in the face of opposition.....in the face of the people of ILL saying they wanted a special election....the ILL AG saying no way will he sponsor....Harry (rollover) Reid stating there will be no seating of ANY candidate appointed by the slug Blago......and now mysteriously (although not really) Burris is going to get the Senate seat.

It is the lawyers who have once again prevailed by either using, abusing or hiding behind the letter of the law....it may not be right but it ain't illegal and.......What they were all counting on and did not get disappointed was the total lack of response from we the people.

Just visualize the thug/slug Blago with a big eating grin on his face giving the thumbs up (at least on the hand you can see).

Politics in action....say a lot do nothing....break the law....no matter it was one of the governing select few....and by all means what we the people?

BTK

I wholeheartedly agree with you BTK! Blago is a thug and a punk. Never could stand him when I lived in Chicago.

And, Harry Reid was just on Meet the Press on Sunday and swore up and down he would never seat Burris! What's that all about!

Shameful.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

I wholeheartedly agree with you BTK! Blago is a thug and a punk. Never could stand him when I lived in Chicago.

And, Harry Reid was just on Meet the Press on Sunday and swore up and down he would never seat Burris! What's that all about!

Shameful.

Again, it is JUST THE BEGINNING of politics with no restrictions on them whatsoever !!!! They can, and will, do whatever they want and it will be blessed or overlooked by the press and folks who blindly support this kind of foolishness !

And remember this seating was done ONLY AFTER THE PRESIDENT ELECT MADE IT HAPPEN !!!!!!1

C'mon, Bucco. Give me a reference wherein President-elect Obama recommended the seating of Burris in the Senate--"made it happen", as you say.

I hate to say that everyone was outsmarted by the punk, crook Illinois governor, but that's the way it appears. What it boils down to is this...

• The Illinois Secretary of State has no legal authority to block an appointment made by the governor. His role is simply to verify the governor's signature and his legal authority to make the appointment, neither of which is in question. He is a sitting governor and at this point is not the subject of any criminal proceeding or indictment. Also, as the result of the Illinois Supreme Court refusing to hear a case alleging the governor's inability to perform, he is judged to be competent, as well.

• The U.S. Senate itself has no legal authority to refuse to seat a properly-nominated nominee of a state governor. They have procedures and rules wherein they can slow the seating down, but in the end they will be required to seat Burris. This is the opinion of virtually every lawyer who has been questioned or interviewed on the question.

• The President of the U.S. has no role whatsoever in the choice or seating of members of Congress. In this case, it's not even the President, but the President-Elect. He surely has no authority or means to force the seating of a U.S. Senator.

If you want to be critical of a party whose actions or inactions are resulting in the seating of Roland Burris, blame the Illinois legislature. They chose not to pass a bill requiring that the replacement of Barack Obama be the result of an open election. It was a Democratic legislature and it's pretty clear they made that decision in order to avoid any chance that a Republican replacement would be selected--however remote that chance would be in Illinois. Once they made that decision, Roland Burris was going to eventually be seted in the U.S. Senate--period. As many parties as wanted to make statements on whether or not Burris would be seated, but no one has any legal standing to prevent it.

So if you want to blame someone, at least blame the right party. It was the Illinois legislature who is responsible, not President-elect Obama!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

C'mon, Bucco. Give me a reference wherein President-elect Obama recommended the seating of Burris in the Senate--"made it happen", as you say.

I hate to say that everyone was outsmarted by the punk, crook Illinois governor, but that's the way it appears. What it boils down to is this...

• The Illinois Secretary of State has no legal authority to block an appointment made by the governor. His role is simply to verify the governor's signature and his legal authority to make the appointment, neither of which is in question. He is a sitting governor and at this point is not the subject of any criminal proceeding or indictment. Also, as the result of the Illinois Supreme Court refusing to hear a case alleging the governor's inability to perform, he is judged to be competent, as well.

• The U.S. Senate itself has no legal authority to refuse to seat a properly-nominated nominee of a state governor. They have procedures and rules wherein they can slow the seating down, but in the end they will be required to seat Burris. This is the opinion of virtually every lawyer who has been questioned or interviewed on the question.

• The President of the U.S. has no role whatsoever in the choice or seating of members of Congress. In this case, it's not even the President, but the President-Elect. He surely has no authority or means to force the seating of a U.S. Senator.

