Reid says he will ‘without any question’ bring Burris to a full Senate vote.
Reid says he will ‘without any question’ bring Burris to a full Senate vote.
Today, in a reversal from his previous position, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) opened the door to seating Roland Burris as the successor to President-elect Obama’s Senate seat. At the end of his press conference, Reid said that Burris’s appointment with undoubtedly come to a full Senate vote:
Q: Are you suggesting that there will ultimately be a vote of the entire Senate on whether or not to seat Roland Burris?
REID: I think without any question that will be the case.
Watch it:
Softening his earlier stance that Burris should not be seated, Obama called the situation a “Senate matter,” but he added, “If he gets seated, then I’m going to work with Roland Burris just like I worked with all the other senators to make sure that the people of Illinois and the people of the country are served.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
30 Responses to “Reid says he will ‘without any question’ bring Burris to a full Senate vote.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Their only constitutional option was to seat him, then expel him. So now that all the unconstitutional crap has failed, he's just rolling over. Real nice.
So that letter all the Dems signed saying they wouldn't accept a Blago appointment makes the entire Democratic caucus look like idiots. If I were a Senator, I would never throw in on one of Reid's plans again.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:05 pmDoesn't exactly sound like democracy anymore, an elected body deciding who they want to be members of their own club.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:05 pmI thought that was our job.
Show me, where in the Constitution and in any Supreme Court decision does the U.S. Senate have the right to vote to seat or reject a senator? Reports had it that the senate doesn't even require the Secretary of State's signature.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:08 pmNO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
You absolutely have to seat him first.
Then you can bring it to a vote to expel him.
2/3 of the Senate can expel him
But you have to seat him first.
If this "vote him in" by a simple majority vote thing goes through, this will set a very bad precedent. Someone with standing will have to sue and get the action deemed unconstitutional.
Reid, you dumbass. You cannot do this.
Who swears in new Senators? Why do they have to listen to the Majority Leader?
Whoever sears in Senators, just swear him in and get it over with.
This is getting ridiculous and out of hand.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pmKudos to the Illinois legislature for failing to quickly pass an order for a special election.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:11 pmGee...I wonder which scary Republican jumped him in the men's room and screamed "BOO!!!!"...?
January 7th, 2009 at 4:12 pmIs Harry Reid being overwhelmed by the responsibilities of his leadership position?
January 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pmHe may have been able to muddle along prior to 2006, he hasn't been doing so well since...
McWars Says:
Show me, where in the Constitution and in any Supreme Court decision does the U.S. Senate have the right to vote to seat or reject a senator? Reports had it that the senate doesn’t even require the Secretary of State’s signature.
Are you sure you aren't a REPUBLICAN - you're STUPID enough to be one!
Article 1 of the Constitution stipulates that the Senate is the "Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications" of its own members.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:16 pmOh Reid... we can always count on you to stand up for what you believe no matter what.
/sarc
Not that I agree w/ his initial position, but it always seems obvious what the result will be when Reid makes a big stink about something... the opposite of his position. What a joke.
Democrats deserve much better "leadership" than this consistently ineffective weasel.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:17 pmOh, I misunderstood. So they are going to swear him in and then vote to expel.
Good. Finally.
God, Harry Reid is still lame.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:20 pmMcWars Says:
Kudos to the Illinois legislature for failing to quickly pass an order for a special election.
While the tapes sound damning against Blago, they are no more damning than the tapes against Murtha that most would consider nothing more than chatter as no specific crime was committed and no specific solicitation was recorded. In otherwords the evidence against Blago is weak from a proprietorial standpoint despite being strong from a public relations one. The appearance of impropriety while many would consider unethical in and of itself is not necessarily criminal.
As for the passing of the law, technically speaking the Governor still has the right to pick who he wishes. He's still the governor. However from a legal standpoint the Senate is chartered with the right to reject members based on its own standards according to Article 1...
