No Welcome Mat For Burris

I think the real winner is going to be the person who comes up with some kind of negotiated settlement that makes sure it doesn’t come to this on Tuesday. I agree. This is a real test for Reid’s leadership, which has been found wanting to date. His most obvious quality is deference to his “friends” on the other side of the aisle when they pull partisan stunts and a willingness to circumvent principled stands by members of his own party – such as Dodd’s stands on upholding the Constitution.

KT, I’m impressed by the fact that you both read and respect a number of the professional progressive/liberal blogs. Since facts have a liberal bias, that is a great choice for a fine reporter who cares about reality. In contrast, I remember reading a list ranking blogs read by reporters, that was remarkably biased toward the likes of Jonah Goldberg, The Corner, Drudge, and Hewitt. Explains a lot actually.
.
On topic, over at FDL Thers asks a useful question: Why Are Senators the Only People in America Who Take Senators Seriously?

KT – Nate Silver has some interesting thoughts about this, and some other “yes they can – no they can’t” links. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com
.
It seems that the tact may be to challenge the “election,” rather than the qualifications of Burris. But reading has suggested that the real point here may be to delay seating Burris long enough for Pat Quinn to become Governor.
.
It is astonishing that no one seemed to have contemplated the potential difficulties of “letting” Blago make an appointment. Since his lawyer assured everyone he wasn’t going to do that, maybe they made the mistake, once again, of believing something he said.

I guess I take the cynical view: Burriss was appointed by a man who has the legal authority to do so. The Secretary of State refusal to certify the appointment has no legal foundation. If Reid is shrewd he would let Burris take his seat and keep him out of the limelight. Sure, your colleagues, KT, will go to him. Flies etc! It will be old news by inauguration day. After the Lieberman episode I don’t think much of our Democratic Senators. Wisdom? look elsewhere.

The way to settle this is for the Senate to refer the appointment to a committee to investigate whether the appointment was tainted. It’s certainly debatable whether the Senate has the right to reject this appointment, but they certainly have the right to investigate the appointment to make sure the governor didn’t sell the seat to Burris — there are plenty of examples of 19th century Senate appointments that were held up to give the Senate time to investigate. Such an investigation will take time and during that time, the Illinois legislature will hopefully get their act together and impeach Blagojevich. Once Quinn is in office, he can appoint a new Senator to take Obama’s seat and the Senate can seat this new Senator and the Burris appointment would presumably be moot.

But it’s very possible to argue that the first appointment might have precedence over the second, so a way to resolve this cleanly might be if Quinn appointed Burris himself to the seat, particularly if he doesn’t cause a confrontation on Tuesday. If Quinn appoints Burris, then the Senate can simply decide to seat the Roland Burris who was appointed by Quinn and the Roland Burris who was appointed by Blagojevich would be unlikely to object.

KT&All-I don’t know about you young men and women, but what KT is reporting seems to me to be about the most brain dead idea that Reid could come up with. He seems to forget that his handling of this matter could have an effect on how Al Frankin will be treated by the GOP members of the senate should he prevail against Norm Coleman.
.
The only part of KT’s analysis I would quibble with is the “questionable ground” part. There is no question that the senate can not do this. They have absolutely no grounds. Unless suspecting someone is a bad guy is grounds to punish someone else now. And I would also like to know who the other senate leaders are who apparently have not thought this thing through. I’m sure Durbin is on the list.
.
Finally, am I the only one that finds Reid’s manhood only shows up when it comes to defying fellow democrats. He would not have the balls to do this to a GOP selection in a similar situation.

gunny, I also noted that “Reid’s manhood only shows up when it comes to defying fellow democrats” up at #1.

For Reid, the best focal point for the fight is certification by the Illinois Sec. of State. It keeps Burris and the spotlight in Illinois, frames an issue for judicial review, and makes the key figure denying the seat an African-American. If I’m Reid, that’s where I’d try spin it as hard as possible as being controlled by the lack of IL certification. Otherwise, every word out of his mouth will be digging a deeper grave.

Jane sums up why Reid (and the entire Democratic establishment) is looking so stupid right now…

It would certainly be interesting to watch the same Senate who gave convicted felon Ted Stevens a standing ovation (Reid calling him “distinguished colleague”) exclude Burris.

