Will/Can/Should the Senate Seat Roland Burris?

January 5, 2009

Will/Can/Should the Senate Seat Roland Burris?

I am going to focus on the larger issue here, and avoid the scandal discussions and political debate. All I really want to do is remind people of this precedent: the denial of a seat to Pennsylvania Republican Willian S. Vare in 1929. I have heard people in the media discussing the Adam Clayton Powell rulings, but that was for the House, not the Senate. I have not heard any mention of the Vare dispute, which seems even more on point. Each body has its own rules governing membership, although clearly the Powell ruling may apply in many ways. If Roland Burris has to file a lawsuit to be seated, though, it might take him a lot longer than the two-year term for which he would be appointed. At least Adam Clayton Powell was fighting for his long-term political future, not a short-term appointment.

I am not saying whether Burris should or should not be seated by the Senate. I am just saying that Sen. Harry Reid is right when he says that sitting senators have the power to deny Burris his place in the Senate, if that is what the majority of them choose to do.

« Read Previous Entry Read Next Entry »

Or you can use our traditional commenting system!

3 Comments »

I’m glad the Senate didn’t seat Vare. He resembles the evil Brad Wesley from Roadhouse.

Comment by Mike S. — January 5, 2009 @ 3:20 p.m.
I was previously unaware of this power, and it seems like there is a potential for abuse on the part of the senators currently seated. I am not saying that Roland Burris doesn’t deserve at least careful scrutiny, just that the Senate being able to use a majority vote to keep out candidates who’ve been elected(in the case of Vare, admittedly quite suspiciously) seems fishy.

Comment by Josh Smith — January 6, 2009 @ 10:27 a.m.
The problem I think is determining whether Burris is a good fit for a senate position, not if he was appointed by a “corrupt” governor. Burris represents Illinois not exclusively Blagovevich, as you have to know it, a corrupt governor can have an insight good enough to pick a good candidate for a senate seat. I’m saying it because the Blagojevich scandal is the reason why Burris is having it so hard. However, if you’re following recent developments, it seems like the opposition to his seating is weakening, and that pretty soon, Burris will officially be Obama’s replacement in the senate for the remaining two years of his initial term.

Comment by Clovis Ouangraoua — January 8, 2009 @ 12:06 p.m.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Categories

I’m glad the Senate didn’t seat Vare. He resembles the evil Brad Wesley from Roadhouse.

Comment by Mike S. — January 5, 2009 @ 3:20 p.m.

I was previously unaware of this power, and it seems like there is a potential for abuse on the part of the senators currently seated. I am not saying that Roland Burris doesn’t deserve at least careful scrutiny, just that the Senate being able to use a majority vote to keep out candidates who’ve been elected(in the case of Vare, admittedly quite suspiciously) seems fishy.

Comment by Josh Smith — January 6, 2009 @ 10:27 a.m.

The problem I think is determining whether Burris is a good fit for a senate position, not if he was appointed by a “corrupt” governor. Burris represents Illinois not exclusively Blagovevich, as you have to know it, a corrupt governor can have an insight good enough to pick a good candidate for a senate seat. I’m saying it because the Blagojevich scandal is the reason why Burris is having it so hard. However, if you’re following recent developments, it seems like the opposition to his seating is weakening, and that pretty soon, Burris will officially be Obama’s replacement in the senate for the remaining two years of his initial term.

Comment by Clovis Ouangraoua — January 8, 2009 @ 12:06 p.m.

January 5, 2009