As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Rod Blagojevich: in ur senate, sellin ur seats

1468910

Posts

  • DraygoDraygo Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thats just what Obama has been saying all along... nothing really new there.

    They did that conference all wrong, should not have let the reporters ask any questions. If you are going to do something stupid, do not allow people to point it out publically.

    Draygo on
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I've been seeing more Blago apologists popping up lately on the internets.

    Why? Is it the hair?

    Savant on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Savant wrote: »
    I've been seeing more Blago apologists popping up lately on the internets.

    Why? Is it the hair?

    Cynicism over what they think politics is usually like. The whole Kinsleyan gaffe sort of thing, just taken to an extreme.

    moniker on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Obama wrote:
    Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by the the lawfully elected governor who as part of his duties is responsible for filling the vacancy despite being accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office before he is convicted of anything and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place while we wave due process and ignore the fact legally he can appoint anyone he wants. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, but only after he has been convicted in the court of public opinion, and lost his job, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy, unfortunately the only way to actually provide that would be to banish anyone elected to a public office in the last 100 years to a small volcanic island.

    Fixed.

    Detharin on
  • Alchemist449Alchemist449 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    Obama wrote:
    Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by the the lawfully elected governor who as part of his duties is responsible for filling the vacancy despite being accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office before he is convicted of anything and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place while we wave due process and ignore the fact legally he can appoint anyone he wants. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, but only after he has been convicted in the court of public opinion, and lost his job, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy, unfortunately the only way to actually provide that would be to banish anyone elected to a public office in the last 100 years to a small volcanic island.

    Fixed.

    What did Hawaii do to you?

    Alchemist449 on
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It is causing problems with a certain prophecy, everything was all on track for the reemergence of Mu the dark legions await their return. The elder gods were kept sleeping, Atlantis was sunk, The Cubs have been prevented from winning the world series for the proscribed century. Everything had been taken care of but NO we had to have a 50th state.

    So before where the prophecy stated (loose translated)

    In when the Eagle rises after the 4th war
    Her colonies shall number the seventh sign times the seventh sign
    From the depths her balance shall emerge
    And usher in the time of woe.

    Now everything is out of whack. Fuck Hawaii.

    Detharin on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff YouRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    It is causing problems with a certain prophecy, everything was all on track for the reemergence of Mu the dark legions await their return. The elder gods were kept sleeping, Atlantis was sunk, The Cubs have been prevented from winning the world series for the proscribed century. Everything had been taken care of but NO we had to have a 50th state.

    So before where the prophecy stated (loose translated)

    In when the Eagle rises after the 4th war
    Her colonies shall number the seventh sign times the seventh sign
    From the depths her balance shall emerge
    And usher in the time of woe.

    Now everything is out of whack. Fuck Hawaii.

    well technically, it was 49 for a good while..

    (my favorite one of interest is the curse of Tippecanoe)

    FyreWulff on
  • matisyahumatisyahu Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    This is all so surreal to me. Burris said "I don't look upon the governor's problems as my problems. I look at the governor's problems as his problems," either not realizing or ignoring the fact that the GOVERNORS PROBLEMS INVOLVE THE VERY SENATE SEAT HE'S BEEN APPOINTED TO. His speech at the presser was just totally bizarre, talking about this important time in our nation's history and all, instead of starting out with "OK I know this is totally insane but hear me out" like he should have. I've never in my life had such a strong sense of the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    And then this Bobby Rush guy, God, it's like these three morons met in a room and agreed that "well, if we make this a race issue, we can't lose! It will be politically impossible for them to oppose a black man!" He gave an interview threatening a comparison between the senate and segregationists in 1950s Arkansas, and it's all like "well I don't think they want to be like that, now do they" as if HE'S somehow got the upper hand. This is so fucking weird.

    matisyahu on
    i dont even like matisyahu and i dont know why i picked this username
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    matisyahu wrote: »
    This is all so surreal to me. Burris said "I don't look upon the governor's problems as my problems. I look at the governor's problems as his problems," either not realizing or ignoring the fact that the GOVERNORS PROBLEMS INVOLVE THE VERY SENATE SEAT HE'S BEEN APPOINTED TO. His speech at the presser was just totally bizarre, talking about this important time in our nation's history and all, instead of starting out with "OK I know this is totally insane but hear me out" like he should have. I've never in my life had such a strong sense of the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

    And then this Bobby Rush guy, God, it's like these three morons met in a room and agreed that "well, if we make this a race issue, we can't lose! It will be politically impossible for them to oppose a black man!" He gave an interview threatening a comparison between the senate and segregationists in 1950s Arkansas, and it's all like "well I don't think they want to be like that, now do they" as if HE'S somehow got the upper hand. This is so fucking weird.

