Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Giving A Dem Credit

It is not often that I, your humble blogger, give a Democrat credit for much. But, I will give the Democrat senior senator from my state, California, credit for forcing the senate Majority Leader, Dirty Harry Reid, to give Roland Burris his rightful senate seat.
It was Sen. Diane Feinstein that broke ranks and urged Dirty Harry Reid to seat Sen. Burris as the replacement for President-elect Obama's Illinois senate seat.
Dirty Harry Reid thinks that he should not seat Sen. Burris because he was appointed by arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Remember, Gov. Blagojevich has not been formally charged yet with a crime. Nor has he been convicted of any crime.
But, the Democrat-controlled Illinois legislature wants to impeach Gov. Blagojevich in relation to the arrest.
So, a sitting governor appoints a successor to the senator elected President of the United States and Dirty Harry Reid sics his Bull Connor senate sergeant-at-arms on Roland Burris and tells him to go away.
Sen. Feinstein was right on target to say that Dirty Harry Reid was wrong and time to stop the drama and seat Sen. Burris.
And, while it appears that Dirty Harry Reid will continue to drag out this saga, Sen. Feinstein gets two thumbs up for standing up for what is right and seating the duly appointed Sen. Roland Burris.

4 comments:

Nikki said...

Dirty Harry is about to be replaced...he is in trouble in Nevada and let's hope he gets the boot for good! :)N

Rightwingsnarkle said...

Harry Reid sics his Bull Connor senate sergeant-at-arms on Roland Burris and tells him to go away.

Bull Connor? Really?

Funny, I didn't see any dogs or fire hoses. Maybe I need to start watching C-SPAN.

DoorHold said...

The whole spectacle of denying Burris his legally appointed seat is simply shameful.

However, IF it comes out that Burris' appointment came with any "perks" for Blowmebitch, well, THAT should be some fun, huh?

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution states, in part, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; ..."

The reading I get from this is that the Senate is in fact empowered to reject an appointed Senator (reasonably, Mr. Burris' appointment would be part of the Senate's 'Returns'). But if "Each House" is the judge of its own returns, then wouldn't it follow that a majority vote be required to block Mr. Burris' appointment? I don't see how Harry Reid or any other induhvidual Senator could make that decision on his/her own.