Roland Burris to Be Seated in Senate: Winners and Losers

Politico and everyone broke the news a few hours ago that the Democratic leadership in the Senate is now prepared to seat Roland Burris.

Good for the rule of law.

Here are the winners and losers in this little saga:

Winners

1. The American people, whose only protection from the abuses of government is the law, which needs to be followed, even in the case of a governor accused of a crime, who still has the legal authority to make an appointment.

2. Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), who bravely went to Washington, DC to claim his seat, to which he had been legally appointed.

3. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who last week broke ranks with the Democratic leadership, and said she saw no reason that Burris should not be seated.

4. Rod Blagojevich, who also stood up for the rule of law in making this appointment, whatever his motives. (This has no bearing on whether Blago is guilty or not of the charges which have been brought against him, and for which he has still not been tried.)

Losers

1. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), who at first outrageously said that the Senate would seat no one appointed by Blagojevich. Frankly, he should be brought up on charges of impeachment for this himself, or at least voted out as Senate Majority leader.

2. President-Elect Barack Obama, who first said on December 30, 2008 said that "Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision..." Obama later changed his mind, but, as Al Sharpton observed after Obama's initial statement, Obama should have stayed out of this. All in all, a misstep for the President-elect. On the bright side, this, along with Obama's invitation to Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration next week, are about the only serious mistakes Obama has made as President-elect.

3. All Americans who said Burris should not be seated. Wake up folks - the law, whether we like the actors or not, is the bedrock of our democracy.

Harry Reid Has No Business Negotiating about Seating Roland Burris, Who Was Duly Appointed

Jim Warren on Hardball was just talking about how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is likely to not stand in the way of Roland Burris taking his U.S. Senate seat, as long as Burris agrees not to run for the seat in the 2010 election. Reid was said to be concerned that Burris and the circumstances of his current appointment might make him a poor candidate in 2010. Reid had already signaled, over the weekend, that he was willing to "negotiate" with Burris about this.

I hope Burris does nothing of the sort. He was appointed to the seat by a sitting governor, as per the laws of the state of Illinois. Who, exactly, is Reid, or anyone, to demand that Burris negotiate for that seat, and attempt to exact a price or a promise in return for his taking that seat?

As I've been saying in several posts about Rod Blagojevich, he has been charged with a crime. He has not been indicted, or impeached, or found guilty in a trial in either case. Meanwhile, Prosecutor Fitzgerald has asked for more time, to put together his case against Blagojevich. That's fine - but is the state of Illinois to be put on hold while a Prosecutor is getting his case in order, before it has even been presented to a grand jury for possible indictment?

This is why we have laws in this country - to regulate how we proceed, rather than proceeding on the basis of what we think we know to be true. Harry Reid may think that Blagojevich is guilty, and Reid may be right. But the law has no provision for the exercise of these unproven thoughts, and until these charges are considered by a grand jury, in a court of law, and/or by the state government of Illinois for possible impeachment and trial, Reid should stop obstructing the law. (Even if Blagojevich is ultimately removed from office, he was still the duly elected Governor of Illinois when he made the appointment.) Wheeling and dealing about seating a duly appointed Senator, for political reasons, to improve the Democratic Party's chances of winning in 2010, is not much better than what Blagojevich has been accused of. Not to mention that, for all we know, Roland Burris may be prove to be a strong candidate in 2010, after all.

*Note added January 6, 2009: Roland Burris was turned away from the Senate this morning. The reason given was that his paperwork was incomplete - his appointment had not been "certified" by the Illinois Secretary State. But absent any explanation of why the appointment made by a sitting governor is illegal - what law was violated in Burris' appointment - the Illinois Secretary of State's action, and the US Senate's, remains an affront to our rule of law.

Blago Refuses to Resign - I Think That's Good for the Process of Law

Rod Blagojevich just announced that he won't resign as Governor of Illinois, and will fight the charges that Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald made against him.

I think that's for the good of the country - seriously. Our laws say that people accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty. Not only has Blagojevich not been found guilty in a court of law, he has not even been indicted by a grand jury. All that has happened is a Federal prosecutor has brought very serious charges against him.

For all I know, the charges may well be true. But the point is that I don't know, and neither do most Americans. What we know is that we live in a society governed by laws. If a duly elected governor is obliged to resign because he is accused, not because he is found guilty, what does that say about our laws? Should a prosecutor have such power?

I think not, especially when that power could not only remove a governor, but stop the state of Illinois from sending one of its two Senators to Washington. I know that Harry Reid has said the US Senate would not seat anyone appointed by Blagojevich - but it's not even clear that the Senate would be sustained in court if they tried to do that in this case (those decisions can always be challenged in court, and I wonder if a judge would uphold voiding a Governor's appointment on the basis of his being accused not convicted of a crime).

Laws are designed to protect all of us. Let's not short-circuit them by behaving as if someone has been convicted, when he has only been charged.