Reid is the one who should be kept out of the Senate — he’s an embarrassment to the government and the Democratic Party.

Thank you wvng-I’m so glad I’m not alone. But I would like to quibble a point in your post. Reid is incapable of providing leadership so there is nothing to test. Its not that I don’t like Reid. Its that I detest his weak f***ing ass. You would think after getting that weak ass handed to him on a regular basis the guy would get a f***ing clue.
.
Obama better not be counting on this clown for help in getting a note passed around the senator chamber let alone a bill.

gunny, I would refer you to the FDL link in my #2 post. It elaborates on your point more generally to the Senate as a body. I vividly remember one of my senators saying he didn’t want to push the investigation of manipulation of pre-war intelligence by Bush because it would harm the sense of senatorial “comity” on the committee. Interesting that only the Dems care about such things.

gunny:

as i wrote this post, i initially wrote that it was “shaky” ground, but then i read this blog, which seemed to suggest that this case goes into an area of law that has never been tested. i will add this link to the post:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-must-senate-seat-burris/

The Powell case rests on an election result and citing it may well be misleading. The issue has already been politicised as at least six members of the CBC are asking Reid to seat Mr Burris. There is a bad smell emanating from this business: Blagowhiff?

KT-Thanks so much for the link. The blogger raises good questions. However, in one area the law is not going to help the democrats with is how they handle this in the public arena. So far they are bungling.

The Secretary of State refusal to certify the appointment has no legal foundation.
.
Well, what exactly is the function of the SoS certification? Just a mere waving of the magic wand over the deed? In that case, why bother?
.
Sincere question.

“He seems to forget that his handling of this matter could have an effect on how Al Frankin will be treated by the GOP members of the senate should he prevail against Norm Coleman.”
.
I think gunny is exactly on point here. If the senate bases it’s “non-sitting” of Burris based on the process rather than qualifications (which seem to be unassailable) I assure you this will boomerang back on Franken.

J,LA: i am pretty sure that if a secretary of state did something totally arbitrary or beyond the scope of his or her power, it could be challenged in court. so that if this were a nominee who was otherwise legally chosen, the courts would not allow the secstate to block it. but it could slow things down.

I’m thinking that this phrase is pertinent:
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
as well as this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
.
The failure to remove Blago’s perogative either by impeachment or change to the Illinois Statute was a fatal flaw in reasoning. There is currently no basis to prevent him from acting, and if they try to bar Burris from the Senate floor, they will unabiguously be on the wrong side of the Constitution and the Law.
.
Not that it would be the first time…….

James: The SOS has to certify that the appointment was duly made according to the State’s laws. It is almost a pro-forma second signature because under normal circumstances the Blag and SoS would have talked about this before the appointment was announced. If there was a legal impediment or anything to disqualify Burris then he has a duty to say so. If White had a legal basis to his refusal you would have seen it splashed all over the Chicago Tribune and Lynn Sweet on MSNBC droning away. Has White refused to do any other certification since Blago’s arrest and bail? I’d like to know about that.

.
I see that, KT, but what is the actual function of the certification? The function of the certification of *votes* is purportedly the assurance that the election was legally held and the vote count true and accurate. If the certification of the appointment has a similar function, I would think it is wrong to say that the failure to certify has no legal foundation.
.

At least when the big three CEO’s flew in on their private jets we could chalk up their tone deafness to being businessman. So what possible excuse will Senate Democrats cling too? For politicians they are remarkably ignorant of how blocking Burris at the gate by the Senate’s Sgt. At Arms will play politically. Talk about your public relations nightmare. I’m a freelance professional perhaps I should send Reid my resume because clearly he needs some guidance before the caption reads “Modern Day Bull Connors…”

