Comments on DISSENTING JUSTICE: Some Media Outlets Begin "Palinizing" Roland Burri...

I agree with the professor on both counts. CEOs (...

2009-01-03T15:42:00.000-05:00

I agree with the professor on both counts. CEOs (unlike most employees at corporations) generally have employment contracts that pay them if they are fired other than for cause. While most resign some are fired. However, I think it is safe to say that this usually happens after an investigation. When Boeing fired its CEO for having an affair with an employee, the board investigated the allegation--hiring a firm to interviews and the like. Likewise for Mcafee, Broadcomm and others caught up in the options scandals. Even HP investigated Fiorini (sp?) for some time before she went. None of them was fired because someone merely accused them of something. Likewise, the Illinois Legislature could investigate and fire Blagojevich if the person who has accused him is ever willing to share the evidence that underlies the accusation.

Hi, Erika. Thanks for posting. The difference betw...

2009-01-03T04:52:00.000-05:00

Hi, Erika. Thanks for posting. The difference between a corporation and the Senate and the State of Illinois is that the corporation is not bound by due process rules. What links a "court," Congress and Illinois is their exercise of governmental authority. As such, some semblance of due process matters, including, I would argue, that some factual basis exists before impeaching a governor AND certainly before denying a duly appointed Senator the opportunity to hold office (especially when no allegation of wrondgoing against him exists).

Here's another contrast to your CEO example. Federal and state workers do not automatically lose their jobs the way a coporate official would. They are entitled to procedural protections that other workers do not receive. And sometimes even officials have contract clauses that require procedures to protect them from immediate dismissal as well. And even when dismissed, they could receive tremendous payments on the way out.

Yes, in a court of law you are innocent until prov...

2009-01-02T14:18:00.000-05:00

Yes, in a court of law you are innocent until proven guilty. However, we are talking about basically a job -- governor. If Blago had been, say, a CEO of a company and it was revealed that he was engaged in shady tactics, he would be fired, and no questions would be raised. Essentially the US Senate is doing, or trying to do, the equivalent with blocking his nomination and hopefully, in the state, with his impeachment. Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts only. As governor Blago has a responsibility to remain above reproach in his actions. He didn't do that.

PS: sorry for the typos, but blogger does not allo...

2009-01-02T07:41:00.000-05:00

PS: sorry for the typos, but blogger does not allow for the editing of comments.

Critical Thinker, you have misstated the Powell ru...

2009-01-02T07:36:00.000-05:00

Critical Thinker, you have misstated the Powell ruling. It certainly recognized each chamber's authority under Art I, Sect. 5, but it narrowly construed that power as limited to judging only those criteria stated in the constitution (e.g., age, residency, etc.). It did not say that either the House or Senate has unbridled discretion to exclude any duly elected or selected candidate at will.

The Court acknowledged the power to expel, but this requires a 2/3 vote and (probably) a showing of wrongdoing by the person seeking admission to Congress. I have read some analysis which says Congressional rules require that the wrongdoing take place DURING office, not before.

As for the "ethical" matter, I guess I am somewhere between you and Cynic in Chicago. C/C takes the hard line that absent a conviction no ethical problem should exist. You seem to believe that the mere filing of a criminal complaint so taints the governor that he cannot make the appointment. Ironically, this is precisely a position that the Illinois Supreme Court refused to recognize.

Although I believe that some cases probably exist where such a cloud could exist absent a prosecution, I am not willing to accept it in this case -- due to the stance of the state legislature and court and the prosecutor as well. He has not been convicted; the court refused to declare him incompetent; the prosecutor now wants 3 additional months to bring the case; the prosecutor has asked that the impeachment panel refrain from interviewing material witnesses. Most significanlty, all of the "alleged" parties whom Blago was supposedly trying to bargain with have said that "no inappropriate conversations" took place with him. The public seemingly validates those claims. But if this is true, then Blago cannot be guilty, because no actions to further the conspiracy would have taken place. Unless the Senate is willing to say that Obama, Jackson, Madigan, and others engaged in inappropriate conversations with Blago at some point, then saying that the compalint against him creates an ethical cloud is disingenuous.

Critical Thinker. Can I ask what exactly is the e...

