So BMAZ, examining his appointment and keeping him out is dangerously bad precedent giving the Senate a horrendous power to decide things best left in the hands of a governor … but examining his appointment and expelling him is just good constitutional law, good precedent and a sound method for dealing with the issue?

You’re ludicrous. You make absolutely no sense, legal, moral or practical. If it’s dangerous to give the Senate that power one way, it’s dangerous the other. The court has not addressed this issue, so there’s no existing precedent that would be broken.

thanks. not trying to be an asshole, really do want to understand what seems inexplicable to me.

The court said, “no explanation has been given as to how any rule of the Senate, whether it be formal or merely a matter of tradition, could supercede the authority to fill vacancies conferred on the states by the federal constitution.”

Assuming you mean refer to Senate Rules Committee without seating Burris first, then I completely understand wanting to proceed as you propose, and completely don’t understand what legal basis there is for doing that. Saying Burris is dirty and the transfer of power needs to be delayed while he’s checked out is (to continue the Alice theme of the other thread) very Red Queen: “Verdict first, trial after!”

do i have that right?

because i was thinking that this was in some ways similar to the issue of bush’s hiring and firing of the USAs. yes, he can do it for any reason or no reason – but he can not make the appointment for an improper reason.

doesn’t that apply here? that even if blago can make the appointment, he can’t make if for an improper reason?

I didn’t accuse him of that. See above.

ok. but i don’t think bmaz was out of line to read it as that you had.

p.s. who were you accusing?

We should not stoop to sophistry when doing it right is available from the outset.

Hear, hear.

tanbark:

What is wrong with referring Burris’ appointment to the Senate Rules committee, while the…uhhh…process of deciding about Blago’s fitness to make this appointment moves forward?

Not answering for anyone but myself, there is nothing wrong with any investigation at all so long as the lawfully appointed Senator is seated first. The Senate can then immediately expel him, as they are Constitutionally entitled to do if a 2/3 majority is available, but there is no legal basis to refuse to seat him in the first place. We mess around with the law of transfer of power at our great peril.

And one more time; some more sentimental mush:

What is wrong with referring Burris’ appointment to the Senate Rules committee, while the…uhhh…process of deciding about Blago’s fitness to make this appointment moves forward?

And just to make it easy on the legalists, here’s the answer again:

What’s wrong with it is that the people pushing Burris know damn well that if they get this done in about a Chicago minute, they won’t be able to do it at all.

Let’s put it this way. If Burris is sitting in the waiting room of the Senate Rules committee when Blago is removed from office, how many posts will be we be seeing telling us that “rule of law” is being gang-raped by Reid and the Senate Huns? :o)

As to Amar and Chafetz, I am familiar with their argument. It is effectively the same one I described as propounded by Jack Balkin back when this long national nightmare was started by the mendacious and politically self serving Harry Reid. I compared and contrasted to the counter argument of Scott lemieux, which I found far more compelling, and still do. Frankly, Amar and Chafetz have such a sense that they are on weak ground that they, themselves, suggest that their weak tea on Powell v. McCormack be backed up by a sense of the Senate resolution of expulsion. As I have repeatedly said, the seating and expulsion is the way to attack this. Why fuck around with bastardizing, contorting and twisting a bunch of precedent, setting bad precedent for the future and tying up time and effort in the courts and creating an ugly scene when you can just do it right to start with. For this reason, among all the others I have previously stated since this imbroglio started, I find, as i believe the majority of people studying this issue have that Reid’s position is wrong.

We should not stoop to sophistry when doing it right is available from the outset.