If you want to be critical of a party whose actions or inactions are resulting in the seating of Roland Burris, blame the Illinois legislature. They chose not to pass a bill requiring that the replacement of Barack Obama be the result of an open election. It was a Democratic legislature and it's pretty clear they made that decision in order to avoid any chance that a Republican replacement would be selected--however remote that chance would be in Illinois. Once they made that decision, Roland Burris was going to eventually be seted in the U.S. Senate--period. As many parties as wanted to make statements on whether or not Burris would be seated, but no one has any legal standing to prevent it.

So if you want to blame someone, at least blame the right party. It was the Illinois legislature who is responsible, not President-elect Obama!

Will look for a link in writing, but was widely reported on just about all the news channels as, not necessarily a fact, but basically from Obama spokespeople who did not want to be named. Basiclly that President Elect Obama did not want the in fighting that may occur. Secondly, who do you think convinced Sen Reid to back peddle so much ? I mean give me a good reason for such a dramatic turn around by this guy.

As far as the governor is concerned....he will do basically what he wants for awhile until he gets a settlement he wants. You have got to be aware that he knows quite a bit about Illinois politics and NOBODY will do anything he does not allow to happen. I think he knows he is out but he will go out on his terms...my opinion..nothing to back it up,but the DRAMATIC turnaround by national figures is simply amazing !

I realize you are a strong supporter and advocate of President Elect Obama and that is fine with me, but you are always very astute as evidenced by your posts. He has not been sworn in yet.....congress backpedals on Burris...wipe out the fairness doctrine and so on.....this is NOT what he promised in his campaign and I fully realize that he is not DIRECTLY involved but you are smart enough to know that right now, NOTHING..NOTHING happens within that party that he does not ok.

The concerns I tried to express here during the campaign, to me are just being reinforced, intensified..not alleviated. This is going to be quite a ride, and I might add to you KAHUANA...you always want to blame the ills of the world on the current administration and IGNORE when it is pointed out how this democratic controlled congress totally disregarded all the warnings about the economy in the last two years....made fun of the President on SS and now accept that there is a problem. I do not, in any way, alleviate any Republican involvment in any of the shenanigans in WASH, but why the press and folks like you ignore the players the last two years...the heads of committees, and so on...THAT I just do not understand. Your intent to make the Republican party the party of evil and President Elect Obama as the saviour is just plain counter to some of the well thought out posts you make.

Bucco, I think you identified the reason for the "backpedaling" on Clark Burris. No one--the President Elect or the Congressional leaders--wanted a lot of time and political energy wasted on debating the seating of a single Senator. I suppose that's particularly true when the person involved seems to have a good reputation among both parties, on the state as well as national level. There's a clear recognition that however much political energy exists needs to be spent on the creation and passage of economic stimulus legislation that is acceptable to the largest number of members of both the House and Senate. I don't think any more should be read into this situation than that.

As far as looking around and trying to determine which persons or which political parties are responsible for the situation the country finds itself in at present, to me that seems to be a gigantic waste of time. I'm willing to specify that many people in both political parties took positions, made statements and made decisions that lead us directly into the current dire circumstances. And they did so over at leat a decade and during times when both political parties were in the majority in Congress. I beleive it is far more important for the American public to look forward, making every attempt to understand the complex and difficult problems facing the country, and make every effort to understand how the solutions being developed and offered by the new administration can work.

What is more important in my mind--far more important by a wide margin--is the need for the American public to come together, just as their elected representatives will have to do, to support our new President and the administration he has selected. That administration will be formulating plans, making decisions and encouraging legislation which will be the only way that many of the critical fiscal and social problems that face us can be solved.

Yes, I supported Barack Obama in his candidacy for President. I support him now and I will continue to support his administration as they take the steps to solve the problems we all know exist. I hope and pray he is successful. But if it ever becomes clear after a period of time that his administration's leadership is failing to lead the country in a positive direction, I will not hesitate to make my voice heard encouraging yet more change. I hope everyone else will agree to do the same.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Bucco, I think you identified the reason for the "backpedaling" on Clark Burris. No one--the President Elect or the Congressional leaders--wanted a lot of time and political energy wasted on debating the seating of a single Senator. I suppose that's particularly true when the person involved seems to have a good reputation among both parties, on the state as well as national level. There's a clear recognition that however much political energy exists needs to be spent on the creation and passage of economic stimulus legislation that is acceptable to the largest number of members of both the House and Senate. I don't think any more should be read into this situation than that.