You guys are missing a major factor here that we talked about a LOT yesterday over at Ta Nehisi Coates’ blog at the Atlantic. Now most people totally brushed off Bobby Rush’s race baiting statements the other day and Burris’ rhetorical “is it because of race, some people may ask that” bullsh!t too. But imagine the visual, and don’t think there won’t be plenty of cameras there, of some armed police officers possibly forcefully denying Burris access to the floor of the Senate. I have already gone on record as saying Reid is going to cave on this one but after BRush and Burris made such a spectacle out of themselves using race to try to give him the upper hand I started secretly rooting for Reid to have some nuts for once. But handling it that way will not be a good look AT ALL. For a lot of older black folks it will indeed invoke memories of George Wallace trying to deny access to black kids trying to integrate white schools. If they are going to stand on principle and keep him out they had for damm sure better find a better way of doing it.
.
I still say that politically the right move is for them to bluff and bluster and then let him in “over their objections” and claim their hands were tied because of the legalities. It will get the story out of the headlines quicker and they can primary him in 2 years. But the longer they fight him and he takes them to court the bigger the circus gets and the longer the story has legs

1. Blago is my new hero. I know he is a dirtbag…but damn if picking burris wasn’t the most brilliant political move I have seen in a long time
.
2. Only in the bizzarro world of politics is violating the constitution a logical (and ethical) response to an allegation — not even an indictment much less a conviction — of a violation of statutory law.

3. The contrast between how Reid responded to felon Stevens and Burris is comedy gold.

4. Delaying the seating of Franklin is likely a feature and not a bug for Reid.

What exactly is the issue? Is it that Blago is “tainted”. He hasn’t been indicted much less convicted. I am obviously missing something. How does this not end without Reid looking like a clown?

James LA – but the issue here is precisely whether the election was legally held. In other words, if Blago “sold” the election to Burris in some way, the election would have been fraudulent. And while there is no evidence that has happened, since Blago has been accused by the USA of intending to sell the election, this is perhaps a defensible legal approach. No?

Hey, I just realized something: the ongoing Senate controversies add up to an “Abraham, Martin & John” Mode: Abraham = Franken, Martin = Burris, John = Caroline.

Why would hairy Reid and the other Democrats refuse to seat someone who is much more qualified to serve as a U.S. senator than the thoroughly unqualified, terrorist fraternizing, community organizer whom he is replacing? Racism, anyone?

.
kathy, dunno. I was just questioning the statement that the “failure to certify has no legal foundation.” I think it is litigable question, is all I’m saying. Other than that, I don’t really have an opinion on the whole mess.
.

kathy
.
Innocent until proven guilty. Thats what our legal system is founded on. Besides that nobody is alledging that Blago sold the seat to Burris. What it comes down to is that Reid and other Senate Dems said long before Blago picked Burris that they wouldn’t accept any appointment from him. That was a political move and yes its because Blago is tainted. Hey Reid has to get re elected in 2010 and he knows the Republicans are gonna paint all Dems as soft on corruption and crime. Now here is the thing, if Blago had picked some random white guy who had a similar background to Burris I don’t think as much attention would be paid to Reid actually keeping his frikkin word for once. Thats why as sqr1 said Blago was brilliant on this one. He picked the one guy that would actually make some people feel like Reid would be wrong to stick to his word and keep him out. Phucking brilliant truly.
.
To those that don’t know Bobby Rush is the big phucking hypocrite in all this though because he backed Obama’s white opponent in 04 in the primary but now he acts like having a black face, any black face, in the Senate should be every American’s duty. I lost mad respect for dude over this.

textee
.
Just wtf are you? male/female? white/black/hispanic/other? moron/idiot?

.
The calibre of trollism has certainly gone south since the overwhelming Democratic victories of the past November. Trite word puns, recycled and stale characterizations, and that old standby of “accusations in a mirror” is all poor text is able to muster. It’s pretty limp and pallid stuff. I look forward to the time it regains some of its past vigor and spews forth with some more original invective. Come text! Get a grip!
.

I don’t understand why Bobby Rush isn’t being called out on this quote:

Mr. Rush also opposed any suggestion that Mr. Blagojevich make the appointment while he is fighting the corruption charges. [Link]

Kathy: I don’t think this is an election. The Gov of Ill can appoint someone to fill a vacant Senate seat for a fixed term. So I am not sure what you are getting at. James has raised a good question countering my assertion “without legal foundation”. Maybe the Courts will deal with that. But the optics when Burris, with Bush (no not that one )at his side turns up at the Senate entrace? And the Circus accompanying them? Someone above mentioned Bull Connors? Looks like another own goal for our side. I weep.

