Reid and the other Senators have no right to keep Burris out

[GreenInNC]

I am not sticking up for what Blago did in regards to his plans to sell Obama's seat but he was entirely within his rights and the law to appoint Burris to the seat and Reid does not have any standing to deny Burris his place in the Senate.

If Reid and the other Dems do not want him in the Senate, let them expel him in a manner that is prescribed by law.

[Libertyfirst]

1. I agree with you. However, the Senate has always been the final judge of a

a members right to be seated. For instance, early on they seated senators who had not reached the required constitutional age of 30.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. LOL!

I guess we shall see what "the law" is on this issue after Burris's lawsuit goes forward.

I will offer that Burris must be a real piece of work if he would ACCEPT a nomination from Blago for this seat after all that has happened. Any appointment by Blago is radioactive now. What did Burris pay or promise in return for the Senate seat?

[exboyfil]

3. I think you are right but it creates a problem in

holding the seat for the Democrats. Burris should have publically refused the appointment by saying that he wants to be Senator, but not at the risk of giving Blago political cover. I would think any politician who goes along with Blago should be a pariah. The Illinois state Democrats should be getting an alternative ready to run in 2010 and give absolutely no support to Burris.

[madrchsod]

7. we have a number of fine democrats to run in 2010

the problem is we do not have a senator now and in the foreseeable future. blago is`t going to resign anytime soon so my state will not have a senator and the the senate will have a vacant democratic seat. the the democratic leadership in the senate will have to promise moderate republicans the moon when they need their votes.

[malaise]

4. You are correct

Reid may open himself up to some scrutiny from his own party. I'm not sure he can handle that.

[rateyes]

5. No need to worry. If Reid says he won't be seated....

it stands to reason that he will be seated.

[dems_rightnow]

10. LOL

Ain't that the truth.

[Gman]

6. I respectfully disagree

the Senate is the sole judge of it's members qualifications and they can decide what the qualifications are since they are the sole judge.

That is all.

[dems_rightnow]

12. The Supreme Court respectfully disagrees. N/T

[WeDidIt]

13. Sorry, but the only case the SCOTUS ever ruled on involved an election

The SCOTUS has never ruled on a case where a governor appointed a successor and the Congress refused to seat.

[dems_rightnow]

14. I agree that it's different in that respect

Just not that it's different enough. Having acquired the position properly and as set out in law is enough. I wish he'd turned it down, but I think he's going to get seated.... because it's the right and legal thing.

[WeDidIt]

21. The appointment is tainted

and in that respect, it is completely different.

[frogcycle]

16. actually, that is not all

"When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."


http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am17.html

[machI]

8. Senator Reid should keep Burris out

This will set the precedence for keeping Norm Coleman out should he find some way of stealing the election from Al Franken.

Having a Democrat from Minnesota for six years is more important than having a Democrat from Illinois for two years.

[nevergiveup]

9. Burris would not have a chance in hell

of being re-elected here in Illinois if he does manage to be seated. The taint from Blago will doom him. I have never seen a politician as despised across the political spectrum as Blago. Illinois also has a history of electing moderate Republican governors and senators. I hope Obama, Durbin and Reid hold tight on their positions.

[WeDidIt]

11. The Senate has just not the right, but the DUTY

to expel any member they deem to be tainted.

Burris may be seated if the SCOTUS says the Senate must seat him in a ruling over Burris v. Reid, but they will expel him about five minutes afterwards.

[AZ Criminal JD]

20. No they won't

They won't get 67 votes to expel the only African-American Senator who has no personal "taint" on him. Dream on.

[WeDidIt]

22. Yes, they will

REpublicans will see this as a clear opportunity to pick up a Senate seat they would have no chance at otherwise.

[AZ Criminal JD]

24. If that were true then Repubicans would vote to keep him

And run a candidate against a weakened Burris in 2010.

[sam sarrha]

15. HE will get rich.!! more millionaires in the senate per capita than anywhere else, and what kind of

person would accept an appointment by Blago.. well maybe another sociopath or psychopath from Blago club..??

[gratuitous]

17. Why is Reid fighting the seating of Burris?

After all, Joe Lieberman still has all his committee assignments, seniority, and caucuses with the Democrats. And Lieberman campaigned for McCain and Palin! If Lieberman's acceptable to Reid, I can't for the life of me understand why Burris would cause Harry to suddenly get all concerned about appearances and the dignity of the Senate.

[EFerrari]

19. Because no one seems to think he can win an election.

He can't even win primaries. Imho, that's the real issue here.

[cliffordu]

18. Every time Reid stamps his little feet I wish he'd retire.

He is as forceful as a bunny.

[MiniMe]

23. Apparently, all 50 Dem Senators and Obama agree with this

I would like to hear what Durbin has to say about this since he is the other Illinois Senator. This has nothing to do with Burris, it has to do with Blago. Reid can't do this by himself.