2009-01-02T02:10:00.000-05:00

Critical Thinker. Can I ask what exactly is the ethics problem? I realize I am being a bit provocative, but I want someone to lay out the problem. If you accept that one is not guilty until proven, what is the problem?

Well Professor, first off happy new year. I hope y...

2009-01-02T00:23:00.000-05:00

Well Professor, first off happy new year. I hope your holidays were spent well.

The problem with the Burris appointment to Senate is not one of qualifications it is one of ethics. Understandably, Blago is playing the card that this was his duty as Governor to assure the people of Illinois have Senate representation.

And you are quite correct in pointing out Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty. He hasn't even been indicted yet. But with the Senate you are in a whole other realm. I highly doubt the SCOUTS or any other judiciary component will want to touch this hot potato.

As I am sure you already know with your background there has been mention of Powell 1967, where the SCOTUS upheld the Supremacy Clause, Constitution Article 1, paragraph 5. Giving Congress the ability to supersede any decision of the state and chose not to seat Burris. Granted the Powell case dealt with election, not appointment.

I hope the Senate can settle this. If it goes to court it will show Congress cannot even keep its own backyard clean. Simply put, Blago 1 Congress 0.

Well, if you're right, the question then becomes: ...

2009-01-01T19:40:00.000-05:00

Well, if you're right, the question then becomes: What was in it INITIALLY for Senate leaders? It's easy to understand why they have dug their heels in now, but orignally, they could have condemneed the allegations "if true" and did not have to take the hard line that characterizes their current position.

I am not sure Obama is neutral. I thought he was not fond of Blago, and he wanted one of his buds to hold the job. Also, has made powerful statements at each turn against Blago. I guess it could represent more than simply helping the team. But maybe not. Ultimately motives do not matter in terms of assessing the appropriateness of the response.

PS: I was just on a website that had a positive "analysis" of Burris with respect to gay rights. The commenters said this should not matter because [he is a scum for taking the job...he won't take the seat....blah blah].

I doubt that Obama really cares. I think the calc...

2009-01-01T18:45:00.000-05:00

I doubt that Obama really cares. I think the calculus for him is that he can support the Senate leadership (which he needs) or say it is not a bit deal and be seen as supporting the Governor. Easy choice.

I don't doubt that White needs to do the certification. I just think it is clerical task. His comments suggests that he thinks he needs to agree with the governor. Even if he were certifying an election, he would only be certifying that candidate X got Y votes. What he is doing now just seems to be the latest installment in the "Democrats Gone Rogue" miniseries.

Ditto! It is such an odd proposition: Unless you ...

2009-01-01T18:09:00.000-05:00

Ditto! It is such an odd proposition: Unless you turn down a job that you presumably did not purchase, you are defective.

Also, the Jesse White situation is interesting. I read somewhere that Senate rules require that members be "certified," but I suspect this provision refers to elections (although I have not read it). I wonder what the Illinois SCT will do with it's own Marbury v Madison (Madigan?) situation.

I think that the Democrats possibly overplayed their hand. I am not saying they will lose, but they have expanded this situation beyond its significance. I doubt that anyone believes Burris bought the seat or that he would not vote the "party line." He says he will not run in 2010 - and his age leaves little room to question his assertion. Blago will eventually vanish, and 2010 will arrive, and a new election will take place.

So why all of the drama? Is it because Obama wants someone he knows to occupy the seat now to have an easier chance to run in 2010? That's not necessarily a safe bet. It carries risks (the candidate will have accumulated an attackable Senate record).

I don't fully follow the argument that Burris' rep...

2009-01-01T17:58:00.000-05:00

I don't fully follow the argument that Burris' reputation is horribly destroyed. Why is it that to be of "good reputation" one has to join the liberal "guilty before charged" campaign against Blagojevich? Seemingly, as long as you are on board with that campaign you can do whatever you like and be of good character. Indeed, Jesse White (Secretary of State of Illinois) has created a new confirmation power for himself and remains a person of good character--as liberals seem not to be complaining about his principles or mediocrity.

I think it will be not too long before the media finds that Burris was involved in some corruption scandal--giving the Senate a good reason to refuse to seat him. Until then, I am sure he will continue to be Palinized.