.
bitter,
I had missed your post above, pointing out that it is a pro-forma signature. I agree with that, under normal circumstances, I’m just saying that the actual requirement must have a function under the law, and therefore, it should be litigable. I have no opinion about what that outcome should be.
.

Everytime I think Harry Reid can’t be more stupid, he is. Obviously I lack imagination.
.
I agree with sqr1, this was a brilliant political move. There is no good to come from blocking Burris from the Senate floor. As sgw so eloquently described, this is a picture that will live through elections for years to come.
.
Bluster, fuss, and move on. As others have pointed out, the comparison with the way they dealt with convicted felon Ted Stephens will not be lost.

Hey Cliff if you are lurking, remember my statement about not being immpressed with Greenwald’s numbers the other day? He has new numbers today which prove what I was saying.
.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/02/israel/index.html

If Blago had picked some random white guy [...]

Tell me more about this idea of yours. I like what I’m hearing so far.

So this is what Reid wants to dominate the new Congress?
The Democrats blamed a lack of action during this session, justifiably, on republican interference.
I’m not sure they have an understanding of what their voters are expecting.

wv gives good link up at #2 from one of my favorite Irish-American online humorists, the incomparable Thersites:

Senators take the Senate very very seriously and are very very impressed with their status as Senators. It is of course understandable that they do so, in that being a Senator is, obviously, a big deal. But it is also rather bizarre, in that pretty much the entire country thinks Senators are a bunch of clowns. …
.
The perfect expression of this was the standing ovation for Ted Stevens, which made perfect sense from the perspective of Senatorial Dignity, but from any other perspective was completely embarrassing. And then there was the Democratic caucus’s refusal to do anything at all about the fact that their colleague Joe Lieberman had, essentially, publicly and repeatedly mooned them — and that they apparently saw this refusal as some sort of a “principled” poke-in-the-eye for Liberal Bloggers.

.
Thers forgets compleeeeeetly about

When Sen. David Vitter, R-La., showed up in Washington, D.C., again last week after hiding with the equivalent of a paper bag on his head, he was welcomed back to a closed Republican Senate luncheon with a loud standing ovation.

.
Senatorial diapers and all.
.

And then there’s Larry Craig….. Whatever DID happen with that ethics investigations, anyway?
.

pourme
.
If you want an actual “black” perspective on this you should go to this blog
.
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/
.
And read not only the posts about it but also the comments section as many of the commenters are black. Bobby Rush has been called out for his words since the day he said them. Just not by the talking heads on TV

@sgw – I know he’s taken a beating on the race card. I’m not talking about that; I’m talking about his flat on-the-record statement that Blagojevich should not make an appointment. That’s huge. That’s news. I haven’t heard anyone ask him about this. I also really like your idea: The Senatron 2000 — every ping pong ball represents a white guy.

He has taken a beating because of his statement about Blago not seating anyone too.

SG-I think pourme may have been looking for some integrity and leadership from the CBC on Bobby’s words. However, I think that is asking a lot from the people who did this:
.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/2007/06/04/william-jefferson-could-we-remove-him-from-his-committee-now/

Jane Hamsher has just given me the first nickname I’ve ever liked!:

http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/02/what-oh-what-is-to-be-done-about-burris/

From here on out (or for at least the next few hours), I answer only to “K-Tum”

gysgt
.
Thankfully the CBC does not equal average black folks

@gysgt – I can understand defections from the party line by CBC members. With every day that passes, I hear a little voice in my head that says, “Screw it. Seat him and save the economy/world.” I’m sure that voice would be louder and more persuasive if I were black. I get that. It’s not the CBC that caused this mess. I blame first and foremost Blago, then Burris, then Reid.

K-Tum, thanks for that link. So many of the comments were exactly right.

From here on out (or for at least the next few hours), I answer only to “K-Tum”

Healthy. Men typically need a divorce and Miata to get that feeling.

Jane’s last sentence is the key:
.
I have never gone wrong betting that in the end, Harry Reid will do the el-foldo. I think my money is safe there once again.
.
At least he has the cover of knowing that folding=following the law=doing the right thing.