    Yeah even if that would have worked in the past, they've got one tiny flaw in their messaging. It's pretty hard to call the first black President a racist.

    Honestly, these are supposed to be professional politicians.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    It is causing problems with a certain prophecy, everything was all on track for the reemergence of Mu the dark legions await their return. The elder gods were kept sleeping, Atlantis was sunk, The Cubs have been prevented from winning the world series for the proscribed century. Everything had been taken care of but NO we had to have a 50th state.

    So before where the prophecy stated (loose translated)

    In when the Eagle rises after the 4th war
    Her colonies shall number the seventh sign times the seventh sign
    From the depths her balance shall emerge
    And usher in the time of woe.

    Now everything is out of whack. Fuck Hawaii.

    well technically, it was 49 for a good while..

    (my favorite one of interest is the curse of Tippecanoe)

    Well now, if we say Washington is the capitol, there are 49 dependent colonies.

    Demiurge on
    DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
  • EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    I've been seeing more Blago apologists popping up lately on the internets.

    Why? Is it the hair?

    Maybe because the investigators didn't do a good enough job? I seriously think they should of waited till money was exchanged before they arrested him. But I'm not Judge Dredd so what do I know.

    Emanon on
    Treats Animals Right!
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Emanon wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    I've been seeing more Blago apologists popping up lately on the internets.

    Why? Is it the hair?

    Maybe because the investigators didn't do a good enough job? I seriously think they should of waited till money was exchanged before they arrested him. But I'm not Judge Dredd so what do I know.

    ...you...you do realize that he was arrested primarily due to things other than the Senate seat, yes? That he's been under investigation for 5 years and has lead to dozens of other people being arrested who are going to testify against him?

    moniker on
  • EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Emanon wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    I've been seeing more Blago apologists popping up lately on the internets.

    Why? Is it the hair?

    Maybe because the investigators didn't do a good enough job? I seriously think they should of waited till money was exchanged before they arrested him. But I'm not Judge Dredd so what do I know.

    ...you...you do realize that he was arrested primarily due to things other than the Senate seat, yes? That he's been under investigation for 5 years and has lead to dozens of other people being arrested who are going to testify against him?

    We shall see. I just hope we won't be tried in L.A.

    Emanon on
    Treats Animals Right!
  • SaraLunaSaraLuna Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Well now, if we say Washington is the capitol, there are 49 dependent colonies.


    [morbo]the united states does not work that way!
    [/morbo]

    SaraLuna on
  • GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Honestly, these are supposed to be professional politicians.
    They are.

    But the Detroit Lions are professional athletes, so that's your benchmark.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I'd just like to point out that Roland Burris named his children Roland and Rolanda. That alone should be enough to not accept him.

    More substantively, here's a case where he sought the death penalty on an inmate he knew to be guilty as AG of Illinois. That might fly in Texas or under Scalia's robes, but it still makes him an asshole
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Well now, if we say Washington is the capitol, there are 49 dependent colonies.

    Only your location saves you from a truly epic facepalm
    There are 50 states, and Washington isn't one of them. Washington is in the District of Columbia (which once contained a few other cities), which is not in any state and is administered directly by the federal government

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • DemiurgeDemiurge Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Educating, I guess that prophecy is defunct then :P

    Demiurge on
    DQ0uv.png 5E984.png
  • JHunzJHunz Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Until Florida sinks into the sea and we are finally rid of it, anyway.

    JHunz on
    bunny.gif Gamertag: JHunz. R.I.P. Mygamercard.net bunny.gif
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    More substantively, here's a case where he sought the death penalty on an inmate he knew to be guilty as AG of Illinois. That might fly in Texas or under Scalia's robes, but it still makes him an asshole

    Is that supposed to read "knew to not be guilty"? Because otherwise I'm not really seeing the problem.