January 7th, 2009 at 4:20 pmHey, why don't we bring votes to expel every senator? It would be like Survivor. If you aren't popular, you're gone.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:22 pmRHF says
"the Senate is chartered with the right to reject members based on its own standards according to Article 1…"
That's funny. What standards? Do LIEberman, Vitter, and Wide Stance meet them? Can they be expelled, too! Are they really going to argue that Burris is worst than them? LOL!
January 7th, 2009 at 4:27 pmAlejandro Says:
Hey, why don’t we bring votes to expel every senator? It would be like Survivor. If you aren’t popular, you’re gone.
You should read the article 1 post I just made. You can remove them based on elections, returns or qualifications - it must be based on one of those 3. The difficulty for the current situation is that because this is an appointment and not an election he must be challenged based on his qualifications. It's not based on popularity, it's based on constitutional ability for the Senate to say a given election was fraudulent or a given person is unqualified. Then it requires a 2/3rd majority which is difficult to muster in most cases.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pmcwarddc Says:
RHF says
“the Senate is chartered with the right to reject members based on its own standards according to Article 1…”
That’s funny. What standards? Do LIEberman, Vitter, and Wide Stance meet them? Can they be expelled, too! Are they really going to argue that Burris is worst than them? LOL!
No, they can't be expelled see my previous post. The standards on seating them and it requires a 2/3rds majority. And the senate is responsible for deciding it's own standards in a 2/3rds majority...
January 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pmrepublicans hate facts
**FLAGGED** troll bot
1. There was no election to judge
2. There is no reason to doubt his qualifications, "qualifications" being age, citizenship, etc. as established in the Powell ruling.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:37 pmrepublicans hate facts
You're not telling me anything I don't already know. First, the Illinois legislature doesn't need to poke their business in the federal investigation. Just the fact that he's crippling the state's affairs is enough to boot him.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:39 pmHarry Reid is The Biggest Loser.
i honestly think Reid would rather McCain won....its so much easier to play the role of victim than to ACTUALLY SHOW SOME LEADERSHIP!!!!!
January 7th, 2009 at 4:41 pmAnd just what are "returns" in this case?
January 7th, 2009 at 4:43 pmWhat a useless man Reid is. He is so weak. He and the Democrats got into something that was not their legal right to be in. And everyone knew it but them. The Illinois governor is still legally in charge in that state. And that being so, he had the right to appoint anyone.
Reid just didn't pick his battle sensibly. Nor did the party. Typical stupidity. For eight years they have not had the spine or courage to fight for us out here. They have rolled over so often for the Republicans they have marks on their backs. And all of the sudden, they fight this.
Reid got so much flack from us out here, he had to back track. God. These Democrats are so weak. So afraid of battle, and so afraid to come up against Republicans, they will grab their ankles and ask for more.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pmrhf -- You've pointed the laser on Mr. Burris' qualifications in multiple posts, but again, they're not looking at his résumé; the precedent set by Supreme Court is to judge him against the constitution, and there's no doubt about his constitutional eligibility under qualifications to serve in office.
If the issue under "returns" has to do with the blank spot where Jesse White is supposed to sign, keep in mind the secretary of state doesn't have veto power over the governor's pick; White's signature merely certifies the authenticity of the governor's signature, nothing more.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:52 pmMcWars Says:
rhf — You’ve pointed the laser on Mr. Burris’ qualifications in multiple posts, but again, they’re not looking at his résumé; the precedent set by Supreme Court is to judge him against the constitution, and there’s no doubt about his constitutional eligibility under qualifications to serve in office.
If the issue under “returns” has to do with the blank spot where Jesse White is supposed to sign, keep in mind the secretary of state doesn’t have veto power over the governor’s pick; White’s signature merely certifies the authenticity of the governor’s signature, nothing more.
