Burris appointment valid, Illinois high court says

[goodhue]

Source: CNN

Burris appointment valid, Illinois high court says

(CNN) -- Illinois' highest court on Friday validated the appointment of Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat, ruling that the Illinois secretary of state does not have to sign off on it.

The court's opinion states that "no further action is required by the Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor's appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under Illinois law."



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/09/burris.senate/

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

1. So we can put this to rest now, right?

Right?

[goodhue]

4. I hope so

Presuming Burris is seated

[barb162]

21. Wrong

It's really getting on my nerves now.
These games about whether it has to be signed by the Secretary of State .....

[goodhue]

2. here is link to opinion

http://www.state.il.us/COURT/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2009/January/107816.pdf

[Number23]

3. Well, there you have it...

[struggle4progress]

5. So the opinion of the Court, by which Burris loses his case, will apparently win him his seat

[Piewhacket]

6. nicely said, but not necessarily..

there is still the question of whether the Senate
will seat Burris.

if the Senate doesn't seat Burris its going to get very interesting.
if they do seat him, then yawn...

[struggle4progress]

8. "... analysis of the 'textual commitment' under Art. I, § 5 (see 395 U. S. B(1)), has demonstrated

that, in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution ..."
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)
Argued April 21, 1969
Decided June 16, 1969
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/case.html

The decision, in Powell v. McCormack, appears to cleanly delimit the grounds, upon which Congress may refuse to administer the oath to a person for a House or Senate seat, to narrow technical grounds, such as the actual validity of the presented credentials or the person's constitutional eligibility to serve: in the case of Burris, the state Supreme Court decision clears the credentials question and constitutional eligibility is not in doubt

[Piewhacket]

11. Let us reason together...

First, Powell v. McCormack was a decision concerning an ELECTED representative.
Correct?

Secondly, stare decisis is not actually a rule, it more like a guideline.
Don't you agree?

Thirdly, the Senate has the right to "determine the rules of its proceedings,
punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds,
expel a member."
That is so, is it not?

Now imagine you are a Senator and knew to certainty the appointment
was corrupt, that is, obtained through bribery (but not involving the
appointee himself). And the Gov, in a last act of defiance as his
flaming political craft crashes into a mountain, makes the appointment.
At his last press conference the gov gives the finger to you personally
in the senate. "And F*ck Sen. Goodietwoshoes Struggle4progress!", he
screams into the microphone.

Would you, in light of the mortal insult and notwithstanding Powell v. McCormack,
be prepared to object to the seating of the appointee? Remember, Powell was kept
out for two years (I watched this deal unfold, btw. yup, i saw it go down).
How long do you think Senators might keep the appointee out, even with the law against
them, assuming they were determined?

[struggle4progress]

12. I will not speculate whether the high Court might overturn its own ruling: the lower courts,

however, are unlikely to do so, since the interpretation "in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution" seems to be the current state of the law

Whether Burris were appointed or elected seems beside the case, insofar as the people of Illinois are entitled to representation, insofar as the Illinois law providing for appointment appears to be consistent with the Constitution and is the method that Illinois itself chose for filling such vacancy, and insofar as the state's highest court has declared Burris to be properly the person qualified as junior Senator of that state

Speaking personally, I will add that over the years so many people have saluted me with one finger, that I am by now really rather indifferent to the gesture, except as a possible warning signal of further loutish behavior

[Piewhacket]

13. Well then, there you go...

Because the court didn't declare anybody anything. It simply held that the
petitioner was not entitled to an order commanding the SOS
to sign the appointment.

It also pointed out that if further proof were needed
that illinois law provided the additional mechanism for proving the
appointment without need of judicial intervention.

In other words, the court said, basically "No" and further, "Go away".

I might also mention, Senator Struggle4progress, that the high court of illinos
has no authority to compel You, or other senators, to recognize the appointment.