I agree that Reid is handling this badly, but there are political risks to quietly accepting the Burris appointment. Burris is politically tainted because of his connection to Blago; Welcoming Burris will probably look like welcoming Blago to some people.
–
Maybe Quinn could say that he would appoint Burris anyway once he becomes Governor, in which case it would be in Burris’ interests to wait until Quinn can appoint him before he joins the Senate. He needs to think about 2010. Joining the Senate as Blago’s appointment before Obama’s inauguration will look worse than joining as Quinn’s appointment, when the Senate is about to vote on Obama’s economic plan and votes are desperately needed.

Also, let me state forcfully:What Digby Said!

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/misunderstanding-by-digby-my-good.html

but there are political risks to quietly accepting the Burris appointment.

OK here’s why this is important.
.
Harry Reid does not have the legal authority to block the appointment. However you feel about who should be seated in the Senate, Politicians exceeding their authority and using convoluted legal arguments to do so is a much bigger problem.
The problem with the FISA issue and telecom immunity was always more about the President exceeding his legal authority than it ever was about the invasion of privacy or the Fourth Amendment.
.
We simply can’t make it up as we go along. If we aren’t following the law, then we’ve lost control of our entire process and therefore join all the “rogue regimes” we used to go on about.

What Reid needs now in order to flop is a face-saving reason. It can’t be race. I’m thinking it’ll probably be the need for Illinois to have represenation. So, maybe first Pat Quinn softens his stance and starts talking about what a statesman Burris is. Then, he takes a little bit of a bullet and calls for him to be seated. In the meantime, they’ve gathered up a bunch of IL Dems to do the same. “We need a Senator, now more than ever.” Maybe a few Senators flip — from rust belt state neighbors, emphasizing how hard hit they’ve been by the economic collapse and the need to hit the ground running on these problems as soon as Obama takes office. That might be enough blocking to create a space to run through.

PD/pmc: Thanks for the pointer: as usual Digby gets to the point. And pmc looks for a way to make it work. Now we need the Illinois Democratic Choir to sing from the same book. Tough call. Here’s hoping.

Oh this is all crap. The only reason that Dems are on their high ethical horse here is because of concern oh how the GOP might use a culture of corruption against a growing Dem majority. The press has a personal interest too because they are desperate to maintain a negative storyline that passes in close proximity to Obama. All of a sudden everyonecwantsvti scream in shock oh my politics is going on here. Please give me a break! If Democrats can welcome back Lieberman they can live with anyone. So seat Burris and move on we’ve got bigger fish to fry.

OT
.
youngturks clip on I/P conflict
.

After looking into this a little more, I’m starting to think the Senate may have the power to deny Burris his seat. This is the key question from the scotusblog link: Is the power of the Senate (or House) to judge the mode of selection the same whether one was chosen by election or appointment?
–
This is the relevant passage from Article 1, Section 5: Each house shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.
–
Since popular election of Senators is a 20th century invention, the first question is whether in 1850, for example, the Senate would have had the power to reject a Senator elected by a State Legislature in a process that raised suspicions about corruption. Since state legislatures “elected” Senators, it’s pretty clear that they did have that power. The reference to “returns” suggests, IMO, that appointments are also under the jurisdiction of the Senate. Also it defies common-sense to think that the Senate had more power to judge Senators elected by a state legislature than appointed by a Governor. And the reference to “each House” and not simply “the House of Representatives,” clearly indicates that the Senate had equal power to the House in sitting its members.
–
Reid may be politically stupid, but he has a solid legal argument.

Sorry to be late to the fray, but I am on my research travels (yesterday – Bird-in-Hand, PA; today – Westchester country, NY; Sunday – Rochester, NY). I am trying to work, but keep getting distracted by the conversation here. Before I go back to my digital salt mine, could I insert a plea from my odd location at the intersection of popular culture and politics and ask the fourth estate to find a synonym for the word “taint” asap? I am getting very tired of hearing about Blago’s perineum. Everyone under 25 is laughing at you.