My previous posts stands, and the ability and restrictions of the senate remains on what I said earlier. While the Powell v McCormack precedent stipulates that such a review would be limited to his age, residency or citizenship it hasn't been challenged since the case was heard and most certainly could be interpreted differently by other courts. This however is pretty much the only hope the Senate has in rejecting Burris legally.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:59 pmMcWars Says:
And just what are “returns” in this case?
If you don't understand this basic premise, it explains why your posts are so ignorant.
"Elections and Returns" are part of the same thing, as in Returns refers to things like recount and the "returns" of election ballots that were RETURNED to the election official on or before voting day... Duh... You really aren't very bright.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:01 pmIs there ANY doubt in ANYONE'S mind that Harry Reid is the most pathetic "leader" ever to walk the halls of Congress? I have NO IDEA how this spineless wimp made it into a leadership position.
The Re THUG LIE CONS must be wetting their pants with excitement over the black eye the Democrats gave themselves thanks to Reid. Judicial Watch has sued to seat Burris. Anyone doubt how eager they are to see Burris seated so that they can tar the Democrats with the Blagojevich corruption.
What a sad beginning to what should be a triumphant launch of a new era. Can SOMEONE please pull the plug on the Reid era???
January 7th, 2009 at 5:02 pmOnce again Harry "Really, I'm Not Jimmy Carter" Reid has shown his complete political stupidity and incompetence.
He botched this from day one.
Is he a long lost Bush family member? A distant cousin? He is so stupid....
January 7th, 2009 at 5:05 pmNo, rhf, you're not at liberty to determine whether your posts stand. And again, you're not telling me anything I don't already know -- at the same time proving my point.
Returns from elections. Since there was no election, the senate thinks they can zero in on the signature on a document that wasn't even required, in place of a return. Your original contention @ 4:08 PM was flinging your dung and citing Article I of the Constitution. Two of three elements of the article you think are up for debate -- elections and returns -- cancel's itself out as there was no election and therefore no returns.
While the Powell v McCormack precedent stipulates that such a review would be limited to his age, residency or citizenship it hasn’t been challenged since the case was heard and most certainly could be interpreted differently by other courts.
A ruling is still a ruling until it's challenged. Just as a law is still a law until it's challenged. The lower courts have sent nothing up to the Supreme Court and they cannot interpret the ruling of the higher court differently. There is no right given to a senate body to rewrite the established precedent to-date -- and that includes refusing to seat a senator on the basis of the governor's legal woes -- the governor is still innocent until proven guilty.
This however is pretty much the only hope the Senate has in rejecting Burris legally.
No, there is no hope. They must seat him and, at their own peril, have the option of expelling him. That would be a radioactive scenario and could possibly replace President Bush as the ghost haunting members' re-election prospects.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:22 pm"Reid says he will ‘without any question’ bring Burris to a full Senate vote."
There's got to be something in the water this week that Reid and Feinstein are drinking. Reid has changed his Democratic uniform so much that he is now showing his true colors that he is not fit as the Senate Majority Leader. He needs to concentrate in his own state [his approval rating in his state are low] since he is up for re-election. Also this:
Me <----bangs head against wall on this story.
Reid vows to lead till at least 2015
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17151.html
January 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pmReid is a disgrace.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:47 pmQ: Are you suggesting that there will ultimately be a vote of the entire Senate on whether or not to seat Roland Burris?
REID: I think without any question that will be the case.
continued...
Q: Isn't that the exact opposite of what you said yesterday?
REID: Of course not. Yesterday's when I said the opposite of what I'm saying today.
Q: Isn't that the same thing?
REID: No, absolutely not. I haven't changed my current position. It was yesterday's position that was wrong. But today's is correct, and always was.
Q: ...
January 7th, 2009 at 7:08 pmObama said Burris shouldn't be seated, now he OK with Burris being seated. He's already flip flopping and hasn't even been sworn in. The next four years will be a nightmare. Who will run for POTUS on the democrat ticket in 2012? I would suggest Harry Reid.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:59 pm