So as you seem to admit/agree the US high court may, if the senate gets obstructive,
get to review the state of the law, to decide if the law should be revised, refined,
or clarified based on the case before it, perhaps to decide whether an appointment
is sufficiently "beside the case", or not, from an election where the the taint of
a candidates past infirmities may be absolved and washed away by the voters.

In the meanwhile, how long can the putative appointee be left cooling his heels?
And further, we might wonder, even if seated how effective will he be for illinois?

[struggle4progress]

14. I doubt most of that: if you actually read the Illinois court decision,

the court declares Burris properly appointed according to state law and actually tells him how to obtain a copy of his credentials affixed with the state seal which the SOS had refused to affix

And so far as SCOTUS is concerned, there seems to be little issue concerning the ILCS:

Amendment 17 ... 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/const.html#Am17

10 ILCS 5 ARTICLE 25. RESIGNATIONS AND VACANCIES
Sec. 25‑8. When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress, at which time such vacancy shall be filled by election, and the senator so elected shall take office as soon thereafter as he shall receive his certificate of election ... http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=001000050HArt.+25&ActID=170&ChapAct=10%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=3&ChapterName=ELECTIONS&SectionID=36731&SeqStart=86900000&SeqEnd=88100000&ActName=Election+Code

[Piewhacket]

15. Awww... You're citing dicta, and ducking main arguments.

Does that mean you give up?
Focus, my friend. The struggle 4 progress is not advanced by
running in circles.

The part where they discussed the validity of the appointment
appears to be commentary, not essential to the holding. See it?

Actually, it looks like Burris ( a former AG) forgot to ask the
court for a declaration that he was the legitimate appointee!
Hoooooo-haaaa! The mad bungling fool (no offense) So the court slipped it in by
way of comment. There is a grand tradition, I am told, of respectfully
ignoring such babblings.

Anyway, since you ducked my central point (twice) I'll cut to the chase.
Post decision Assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-IL), (who is the
senior senator from Illinois BTW, and is afforded some deference on this issue,
you may be sure) announced that he and other senators are insisting on
adherence to the rule in place since the 1870s which has never been excepted,
and that the Senate will not seat Burris without the approval of Illinois Secretary
of State Jesse White, and White refuses to afix his signature.
Durbin said this afternoon the Senate "must insist" on its rule.

So there is your impasse, as I was discussing might well happen.
So whatcha figure will happen next?

[struggle4progress]

16. (1) In fairness to Durbin (2) Burris gets OK (3) Senate leadership reviewing

In fairness to Durbin
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3682980&mesg_id=3683207

Burris gets OK
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3683071&mesg_id=3683071

Senate leadership reviewing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3683071&mesg_id=3683091

[Piewhacket]

19. Good post . Alas, Burris not "OK'd" by White,

White still refuses to sign the Senate form. In any event,
what hubris makes anyone think a State Court can order around
the US Senate? (me wonders to myself out loud - even though my
Godfather repeatedly told me never to let them know what I was
thinking - probably why I never got to be Don, eh? but you're
DU "family" so its probably ok this once)

Your quotes and argument are otherwise well taken but they overlook
the essential and rather critical fact that Durbin and his senate
colleagues decide what senate rules are, not us.
And Senators still say the credentials are not in order.
So far Burris is not seated.

Aside:
Frankly, debate aside, this is actually a very BAD scenerio, and no
good answer to the crisis created by that idiot Blago.
The Burris appointment is troubling, as is Burris
accepting and pressing it. Many agree. It is a matter of
principle which transcends political advantage for democrats, and
which is ripe for political exploitation by republicans. It is a
democratic disaster denigrating a historic election. Repukes are
laughing at democrate discomfort. Burris is NOT winning no friends
by his path. I predict a persistent opposition to seating Burris.
Burris should withdraw.

[struggle4progress]

20. Durbin: Legal Maneuver may Get Burris Into Senate (WBEZ)

... When the U.S. Senate prevented Burris from entering, they cited the fact that Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White hadn't signed the appointment papers. He still hasn't and says he won't.

