February 17, 2009
Can we say Roland Burris lied to get to his Senate seat?
Here's what we know so far. I see no reason to be delicate about it. I have defended Burris — click the tag to see — and I say that if he was not forthcoming about how he got the seat Blagojevich handed him, he does not deserve to keep it. Expel him, Senate!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
How could you not see this coming? It's a shame that Reid did not stick with his original objective.
This is a job for Deductive Reasoning Man!
Politicians from Illinois lie.
Roland Burris is a politician from Illinois.
Therefore, Roland Burris lied.
Remember that Burris's monument to himself? There's still room for "First African American Senator from Illinois to be removed from office."
He was duly appointed, and should have properly been seated. Now if he obtained that appointment using unethical means, then he should be expelled.
"The truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me GOD!"
"Book 'em Danno!"
Maybe Burris will get a pass...like that preacher at the inauguration, and pretty much for the same reason.
Michael H said...
"This is a job for Deductive Reasoning Man!
Politicians from Illinois lie.
Roland Burris is a politician from Illinois.
Therefore, Roland Burris lied."
Ah, but wasn't Deductive Reasoning Man bested by Captain Obvious in Tales of the Amazing 16? Captain Obvious parried: "Politicians from Illinois lie, yes, but politicians lie, period, therefore Roland Burris lied."
A politician who lied to get appointed to the Senate may be expelled by his colleagues who may have lied to get elected.
("may have lied" is a generous statement, I know.)
@Simon - Captain Obvious did a brilliant job of extending the reasoning beyond the borders of Illinois and including all politicians in his conclusion.
An Illinois politician who may have been less than honest and forthcoming? I am shocked, SHOCKED!
Next you'll tell me that A-Rod used steroids or something equally ludicrous!
And while we're at it, why was it a crime for Miguel Tejada to lie to Congress? They lie to US all the time!
There is no such thing as an honest politician from Northern Illinois, much less Chicago.
Yada, yada, yada. How much evidence do people need?
Michael H said...
This is a job for Deductive Reasoning Man!
Politicians from Illinois lie.
Roland Burris is a politician from Illinois.
Therefore, Roland Burris lied.
Hmmmm? Rham Emanuel, Dick Durbin, and of course Barak Obama; are they included too?
Michael S said...
How could you not see this coming? It's a shame that Reid did not stick with his original objective.
Harry Reid stated he would never seat an appointed senator from Blago.
In politics the definition of never is maybe.
Ann, weren't you arguing that the Senate had to have a good reason to refuse to seat him?
This is why such things are not bound by rules of evidence. It was blatantly obvious that Blagoj was guilty and that anyone he nominated would be tainted.
You're remarkably insightful much of the times, but your tendency towards supporting the democrats is a symptom of your really muddled understanding of human nature. This is more evidence that you don't really understand people.
Skyler said...
Ann, weren't you arguing that the Senate had to have a good reason to refuse to seat him?
I think that it went like this:
Blago appointed him
Senate Dems refused to seat him until he testified under oath in Illinios and demonstrated he wasn't tainted
He testified and clearly appears to have lied or at least misstated simple gacys that a laymean would consider lying.
It seems to me that Ried and the Dems have a case to expel him therefore
"Ann, weren't you arguing that the Senate had to have a good reason to refuse to seat him?"
I think they were obligated to seat him, but as they resisted, he was forced into making various representations under oath, and I think he lied. At this point the issue is expulsion not exclusion, and with the required 2/3 vote the Senate can expel him. Exclusion and expulsion are importantly different in constitutional law, and only expulsion requires a supermajority. I think he should be expelled for lying -- with a motivation to get to the seat (which I think he was initially entitled to).
Yes, but wouldn't it have been a lot simpler to just have done the right, and Constitutional, thing the first time? He was a crook nominated by a crook. Everyone knew that.
As for the courts saying what Congress can do in this situation, it is irrelevent. If the Supreme Court decided that it alone had the power to declare war or levy taxes, it would be just as irrelevent. The Supreme Court is not omnipotent.
Here's the thing:
What can be done about this obvious wrong?
Can he just get away with it?
It's somewhat related to the type of question of standing: If Arnold Schwarzenegger were to run for President and win, provided the Republicans nominated him, who could stop him from taking office? Even though the Constitution requires the President to be born an American citizen, who would have "standing" to refuse him taking office?
In other words, what is there to protect us if no one is willing to right something clearly proscribed as legally wrong?
Who's left in Chicago who can fill this seat and has an unblemished record?
Hmmmm? Rham Emanuel, Dick Durbin, and of course Barak Obama; are they included too?
Are you serious?
Or do you actually think that Obama's somehow going to manage the pay-as-you-go he promised on the campaign trail?
Are you serious?
Of course I am. Rham Emanuel's polotical sponsor is the same as Blago's; Jimmy Deleo, the Central Commiteeman for the 5th Cong. District. Jimmy DeLeo is an associate of organized crime. Barak Obama was discovered, mentored by, and sponsored by Emil Jones- a fiercely venal corrupt politician. Dick Durbin is an affable enabling idiot. Anything goes with him as long as he keeps getting elected.
Ah. No, I meant "Did you mean that question rhetorically?" Which it appears you did.
Post a Comment