    HappylilElf on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    More substantively, here's a case where he sought the death penalty on an inmate he knew to be guilty as AG of Illinois. That might fly in Texas or under Scalia's robes, but it still makes him an asshole

    Is that supposed to read "knew to not be guilty"? Because otherwise I'm not really seeing the problem.
    No I'm outraged he wants to execute the guilty! Doesn't he know he's supposed to take bribes to execute the innocent!.....

    OK yeah its supposed to be not guilty.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Kane Red RobeKane Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Demiurge wrote: »
    Educating, I guess that prophecy is defunct then :P

    Actually there is a Washington state, but it is completely separate from the Capital city (on the other coast even).

    Kane Red Robe on
  • HappylilElfHappylilElf Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    More substantively, here's a case where he sought the death penalty on an inmate he knew to be guilty as AG of Illinois. That might fly in Texas or under Scalia's robes, but it still makes him an asshole

    Is that supposed to read "knew to not be guilty"? Because otherwise I'm not really seeing the problem.
    No I'm outraged he wants to execute the guilty! Doesn't he know he's supposed to take bribes to execute the innocent!.....

    OK yeah its supposed to be not guilty.

    That's what I figured.

    I was just afraid someone would think you were trying to ignite a death penalty argument and was hoping to get it clairified before someone went off :P

    HappylilElf on
  • VarianVarian Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    source on the attempted murder of innocent inmate thing?

    Varian on
  • RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    More substantively, here's a case where he sought the death penalty on an inmate he knew to be guilty as AG of Illinois. That might fly in Texas or under Scalia's robes, but it still makes him an asshole

    Is that supposed to read "knew to not be guilty"? Because otherwise I'm not really seeing the problem.
    No I'm outraged he wants to execute the guilty! Doesn't he know he's supposed to take bribes to execute the innocent!.....

    OK yeah its supposed to be not guilty.

    That's what I figured.

    I was just afraid someone would think you were trying to ignite a death penalty argument and was hoping to get it clairified before someone went off :P

    Wait a minute, trying to execute someone he knows is innocent. Uh why the fuck not try him for attempted murder. Asshole my ass, it makes him an attempted murderer. Foreseeable outcome of his actions.

    Rchanen on
  • EndomaticEndomatic Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I thought immediately upon starting to read that that Roland Burris probably pushed so hard because this guys' name was Rolando.

    How dare he bring shame to the name Roland!
    Even if he could be innocent!

    Endomatic on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Wait a minute, trying to execute someone he knows is innocent. Uh why the fuck not try him for attempted murder. Asshole my ass, it makes him an attempted murderer. Foreseeable outcome of his actions.

    Well, the problem here is that prosecutors get graded by the public by whether or not they put people in jail and are "tough on crime" (the fact that this attitude creates people like Nancy Grace and Sheriff Joe gets lost on the populace, though.) Add to the fact that many AGs and DAs are elected, not appointed, and you're in a situation where the trials of criminals have become heavily politicized. While what Burris did is odious, it is sadly all too understandable why he would push for the prosecution of an innocent man.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • widowsonwidowson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Savant wrote: »
    I've been seeing more Blago apologists popping up lately on the internets.

    Why? Is it the hair?


    Nah, racial politics backfiring on the democrats again.

    He appointed a black guy.

    So now if you oppose his appointment, it's not because, you know, Blago's corrupt and dirty and not fit to make an appointment, it's the some old OMFG J00 R R@CIST WTF crap that encourages me to throw my vote away on third parties.

    As Rich Lowry puts it:


    In a devilish ploy, Blagojevich choose to play demagogic racial politics only a little more blatantly than his fellow Democrats do all the time. Since there’s no better way to distract from the merits of a question than the charge of racism, Blagojevich had it at the ready.

    At the press conference that was more Saturday Night Live than C-SPAN, Blagojevich and Burris called on the former Black Panther and current congressman from Chicago, Bobby Rush, to put it all in perspective. Pointing out that there are no black senators at the moment, Rush warned against attempts to “hang and lynch” Burris. Subtle. A few days later, Rush compared opponents of seating Burris to Bull Connor.



