Dems Diffuse a Controversy, Won’t Seat Franken Today
Tuesday, January 06, 2009 at 9:44 am
Well, that was the quick way to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
In the face of Republican opposition to the seating of Minnesota Democrat Al Franken, who was named the winner of his Senate contest yesterday, Senate Democrats have decided that Franken won’t be sworn in with the rest of the chamber this afternoon.
Democrats had hoped to get Franken in as quickly as possible, leaning toward a provisional seating that would have given the former “Saturday Night Live” comedian all the rights and privileges of the office immediately. The issue was a thorny one, though, because Democrats are also hoping to block the arrival of Roland Burris, the former Illinois attorney general who was appointed last month by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) to fill the Senate post vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.
Democrats have hinted that Burris is illegitimate because Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has refused to certify Burris’ appointment, citing the scandal surrounding Blagojevich, who was arrested last month on charges of trying to sell Obama’s seat.
But the lack-of-state-certification argument would have put Democrats in a tough spot because Franken hasn’t been officially certified either. (His opponent, incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R), has sued over the results, and Minnesota law prevents the state from issuing election certifications until such legal proceedings have played out.) The double standard wasn’t lost on Senate Republicans, who’d vowed to try to block Franken’s seating today.
As it turns out, they won’t have to.
“There will not be an effort to seat Mr. Franken [Tuesday],” Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said last night, according to The Washington Post.
That announcement not only diffuses GOP opposition to seating Franken, but also frees Democrats to block Burris today without violating their own reason for doing so.
Who said the 111th Congress was going to be focused on policy?
4 Comments
Comment posted January 6, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Under the Constitution of the United States, Buurris is the new Illinois Senator. I would have preferred Jackson or Davis. Stopping Burris is not worth throwing the Constitution in the toilet.
Comment posted January 6, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Absent evidence that Mr. Burris obtained his appointment dishonestly, and I believe there is none, the refusal of the Senate to seat him, because he was appointed by an indicted, but not convicted governor, has no legal footing, and will surely be overturned. In the meantime, the sanctimony of the senators who insist on this charade is both laughable and outrageous. If purity in obtaining a senate seat were a requirement of office, we would have about five senators, if that many.
Cut the baloney and get to work on the real problems facing this country.
Comment posted January 6, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
Under the Constitution of the United States, Buurris is the new Illinois Senator. I would have preferred Jackson or Davis. Stopping Burris is not worth throwing the Constitution in the toilet.
Comment posted January 6, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
Absent evidence that Mr. Burris obtained his appointment dishonestly, and I believe there is none, the refusal of the Senate to seat him, because he was appointed by an indicted, but not convicted governor, has no legal footing, and will surely be overturned. In the meantime, the sanctimony of the senators who insist on this charade is both laughable and outrageous. If purity in obtaining a senate seat were a requirement of office, we would have about five senators, if that many.
Cut the baloney and get to work on the real problems facing this country.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
rss