let the majority party in the Senate block any lawfully selected Senator than you can expect single party rule.

Frankly, I am pretty sick of hearing progressives try to figure out ways to skirt the law when it comes to this, and other issues, they don’t like.

sjk: It’s called keeping your own house in order. Burris was tainted from the get-go, before the allegations of influence-buying came out, and certainly Reid saw it for the big “one last fuck you” from Blagojevich that it was. Or do you seriously think Reid should have gone along with it for… what reason exactly? What possible benefit could he derive from not opposing the seating of a non-elected Senator appointed by a corrupt state governor? Reid’s leadership skills have been under fire for years, since he took over for Daschle.

Fighting aggressively against Blago and his appointments, even if the fight was a losing one, kept the taint from spreading.  I’d rather my Majority Leader look foolish than corrupt.

Well, this is Harry Reid we’re talking about, Neil. I agree with you, but “foolish” is about the best Reid has ever been able to muster. Opposing Burris is literally the least he should have done here.