OT again
.
Well waddya know, seems teh conservatives don’t think Obama’s cabinet is all that center right after all. lol. Who didn’t see this coming?
.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010101832_pf.html

William “Wild Bill” Langer (September 30, 1886 – November 8, 1959) was a prominent American politician from North Dakota. From Governor to Prison to the Governor’s office to the senate. He served as the Governor of North Dakota from 1933 to 1934 and from 1937 to 1939. Langer also served in the United States Senate from 1940 to 1959 when he died in office.
.
Langer quickly ran into legal problems, however. After his inauguration, Langer cleaned out most executive departments and appointed persons loyal to him. He also openly solicited state employees for subscriptions to his newspaper, which represented about five percent of their annual state salary. Although Langer viewed this as a legitimate campaign fund raising, he was charged and found guilty of soliciting contributions illegally by a Federal court, sentenced to eighteen months in prison, and fined $10,000. The ND Supreme Court had him removed from office on the basis of his felony conviction. It would take three more trials, but eventually Langer was acquitted of all charges. Langer returned to serve as the ND governor in 1937-1941.
.
After completing his second term as governor, Langer successfully ran for US Senate. Although Langer had won the election, his enemies were determined to not allow him to take his seat. A petition was presented to the Senate. The Senate’s investigation committee listened to testimony, some very damaging, regarding Langer’s conduct. During the hearings, Langer was forced to admit that he had paid the son of the judge who presided at his second and third trials in 1935. The committee recommended, by a vote of 13-3, that Langer not be seated; but the entire Senate disregarded the recommendation and voted to seat Langer by a vote of 52-30. Langer’s victory made the front page of the New York Times and other papers around the country.
.
http://www.mandanhistory.org/biographieslz/williamlanger.html

Rose, here are the problems with your “solid legal argument”:

The appointment of Burris has not raised any suspicions about corruption. (Although Blogo’s consideration of OTHER possible candidates has raised questions, that doesn’t legally affect the Burris appointment.) What the Senate is suggesting is that they are permitted to deny a governor his legal power of appointment — a de facto impeachment-by-Senate — simply because they don’t believe he is an ethical person. Trust me, that is not a “solid legal argument.”
.
It is no surprise that the Democrats apparently haven’t thought a whit about the legal precedent that they are attempting to set here: That the Senate can refuse to seat duly appointed (or even elected) Senators based on a faint whiff of impropriety (Blago hasn’t even been indicted).
.
It is trivial to imagine how this new power of the Senate could be abused in the future. Pick any Senate election, find some impropriety or allegation of impropriety, and deny seating the opposition Senator-elect for weeks or months. Just get some local cop to arrest anyone related to the victor’s campaign for electoral fraud. By the time the case evaporates, the damage has been done. The taint is in the air and the seating has been delayed or denied.

“It is trivial to imagine how this new power of the Senate could be abused in the future. Pick any Senate election, find some impropriety or allegation of impropriety, and deny seating the opposition Senator-elect for weeks or months.”
.
Bingo! Idiots. Not you. Our Rulers.

The appointment of Burris has not raised any suspicions about corruption. (Although Blogo’s consideration of OTHER possible candidates has raised questions, that doesn’t legally affect the Burris appointment.)
–
sqr1, well it’s in the Senate’s power to “judge” Burris’ appointment. You’ve made a perfectly reasonable argument that the appointment was legitimate but my point is NOT that Burris’ appointment was illegitimate. My point is that the Senate has the power to determine the legitimacy of the appointment.
–
It is trivial to imagine how this new power of the Senate could be abused in the future. Pick any Senate election, find some impropriety or allegation of impropriety, and deny seating the opposition Senator-elect for weeks or months.
–
Well like almost everything else in politics this is a checks and balances question. If Senators routinely abused its power to judge elections and returns, they would be defeated in elections. That’s the check on the Senate’s power. If a Senator were elected or appointed in a process that you were convinced was corrupt, would you still think that the Senate would be wrong to use its constitutional power to refuse to seat the Senator? I’m just trying to figure out if your problem is with the Constitution or how the Senate is exercising its constitutional power.

See my latest post for what the Senate leadership plans to do on Tuesday.

[...] No Welcome Mat For Burris [...]

[...] new President-elect, an Illinois native; the recent appointment (or not) of former Atty. General Roland Burris to fill Obama’s US Senate seat.  You all have been following this story, and it looks to be [...]

