It's really quite simple, per John Cole a couple of days ago:
We are a nation of rules, after all. How about we follow them rather than creating all this damned drama? Blagojevich will have his day in court, but for now he is legally the governor, he is legally carrying out his duties, and unless and until the Democrats grab the stones to get rid of him, they should suck it up and deal with his pick. All this gamesmanship and posturing is irritating.
The Senate Democrats have really painted themselves into a corner here. By flatly stating that they would refuse to seat any Blago-appointed Senator -- an assertion of dubious legality and enforceability -- they unnecessarily entered the Senate into a pissing match with both A) Blago, whom the Senators apparently believed would be shamed into resigning, and B) the Illinois legislature, whom the Senators apparently believed would force a special election were Blago not to resign. Of course, Blago hasn't resigned, the Illinois ledge hasn't passed a bill calling for a special election, and now the Senate Dems' bluff is being called by Burris. I'm guessing at least some of them are wishing they'd left a little wiggle room in their position.
The simple facts are that Blago is still Governor, the Illinois constitution still calls for gubernatorial appointment to fill US Senate vacancies, and Roland Burris is constitutionally qualified to sit in the Senate. That should be enough to settle the matter.
Moreover -- not that it's all that relevant to the question of whether Burris ought to be seated -- Burris has not been at all implicated or tainted by the Blago investigation, has no more of a history of ties with Blago than does Barack Obama, and is likely to serve for just two years as a placeholder. Finally, refusal to seat Burris will deny Illinois full Senate representation for months, as it's now clear that Blago isn't resigning anytime soon, and the Illinois ledge doesn't appear ready to move on a special election bill.
In other words, there's not much of a legal argument to avoid seating Burris, and not a lot in the way of ethical grounds, either. Sure, Blago sucks, but Burris isn't Blago, a Blagoite, or even mentioned in the Fitzgerald documents. It's not as if Blago had appointed Jesse Jackson Jr., or even Valerie Jarrett. Burris isn't just completely untainted by the investigation -- he's untouched, unmentioned. And as the Senate Dems waste valuable political capital by engaging in the sideshow of forcibly barring Burris from the chamber, the first days of the new Democratic majority will be spent not on the people's vital business, but on an unnecessary circus. One that seems likely end up with egg on the faces of the Democratic leaders.
As always, terrific priority setting from the Senate leadership. Bodes really well for the next Congressional agenda.
UPDATE: To be clear, I'm aware that there are astute folks out there who have developed arguments by which the Senate could attempt to exclude Burris. But no one thinks that those arguments are guaranteed to prevail, and any attempt to exclude Burris will undoubtedly result in interminable litigation -- which means that the sound and fury of the Burris circus is likely to continue to inhibit the ability of the leadership to push a substantive agenda for weeks to come. The question isn't really whether the Senate can try to exclude Burris -- it's whether they should. And the ethical and political merits argue in favor of putting the thing to rest by just seating the duly appointed Senator from Illinois.