As far as looking around and trying to determine which persons or which political parties are responsible for the situation the country finds itself in at present, to me that seems to be a gigantic waste of time. I'm willing to specify that many people in both political parties took positions, made statements and made decisions that lead us directly into the current dire circumstances. And they did so over at leat a decade and during times when both political parties were in the majority in Congress. I beleive it is far more important for the American public to look forward, making every attempt to understand the complex and difficult problems facing the country, and make every effort to understand how the solutions being developed and offered by the new administration can work.

What is more important in my mind--far more important by a wide margin--is the need for the American public to come together, just as their elected representatives will have to do, to support our new President and the administration he has selected. That administration will be formulating plans, making decisions and encouraging legislation which will be the only way that many of the critical fiscal and social problems that face us can be solved.

Yes, I supported Barack Obama in his candidacy for President. I support him now and I will continue to support his administration as they take the steps to solve the problems we all know exist. I hope and pray he is successful. But if it ever becomes clear after a period of time that his administration's leadership is failing to lead the country in a positive direction, I will not hesitate to make my voice heard encouraging yet more change. I hope everyone else will agree to do the same.

1. Why you now find it acceptable to seat this man from Illinois I dont understand. Why should we listen to our majority leader at all anymore. He was MORE THAN specfic as the leader of the senate that it was not going to happen. The man was named by a corrupt gov who pulled every race card in the book when he named them. So in your mind a call from Obama makes it ok....so we dont waste a lot of energy ???? Gee...hope this new administration does not use that kind of logic on international affairs, etc.,

2. You say it is a waste of time blaming anyone but you have done it ON HERE MANYTIMES. And never have you responded to the leaders of congress telling us for the last 4 years that there were no problems. Instead you applaud our "new leadership"!!!

3. I hope the new President suceeds as well..he is also my president, in my history I cannot recall such political rancor WITH ONE PARTY...such utter politics being played before even being sworn in. How can one have a positive attitude for the future.

You have your right to support who you want and I do enjoy reading your posts, but you are totally one sided with this new administration as if they can wipe away all the sins of those who run the congress !

C'mon, Bucco. Give me a reference wherein President-elect Obama recommended the seating of Burris in the Senate--"made it happen", as you say.
__________________________________________________ ______


"WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats beat a hasty retreat Wednesday from their rejection of Roland Burris as President-elect Barack Obama's successor, yielding to pressure from Obama himself and from senators irked that the standoff was draining attention and putting them in a bad light. Burris said with a smile he expected to join them "very shortly."
"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090108/.../senate_burris


And then this.....

"Principle doesn't seem to have much staying power in the freshly minted Democratic Senate. Blow on a principled position with a little rhetoric and a puff of political downside and whoosh, it collapses

But by Wednesday, Reid was busy paving the way for Burris to join the Senate club — apparently with Obama's blessing."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/...rats-wimp.html

Thanks, Bucco, for the news references. But they say pretty much what I pointed out earlier.

In the AP article it wqs reported that, "(Senate Majority Leader) Reid was told by Obama that if Burris had the legal standing to be seated — despite controversy surrounding his appointment by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich — it should be done "sooner rather than later..."

The other article, from the Opinion page of USA Today, written by an author specifically opposing the Burris appointment, said "Burris' supporters assert that the Senate has no legal justification for refusing to seat him. But Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution unequivocally makes each house of Congress "the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members."

Regarding the law that governs the seating of new members of either the House or Senate, there are more rules, laws and common law that applies in addition to the Constitutional reference cited. From all that I've read, most legal scholars have concluded that it would be impossible for the Senate to block the seating of Clark Burris, given that he had been legally appointed by a sitting state governor.

While I have nothing against Clark Burris, I am offended that the corrupt governor of Illinois has outsmarted everyone else involved in this sad situation. But given all the facts available, I can still understand the reversal in statements by both President-elect Obama and Harry Reid. I'm sure they'd like to have their initial statements back, but I also think that they've concluded that Burris will eventually be seated, so wasting a lot of political energy on delaying the inevitable would not be in anyone's best interest.

No one will argue, I think, that there aren't a lot more important issues facing the Senate and the House than spending any significant time and energy delaying the seating of a replacement Senator which was eventually going to happen anyway.

Critics of Obama and Reid can interpret the same facts that I've cited anyway they wish. I'm sure I'm not going to change their minds, as they are not likely to change mine.