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.
Showing posts with label Roland Burris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roland Burris. Show all posts
Monday, January 12, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
24 Season 7: Hours 1 and 2, One of the Best Premieres Ever
One of the best 24 premieres in years - maybe the best - with Jack pulled out of a Senate hearing, looking into charges that he tortured suspects when he was working for CTU. And, in fact, CTU has been disbanded.
Renee Walker, FBI, and one of the best women ever on 24, is the agent who takes Jack away from the Senate. (I was half looking for Roland Burris standing outside, the scene was so good.) The bad guys have kidnapped a government computer whiz - in a smashing first scene - and he's been forced to put the finishing touches on a device that will allow the bad guys to break into traffic control, the power and water grids of the country, all of the things that could kill millions and bring the country to its knees. And - Tony Almeida is one of the bad guys in charge (and good to see Carlos Bernard back, even as a bad guy).
This had been well announced, and came as no surprise, but it was still very well played. And the question remains: Is Tony really bad? In tonight's two hours, he stops short of causing any death to innocent people - he does order the killing of a bad guy who was about to talk - and this leaves open the possibility that either Tony is not completely bad, or maybe he's working under some deep cover.
If so, Jack certainly doesn't know about this. There are some great scenes between Jack and Renee (Annie Wersching looks and sounds great in this role - she and Kiefer Sutherland are fine and powerful together), as Renee first makes Jack promise he won't resort to his usual tactics with suspects, but then encourages him, sort of, because she realizes that in life-and-death situations, you may need to do more, or, at least threaten to do more, than FBI rules allow.
The torture-issue thread was very carefully developed in the first two hours, as follows: (1) Renee makes it clear that she wants Jack to come to the interrogation because the target knows what Jack was capable of, so Jack's being there would convey the implicit threat of torture. (2) When the target refuses to talk, Jack asks Renee if he has permission to go further, saying it's her call, and she agrees - all of this in front of the target. (3) Jack puts a pen to the target's eye, and he agrees to talk. (4) Later, Renee asks Jack how far we he would proceeded with the pen, and Jack says you gave me permission. (5) But Renee says she was only play-acting, to jolt the subject into talking...
This will clearly be a continuing theme in the show, and a rejoinder to Keith Olbermann and others who are sure, with their eyes closed, that 24 glorifies torture. (Olbermann was wrong, in any case, to say 24 got its marching orders from the Bush administration. Torture on 24 was only used when terrorists were about to blow up a big city, and not for routine questioning of prisoners as per Bush.)
Larry Moss, Renee's boss, speaks for the FBI. He may have some feelings for Renee, and he certainly doesn't like Jack. I don't trust him. And I couldn't help noticing that he said "three" people had been killed by the sniper when Jack and Renee were questioning a suspect - when, in fact, only two were killed.
There's definitely a double agent at the FBI. We see at least one. And I wouldn't be shocked if Larry is another.
Meanwhile, in presumably other matters, the President's son - whom we saw in Redemption - has apparently committed suicide. But the President's husband - the "first gentlemen" - doesn't believe it, and there's almost no way he can't be right. It's not clear what President Allison Taylor thinks about this. She has her hands more than full with an imminent U.S. intervention in Sangala, where we saw Jack in Redemption.
This was a powerhouse premiere, with lots of nice of touches. When Jack leaves the Senate hearing, the Chair says he'll be due back at the hearing "tomorrow morning." My wife and I immediately noticed this. "Tomorrow" in 24 time, but next year in television season time. And, if tonight's two-hour pace is any indication, it will seem like just a handful of heart-pounding minutes.
See also: review of Redemption
And ... Season 7, Hours 3 and 4 ... Hour 5
6-min podcast review of 24 7 Hrs 1-2
The Plot to Save Socrates
"challenging fun" - Entertainment Weekly
"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News
"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book
more about The Plot to Save Socrates...
Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!
Renee Walker, FBI, and one of the best women ever on 24, is the agent who takes Jack away from the Senate. (I was half looking for Roland Burris standing outside, the scene was so good.) The bad guys have kidnapped a government computer whiz - in a smashing first scene - and he's been forced to put the finishing touches on a device that will allow the bad guys to break into traffic control, the power and water grids of the country, all of the things that could kill millions and bring the country to its knees. And - Tony Almeida is one of the bad guys in charge (and good to see Carlos Bernard back, even as a bad guy).
This had been well announced, and came as no surprise, but it was still very well played. And the question remains: Is Tony really bad? In tonight's two hours, he stops short of causing any death to innocent people - he does order the killing of a bad guy who was about to talk - and this leaves open the possibility that either Tony is not completely bad, or maybe he's working under some deep cover.
