Seat Burris Now!
Senate Democrats now find themselves in a quandary for which they can only blame themselves. In what may prove to be an overreaction to the federal corruption indictment of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, Senate Democrats issued a statement indicating that they would not seat his choice to replace Senator Barack Obama. The idea behind the statement was to keep Blagojevich from making the selection. A replacement chosen by the scandal-tainted governor would give Republicans an opportunity to play the Democrats-are-corrupt card, a charge the Senate majority can’t afford going into a new Democratic White House. But now that Blagojevich has chosen former Illinois Comptroller and Attorney General Roland Burris to succeed President-elect Barack Obama, the Senate has a tough choice to make: stick to their poor decision to not seat someone selected by Blagojevich or deny an obviously qualified replacement because they don’t like the Governor. For me, this is about Burris, not Blagojevich. Unless there is something about Burris that renders him unqualified, I say seat Burris now.
Doing the right thing, in this case, isn’t about race, though that is a legitimate consideration here (Does the overwhelmingly White Senate Democratic caucus really want to deny a qualified African American a seat in their club?). It’s about due process. As dirty as Blagojevich seems to be, he is still the sitting governor; it is his pick to make. He is innocent until proven guilty, a fact that should not be modulated by popularity. As long as his pick meets the constitutional requirements and passes legitimate political muster, and it appears Burris does, then the Senate should seat him. Senators should not be in the business of picking their colleagues – that is the job of voters and, in this case, their elected representatives.
Moreover, Burris is a caretaker pick. He’s 71, and while he is a distinguished public servant who has won four statewide races before, he would be tied to his benefactor in a way that makes it unlikely he could win the seat on his own (he would be John McCain to Blagojevich’s George W. Bush). That’s why I believe Senate Democrats have fumbled their handling of this issue. Unless there is some evidence that Burris “payed to play”, then there is no reason do deny him the appointment. Senate Democrats have tainted a number of well-qualified people who could serve with distinction. They’ve also ensured that the controversy over the governor and Obama’s replacement will rage on into the new year. The Senate Democrats’ strategy here can’t be confused with smart politics.
Seat Burris. Move on. There are bigger fish to fry.
Michael K. Fauntroy is a professor, columnist, and commentator. He blogs at: MichaelFauntroy.com.
December 31, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cfdfc53ef010536a74b14970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Seat Burris Now!:
Comments
Mr. Fauntroy, in hinsight do you now think that seating Mr. Burris was the right thing to do. I am not one to look back and say I knew this wasn't right becasue hindsight is always 20/20 but I had a feeling watching Mr. Burris testify that he was more connected to the governor than he was letting on. And I also feel that this current firestorm around Mr. Burris wouldn't be happening if had told the whole truth.
Posted by: larnell | Feb 23, 2009 11:19:09 AM
I live in Illinois and I'm very aware of politics in Illinois. Blagojevich is just a sacrificial lamb. He pissed off his father-in-law and other politicians in Illinois. The people in Illinois are well aware of what is going on. Do you guys ever wonder why they are not interviewing people in Illinois about our Governor? The only people that are talking are those in the media, which coincidentally are only sharing their own political bias based upon some type of allegiance that is beneficial to them. The media is bias! There is more here than what is being reported.
Posted by: cynthia | Jan 8, 2009 9:51:25 PM
The seat was on e-bay. The appointment was done by a process that was a crime. That puts the validity of the result into question, even without any evidence of wrongdoing by Burris.
Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty only as regards criminal prosecution. For civil suits, all that's required is a preponderance of evidence, not proof. Judging the qualifications of a putative member of the Senate is neither a criminal trial nor a civil suit, but a political question. That's because the Senate absolutely is in the business of judging those qualifications, under Article 1 section 5 of the US Constitution.
On the other hand, the facts that Burris is a caretaker pick, and that he's apparently innocent of any wrongdoing, are definitely relevant. I think the best resolution would be for Blagojevich to be removed from office quickly, and for Burris to be appointed by his successor. That would establish a precedent that appointment by crime is invalid, but it would also avoid a fight and acknowledge that the choice of Burris was in effect a concession by Blagojevich rather than a completion of his crime.
Posted by: Dan Wylie-Sears | Jan 7, 2009 8:02:14 AM
As usual, you are a voice of reason. Still, seating Burris without a fight? Where's the drama in that? That's no way to feed the flames of scandal!
Posted by: judy | Jan 4, 2009 11:22:38 AM
Absolutely agree, Michael.
Posted by: Pat | Dec 31, 2008 10:54:30 AM