And yesterday, the Illinois Supreme Court decided White doesn't need to because Governor Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to the Senate is valid. In light of that ruling, attorneys for Burris went to the secretary of state's office and obtained a copy of Blagojevich's original appointment. They also got a second piece of paper from White, a certificate saying simply that the copy is a true and accurate copy.

That certificate is signed by White. Burris' attorneys are touting that signature even though it's not on the right piece of paper. Senator Durbin is the assistant majority leader in the Senate. He says the move by Burris may be enough to satisfy the Senate, though he stresses Senate lawyers will have to review it.

http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=31369

[Piewhacket]

23. Maybe.The Senate decides what its rules are...

there is still resistance, and even further objections could arise.
(so return to post #5 starting this exchange.)
The senior senator of his state, Illinois, of his own party, and
a party leader in the senate, Sen Durbin, has shown personal opposition.
That is very serious, you better believe it.

Its not about Burris, as we all know, but Burris tries to make it so.
The Illinois House has spoken 114-1 on impeaching the appointing
authority. Senate trial of the Gov to begin Jan 26. Two thirds
vote is required in the State Senate (has 59 members, so 40 votes needed)
to impeach Blago.

Blago will be timely tried and removed. If he is not removed his LATER appointment
of Burris would be accepted. If Blago is removed, as is likely,
the Lt gov will ascend, and his new appointment would be accepted
(even if it was Burris). There is time to proceed alternatively to
the present course.

This is OBAMA's Senate seat following a historic election. The appointing
authority has disgraced himself by at least the appearance of corruption
with respect to this very appointment (and other matters). In this circumstance Burris'
persistence and egocentric self-aggrandizement do not cover him with glory,
or favorably distinguish him. Burris has the power and should end this
confrontation by withdrawing to permit an untainted process of
appointment. That is what is best for the country.

[marshall]

9. Now the Secretary of State has to sign off on it

The appointment may be valid, but in order to be seated he must have credentials that include the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State.

[goodhue]

10. No, the IL Supreme Court ruled that IL Secretary of State did not have to sign

But they noted that the Secretary of State's office did have to provide certified copy with state seal.
Which presumably would suffice to meet US Senate Rule II.

[damntexdem]

7. That should do it.

The Senate Dems have postured enough -- everyone knows they don't approve of Blago; and Blago may soon be gone, anyway. Hello, Sen. Burris!

[w4rma]

17. Congress is federal and is a different branch. This ruling really has no power over Congress.

Sorry, Blago supporters. This will have to move to the federal courts.

[No Elephants]

18. That the Senate excluded Burris from the procession is a disgrace. So is trying to

make him promise that he will not run when Obama's Senate term expires. NOTHING gives the Senate the power to try to take that decision from the candidate and/or from the voters. This whole thing was shameful.

[barb162]

22. Burris should be seated, that's all there is to it.

[Piewhacket]

24. Burris should withdraw. Simple.

see
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3682327&mesg_id=3683892

[barb162]

25. The governor is still the governor and he still has the appointing power.

And Burris is well qualified.

[Piewhacket]

26. The govenor has been impeached 114 to 1,

and his removal will occur in prompt due course. The
appointing authority has been tainted by charges of corruption
with respect to the same office... the appointment is TAINTED...

Burris is a damn fool, narcissistic and politically deaf
to have tried this. Even if he is seated he will be a pariah,
unless the taint is removed (by one of several ways I suggested).

He should withdraw. For the good of the country. In respect for
the historic election of Barack Obama. WTF is he doing???
Its a miserable outcome, whatever happens now. He should withdraw.

I'm a democrat, pretty cynical too, but I'm humiliated by this.
If my own state was without sin I'd throw a rock at illinois
asking them to please clean house. Alas,

Politics sometimes sucks, eh?