First off let me say that it is not my intention to "call out" Adam B. However, his front page piece, Daily Kos Removing Blagojevich ... The Right Way, provoked a firestorm of criticism. I'd like to offer a reply in diary form.
I cannot take issue with Adam B's fundamental point:
Legislators are more accountable to the people than are judges -- even elected judges -- and they are more sensitive to the ramifications of a bad decision here.
I cannot either take issue with the notion that Gov. Blagojevich is entitled to a criminal presumption of innocence. He should be entitled to a trial -- and, not just in federal court. That said, I think the Governor's own reluctance to bow to political realities has made it necessary for the Attorney General's appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. Adam B is wrong. The world cannot wait this time, for an impeachment trial. If Blago won't step down, he must be pushed out as soon as possible. Attorney General Madigan should be applauded, not taken to task. She is saving, not imperiling our democracy.
As of this moment, Blagojevich is a Governor in name only. He cannot govern in any real way. That fact alone makes his continuation in office intolerable. He should, as Adam B noted, step aside -- either by resigning or temporarily ceding power, which the Governor is empowered to do, per Article V of the Illinois Constitution, "whenever the Governor determines that he may be seriously impeded in the exercise of his powers."
The problem, of course, is that he has given no indication that he is even considering either of those two actions. One might hope the Attorney-General's action might force his hand in that regard. If for no other reason, we should cheer the A-G's motion because it may knock some sense into Blago's head, penetrating his thick helmet of hair. This may be the last opportunity for the Governor to decide his own fate.
If Blagojevich refuses to step down or cede power temporarily, even in the face of this motion, it is probably appropriate to question whether he is capable of representing the interests of the people of Illinois. One would have to conclude that he is either delusional, or he is holding on to his position as a negotiating ploy. Does this sound familiar?
"I've got this thing and it's (expletive) golden, and I'm just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I'm not gonna do it."
The only reason Blago is holding on is because he has deluded himself into thinking, once again, that he holds a valuable bargaining chip.
Blagejovich cannot function as Illinois' Chief Executive at this time -- not in any meaningful way. This isn't just because he's facing trial and impeachment. And, it isn't just because he's probably mentally incompetent. It goes to the nature of events, which suggest the presumption of innocence has little meaning in the current circumstance. We are not waiting to see if there will be accusers, and we are not waiting to hear what they will say. The evidence is already out there, in the form of transcripts of audiotapes made of the Governor's own phone calls. The political bodies -- the electorate and the legislature have already made their judgment.
In the meantime, Illinois has no political leadership -- no Chief Executive. That is not a situation that the people of Illinois can tolerate for any length of time. In a time of profound financial crisis, to call that situation desperate is real understatement.
It also presents enormous difficulties for the entire country. The current circumstances mean that the U.S. Senate will function without a member until some other process runs its course -- either impeachment and trial, a special election, or removal of the Governor in some other way. The country faces great peril, and the absence of a Democratic Senator may thwart the will of the electorate that has demanded great change and bold action. We cannot wait while an impeachment trial drags on. The people's business is far too important.
Moreover, the implications of the A-G's motion are not nearly as drastic as Adam B posits. To raise "separation of powers" as a defense is not all that convincing. Either way, we face the prospect of another branch of government considering the motion to remove the Chief Executive.
I don't know the history of impeachments at the state level, but there have been three impeachments at the federal level of the sitting Chief Executive. Two of those three were blatantly partisan affairs. They were about politically weakening the President, and had little do with real crimes. Even the one honorable impeachment effort dragged on for months, totally occupying and paralyzing the federal government. I don't see how it is necessarily better to have a wholly political body "try" the Governor.
The A-G's action would not cut off the Governor's opportunity for a fair hearing. If the Court rules in favor of her application, this only would temporarily remove Blago from office. The impeachment trial could still go forward. If Blago is acquitted in that forum, or acquitted of the pending federal criminal charges, there would be no political or legal impediment to his reinstatement.
There is enough evidence here already to suggest the Governor is out of his mind. There is also enough evidence in the public domain to suggest his conviction is no more than a formality. In any case, he cannot govern. Attorney General Madigan is absolutely right about that.
If Blagojevich refuses to step down of his own accord, he confirms either that he is not in his right mind or that he is more interested in his own circumstances than the needs of Illinois. Either way, his ability to govern should not be in question -- it does not exist. He cannot govern.
Under these circumstances, until he can prove his innocence, he cannot function as the Governor. This might flip the presumption of innocence on its head, but it is political reality.
If the Sup. Ct. rules in A-G Madigan's favor, they're just acknowledging the reality of the situation. And, they're making it possible for government to resume in Illinois. A continuation of the status quo will be a disaster. What is the point of maintaining the charade of an impeachment trial, with a foregone conclusion -- all at the expense of the people?
Adam B is advocating for a fair process and the presumption of innocence. We should all demand no less. My point of departure comes because of the damning evidence...and the suspicion that the Gov. is not in his right mind. Because many in Illinois, including most of the state government shares those concerns, Blagejovich cannot function as the Governor. I think those circumstances do justify the Attorney-General's request.
While I'm sure the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court do not relish being put in this unprecedented position. They have not asked for this case. However, they have a duty to the people of Illinois that demands they hear the motion. They must fairly consider both sides. We should all hope, however, that reason causes them to rule against Gov. Blagejovich.
Adam B concludes with this observation:
"One understands that it might be quite a feather in Madigan's cap to be responsible for Blagojevich's removal from office, and it certainly could aid her in pursuit of higher office. But the gain to her personally, and the righteousness of the end result, shouldn't obscure the fact that this is a bad path to follow."
If this would really be a boon to Madigan's career, then it seems to me that this is an even more compelling reason to pursue this avenue. Not because it will benefit her, but because that means this is what the people of Illinois want to happen -- now. What could be more democratic than that?
If Blago wants his trial in the Illinois Senate, there will still be time for that. Meanwhile, the people of Illinois deserve a Governor. And the American people need a new Senator from Illinois.