If so, Jack certainly doesn't know about this. There are some great scenes between Jack and Renee (Annie Wersching looks and sounds great in this role - she and Kiefer Sutherland are fine and powerful together), as Renee first makes Jack promise he won't resort to his usual tactics with suspects, but then encourages him, sort of, because she realizes that in life-and-death situations, you may need to do more, or, at least threaten to do more, than FBI rules allow.
The torture-issue thread was very carefully developed in the first two hours, as follows: (1) Renee makes it clear that she wants Jack to come to the interrogation because the target knows what Jack was capable of, so Jack's being there would convey the implicit threat of torture. (2) When the target refuses to talk, Jack asks Renee if he has permission to go further, saying it's her call, and she agrees - all of this in front of the target. (3) Jack puts a pen to the target's eye, and he agrees to talk. (4) Later, Renee asks Jack how far we he would proceeded with the pen, and Jack says you gave me permission. (5) But Renee says she was only play-acting, to jolt the subject into talking...
This will clearly be a continuing theme in the show, and a rejoinder to Keith Olbermann and others who are sure, with their eyes closed, that 24 glorifies torture. (Olbermann was wrong, in any case, to say 24 got its marching orders from the Bush administration. Torture on 24 was only used when terrorists were about to blow up a big city, and not for routine questioning of prisoners as per Bush.)
Larry Moss, Renee's boss, speaks for the FBI. He may have some feelings for Renee, and he certainly doesn't like Jack. I don't trust him. And I couldn't help noticing that he said "three" people had been killed by the sniper when Jack and Renee were questioning a suspect - when, in fact, only two were killed.
There's definitely a double agent at the FBI. We see at least one. And I wouldn't be shocked if Larry is another.
Meanwhile, in presumably other matters, the President's son - whom we saw in Redemption - has apparently committed suicide. But the President's husband - the "first gentlemen" - doesn't believe it, and there's almost no way he can't be right. It's not clear what President Allison Taylor thinks about this. She has her hands more than full with an imminent U.S. intervention in Sangala, where we saw Jack in Redemption.
This was a powerhouse premiere, with lots of nice of touches. When Jack leaves the Senate hearing, the Chair says he'll be due back at the hearing "tomorrow morning." My wife and I immediately noticed this. "Tomorrow" in 24 time, but next year in television season time. And, if tonight's two-hour pace is any indication, it will seem like just a handful of heart-pounding minutes.
See also: review of Redemption
And ... Season 7, Hours 3 and 4 ... Hour 5
6-min podcast review of 24 7 Hrs 1-2
The Plot to Save Socrates
"a Da Vinci-esque thriller" - New York Daily News
"Sierra Waters is sexy as hell" - curled up with a good book
more about The Plot to Save Socrates...
Read the first chapter of The Plot to Save Socrates .... FREE!
Monday, January 5, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Blago Is Right to Appoint Burris to Senate Seat
I think Rod Blagojevich was right to appoint Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's US Senate seat from Illinois.
As I wrote 10 days ago, Blagojevich has not been found guilty of anything. He has not even been indicted by a grand jury. He has not been impeached or found guilty in a subsequent trial.
He has been publicly accused by a Federal prosecutor. I think it is crucial to the rule of law in our society that we don't allow accusations to derail or short circuit our legal processes. The law in Illinois calls for the governor to make this appointment. To not make the appointment would be allowing a Federal prosecutor to call the shots - to decide, in effect, who cannot be Senator. Is this the kind of power we want prosecutors to have?
Democrats in the US Senate are saying that Burris might not be seated. They should bear in mind that when the Congress tried unseat Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. in the 1960s, the Supreme Court found that the House had acted unconstitutionally, and Powell was reseated. And the Powell case involved charges against him - that he had misappropriated funds. In contrast, no one has brought any charges against Burris.
To refuse to seat a Senator duly appointed by a governor, because the governor has been accused - not indicted or found guilty - of a crime, would be a dangerous precedent indeed.
As I wrote 10 days ago, Blagojevich has not been found guilty of anything. He has not even been indicted by a grand jury. He has not been impeached or found guilty in a subsequent trial.
He has been publicly accused by a Federal prosecutor. I think it is crucial to the rule of law in our society that we don't allow accusations to derail or short circuit our legal processes. The law in Illinois calls for the governor to make this appointment. To not make the appointment would be allowing a Federal prosecutor to call the shots - to decide, in effect, who cannot be Senator. Is this the kind of power we want prosecutors to have?
Democrats in the US Senate are saying that Burris might not be seated. They should bear in mind that when the Congress tried unseat Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. in the 1960s, the Supreme Court found that the House had acted unconstitutionally, and Powell was reseated. And the Powell case involved charges against him - that he had misappropriated funds. In contrast, no one has brought any charges against Burris.
To refuse to seat a Senator duly appointed by a governor, because the governor has been accused - not indicted or found guilty - of a crime, would be a dangerous precedent indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