Rose:
.
I agree that the Senate has the power to judge the appointment and evaluate qualifications to an extent. But I vehemently disagree that it may do so with impunity.
.
What Constitutional qualifications did Burris lack that would make his appointment improper?
.
What power of appointment did the governor lack (or what formality did he fail to follow) when he made the appointment?
.
Once you realize that the answers to these questions are pretty clearly “none” then it becomes apparent that the Senate must “judge” the appointment to be valid and seat Burris.
.
Of course, this doesn’t even take into account that it would be a political disaster for Harry Reid to not seat Burris, based upon some tortured notions of Senatorial dignity, after doing nothing to oust Vitter or Stevens.

What Constitutional qualifications did Burris lack that would make his appointment improper?
–
No one is suggesting that he lacks Constitutional qualifications.
–
What power of appointment did the governor lack (or what formality did he fail to follow) when he made the appointment?
–
But that’s not the question. Here’s the relevant passage again: Each house shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members. The power given to the Senate in the Constitution is broadly defined, and there’s nothing about the power of a Governor or State Legislature or formalities. The question you asked doesn’t encompass the issue of corruption. And regardless of whether or not there is enough reason to think that the Burris appointment may have been corrupt, it’s clear that according to the Constitution the Senate may have the power to reject a Senator elected or appointed in a corrupt process. The Supreme Court may have to determine how far the Senate’s power extends, but it’s not crazy to look at Article 1 Section 5 and conclude that the Senate can refuse to seat a Senator appointed in a process they fear was corrupt.

Not a fan of Burris, but if they can do this…what’s to stop them from refusing to seat a Senator for ANY reason?

I actually answered that question earlier: Well like almost everything else in politics this is a checks and balances question. If Senators routinely abused its power to judge elections and returns, they would be defeated in elections. That’s the check on the Senate’s power.
–
And according to Article 1 Section 5 they could only refuse to seat a Senator because of their election, return or lack of (constitutional) qualifications. If they refused to sit someone for policy reasons – e.g. a Senator with a rational approach to Middle East policy was miraculously elected – that would be unconstitutional. That said, obviously they could try to find some excuse. Anyone don’t blame the messenger! This is all in the Constitution.

Rose,
.
Of course, if there is actual evidence of corruption then Senate could refuse to seat Burris. But NOBODY is claiming that the process of picking Burris was corrupt. What Blago has been accused of — but not indicted on — is engaging in a corrupt process with OTHER possible appointees.
.
Again, what you’re argument amounts to saying “once the Senator has been accused of wrongdoing, the Senate may consider any subsequent action to be tainted by corruption.” Well, I’m sorry, but that’s not the way things work.
.
The governor is entitled to a presumption of legal innocence in a court of law. Should the People of Illinois, through their duly-elected state legislators, decide that the governor is no longer competent to execute his legal duties then they may remove him through the process of impeachment. Until then, he is still the governor of Illinois and, short of evidence that the Burris appointment itself was corrupt, the Senate has no right to reject Burris.
.
That doesn’t mean that Reid — like you — can’t hang his hat on amorphous, undefined phrases like “a corrupt process” to reject the legal actions of a sitting governor. It just means that it is complete b.s. from a Constitutional standpoint.

“Not a fan of Burris, but if they can do this…what’s to stop them from refusing to seat a Senator for ANY reason?”
.
100% right. It is naive in the extreme to believe that the taint of corruption could not be whipped up to oppose seating any Senator. This sets the bar so low it is meaningless.
.
I’ll even go further. Patrick Fitzgerald is literally the only federal prosecutor in the entire country that starts off with a presumption of integrity in the eyes of most Democrats. If this was ANYONE ELSE, the entire blogosphere would be rolling its eyes as the Bush DOJ targeted yet another Democratic governor. Blago is unlikely to ever be convicted, based on what we now now (the caveat being that Fitzgerald is excellent at playing his cards close to the vest). Instead we continue to have mounting pressure against the governor to resign because of a federal criminal investigation that is likely to go nowhere. Have we seen this before, Elliot Spitzer?

[...] ready for the standoff surrounding Roland Burris to get even weirder, as Senate Democrats map out their options for [...]