Seat Burris

The appointment of Roland Burris to the US Senate by dirtbag governor Rod Blowjobovich is becoming a most unfortunate piece of awful political theater. Unfortunate because, by all accounts, Burris is a good guy and a good politician and would be a valuable member of the Senate, but he is now and for the foreseeable future attached in the public mind to Governor Blago.

But it is this false attachment that is the problem. By seating Burris, the Senate acknowledges his credentials and qualifications, and denies that he is connected to Blago at all. Sure, he gets to make the appointment, but in light of what's coming his way, big friggin deal. The glow won't last.

And then there's the small matter of what's legal and constitutional. From a NY Times op-ed:

The Constitution’s text is simple enough: “Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.” Since no one disputes that Mr. Burris, a former Illinois attorney general, possesses the constitutional qualifications of age, residency and citizenship, the remaining issue is whether the Senate can adjudge Mr. Burris not to have been properly appointed. Although federal prosecutors are seeking a corruption indictment of Mr. Blagojevich, he is in fact still the governor. The charges that he sought bribes to appoint certain candidates to the Senate do not automatically render illegal other official acts of his office like signing laws or pardoning criminals. And because there is no evidence that a bribe was solicited from, or proffered by, Mr. Burris, his appointment is presumptively lawful.

Seating Burris is unquestionably within the law. Not seating him, not so much. This whole thing is an unnecessary distraction and should be brought to a swift and decisive end by the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/opinion/07dellinger.html?_r=1