    So now, it's not about saying a dirty, corrupt governor shouldn't be choosing senators, he's going to try to make it about race. The dems, who have too often framed any disagreement or opposition to democratic minorities as *always* racist in nature, now are put in a situation where they have to oppose a minority appointment...which, if a republican did, would bring charges of RACIST, RACIST, RACIST, that the dems now have to endure.

    The dems shot themselves in the foot on this one.

    They could have passed a law requiring a special election but, suprise, suprise, a republican might actually win with the illinois dem party so tainted, so they crossed their fingers and hoped the crazy guy wouldn't...well...you know..do something crazy and they could get the LT governor to do it.

    But, hey, the crazy guy did something crazy! Big shocker there!

    Can we finally throw racial politics under the bus now? Please?

    widowson on
    -I owe nothing to Women's Lib.

    Margaret Thatcher
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    No Democrat is going to lose sleep over opposing Blago's appointment, widowson.

    Hachface on
  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    widowson wrote: »
    Savant wrote: »
    I've been seeing more Blago apologists popping up lately on the internets.

    Why? Is it the hair?


    Nah, racial politics backfiring on the democrats again.

    He appointed a black guy.

    So now if you oppose his appointment, it's not because, you know, Blago's corrupt and dirty and not fit to make an appointment, it's the some old OMFG J00 R R@CIST WTF crap that encourages me to throw my vote away on third parties.

    As Rich Lowry puts it:


    In a devilish ploy, Blagojevich choose to play demagogic racial politics only a little more blatantly than his fellow Democrats do all the time. Since there’s no better way to distract from the merits of a question than the charge of racism, Blagojevich had it at the ready.

    At the press conference that was more Saturday Night Live than C-SPAN, Blagojevich and Burris called on the former Black Panther and current congressman from Chicago, Bobby Rush, to put it all in perspective. Pointing out that there are no black senators at the moment, Rush warned against attempts to “hang and lynch” Burris. Subtle. A few days later, Rush compared opponents of seating Burris to Bull Connor.



    So now, it's not about saying a dirty, corrupt governor shouldn't be choosing senators, he's going to try to make it about race. The dems, who have too often framed any disagreement or opposition to democratic minorities as *always* racist in nature, now are put in a situation where they have to oppose a minority appointment...which, if a republican did, would bring charges of RACIST, RACIST, RACIST, that the dems now have to endure.

    The dems shot themselves in the foot on this one.

    They could have passed a law requiring a special election but, suprise, suprise, a republican might actually win with the illinois dem party so tainted, so they crossed their fingers and hoped the crazy guy wouldn't...well...you know..do something crazy and they could get the LT governor to do it.

    But, hey, the crazy guy did something crazy! Big shocker there!

    Can we finally throw racial politics under the bus now? Please?

    I don't think that the Democrats shot themselves in the foot. I think that Rod Blagoyevich shot the national Democratic Party.

    Picardathon on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    No Democrat is going to lose sleep over opposing Blago's appointment, widowson.

    Some people exist on this parallel plane of reality where they ignore it when the results their wrong preconceptions predict don't occur. For instance, how the opposition to Burris has been nigh universal despite his race.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I think the first black president opposing Burris pretty much curtails any race card being played . . .

    It's fine for conservatives to live in some weird fantasy world where this is tearing the Democrats up.

    I've become accustomed to conservatives living in a weird fantasy world.

    Speaker on
  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Can the Senate really refuse to seat him, though? This issue seems like something the State of Illinois needs to clean up on its own, and wrongdoing hasn't been legally proven yet, and innocent until proven guilty, etc. To my understanding, the State can send whoever it wants as its representative to Congress by whatever means they deem appropriate under their law (the only restriction being the term of service). If the Senate simply refuses to seat him and Illinois only has one senator in Congress, would this fall under taxation without representation and all that?

    Dalboz on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but if the Senate goes ahead and decides to refuse to seat Burris--very possibly an infringement of the constitution--wouldn't Burris have to bring a lawsuit to correct the infringement? How badly does Burris really want the seat? Would he fight for it?

    Hachface on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    The justification is in Article I Section 5
    Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

    The legal dispute is whether this counts as a "return." For instance, no MN Senator will be seated until the Senate decides to accept the election as final. A Senator merely being corrupt is not sufficient to deny him membership (based on a 1967 SCOTUS case in the House).

