Skip to main content

View Diary: More opinions on blocking Burris (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Weak argue by the diarist.... (5+ / 0-)

    then why don't Reid just refuse all repugs from being seated he has the votes maybe not the 2/3s. What stopping a Senate that consists of 2/3 Dems from blocking 33 repugs from being seated. I am positive the framers ie the minorities at that time would agree to anything in the Constitution that would permit the tyranny of the majority, Don't you think they went through the lengths to come up with the an electoral college and the 'senate' (2 reps per state) for that very reason.

    If Reid bars Burris, it won't stand up in court.

    May the Schwartz be with you!

    by FLS on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 06:46:29 PM PST

    •  Nothing. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Technically, nothing blocks a 2/3 majority from expelling the other 1/3. Nothing but political considerations, that is.

      •  I don't think the framers would agree with (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        your opinion. the senate as only narrow leeway in approving or rejecting to seat a senator based on qualifications and the validity of the appointment, meaning was this a legal appointment. 17th Amendment of the Constitution gives the executive of each state the power to appoint a senator if a vacancy occurs and gives that state's legislature the ability to decide the manner by which this occurs. This is a legal appointment by a sitting Governor. The hint of taint is like saying Jessie Helms or  Strom Thurmond might be a racist so lets not seat them, that could be applied to any politician.

        This in effect sets any legal appointment on equal footing to an election result. I don't see the courts allowing arbitrary bias by the senate. I don't see either side of this argument explicitly spelt out in the Constitution, as a result this will be ultimately defined by the courts.

        May the Schwartz be with you!

        by FLS on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:39:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think they would. (0+ / 0-)

          Remember who they were setting up to sit in judgment.


          They knew very well that the temptation to use the power would be strongly tempered by the political untenability of exercising the power in maximalist fashion.

          They had, after all, just had an actual pitchfork and torches revolution.

          Nor is there any difference between their powers with regard to elected versus appointed Senators. But you're also conflating a decision not to seat a Senator with the decision to expel one, which is a very different decision, and can be grounded on very different criteria.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site