    If they can't/won't, they may also
    Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Hachface wrote: »
    Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but if the Senate goes ahead and decides to refuse to seat Burris--very possibly an infringement of the constitution--wouldn't Burris have to bring a lawsuit to correct the infringement? How badly does Burris really want the seat? Would he fight for it?

    It's question of Constitutional authority It'd probably land in the Supreme court

    needless to say if the Senate drags their feet on letting him in it'll buy them time to get together the effort to expel him should he get seated.

    nexuscrawler on
  • ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Rchanen wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    More substantively, here's a case where he sought the death penalty on an inmate he knew to be guilty as AG of Illinois. That might fly in Texas or under Scalia's robes, but it still makes him an asshole

    Is that supposed to read "knew to not be guilty"? Because otherwise I'm not really seeing the problem.
    No I'm outraged he wants to execute the guilty! Doesn't he know he's supposed to take bribes to execute the innocent!.....

    OK yeah its supposed to be not guilty.

    That's what I figured.

    I was just afraid someone would think you were trying to ignite a death penalty argument and was hoping to get it clairified before someone went off :P

    Wait a minute, trying to execute someone he knows is innocent. Uh why the fuck not try him for attempted murder. Asshole my ass, it makes him an attempted murderer. Foreseeable outcome of his actions.

    Yea, I stopped supporting the death penalty in practice when I read about another case where the prosecutor was trying to block DNA evidence that could prove the defendant innocent. He'd rather let an innocent man die than have a loss on his record.

    It goes beyond what even bad lawyer jokes can cover.

    Scooter on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Dalboz wrote: »
    Can the Senate really refuse to seat him, though? This issue seems like something the State of Illinois needs to clean up on its own, and wrongdoing hasn't been legally proven yet, and innocent until proven guilty, etc. To my understanding, the State can send whoever it wants as its representative to Congress by whatever means they deem appropriate under their law (the only restriction being the term of service). If the Senate simply refuses to seat him and Illinois only has one senator in Congress, would this fall under taxation without representation and all that?

    Due Process only covers the legal aspect of things. You don't technically need to be guilty of anything in order to get impeached. And they're working on impeaching him.

    moniker on
  • SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    The justification is in Article I Section 5
    Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

    The legal dispute is whether this counts as a "return." For instance, no MN Senator will be seated until the Senate decides to accept the election as final. A Senator merely being corrupt is not sufficient to deny him membership (based on a 1967 SCOTUS case in the House).

    If they can't/won't, they may also
    Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

    The legal question is a bit different than that to my understanding. The appointment does count as a "return" and is subject to that section of the Constitution, but it's a bit of an open question how much power that section grants congress. The SCOTUS case interpreted the power to refuse to seat by a simple majority to be very narrow, but the case in question was explicitly about the qualifications of the congressman being blocked, and they ruled that only the explicit qualifications for the House and Senate listed in the Constitution could be used to determine whether they could block someone for those reasons. The current angle with Burris is a bit different, since they aren't going to question his qualifications but rather the validity of the appointment or "return" itself, akin to blocking someone who was elected if they had grounds that the election was tainted.

    From my understanding it is an unknown whether they can block him under those grounds in this particular case, as the SCOTUS case that blocked the specific qualifications question had language and intent to limit the power granted to congress in that section in general. In either case, even if they can't block him there the SCOTUS ruling had that their powers to expel by a supermajority vote after seating were pretty unrestricted, so they could boot him after the fact if it comes down to it.

    Savant on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Scooter wrote: »
    Yea, I stopped supporting the death penalty in practice when I read about another case where the prosecutor was trying to block DNA evidence that could prove the defendant innocent. He'd rather let an innocent man die than have a loss on his record.

    It goes beyond what even bad lawyer jokes can cover.

    The sad part is that it's really not hard to understand why he would. Yes, it's atrocious and a travesty of justice, but it's completely understandable, considering at the state and local levels the AG and DA positions tend to be elected offices. Again, there's a very good reason that there are relatively few elected offices at the federal level.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    that all said, would it really be that hard to get a two-thirds senate vote on this issue?

    Daedalus on
Sign In or Register to comment.