Boomer860 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Not really. Having elected a black president, white America feels just fine about itself. And, I don't see a lot of black outrage either. I don't know anything about Burris, so I can't judge as to whether he'd be a good choice or not. But, he knew EXACTLY what the situation was when he accepted this "nomination", and he's only making himself look stupid by forcing the issue. Obama himself is not backing this man. If Blago#$R$#$*&)(&(vich was a genius, he would have selected a woman. Send him your name , you are a good tard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 Send him your name , you are a good tard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Not really. Having elected a black president, white America feels just fine about itself. And, I don't see a lot of black outrage either. I don't know anything about Burris, so I can't judge as to whether he'd be a good choice or not. But, he knew EXACTLY what the situation was when he accepted this "nomination", and he's only making himself look stupid by forcing the issue. Obama himself is not backing this man. If Blago#$R$#$*&)(&(vich was a genius, he would have selected a woman. You sure? http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_colum...on-already.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Don't forget the in-laws are drug dealers. I thought we were supposed to 'get over' the Clintons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Ooooo woe is me! Tom! Tom! The turds are picking on me! hahahahhahaha Pathetic little "men" (picture me waggling my pinky at you...I'm sure it's within a centimeter or so of reality ... hmmm maybe I'm being generous). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 So a black man is on the steps of the Capitol, with the press all behind him, in the cold rain, trying to get in and is kept out by the white powers that be? Im telling you.....Blago is brilliant....!@#$ing brilliant. Well, after all, Democrats = Jim Crow. I suppose one could read history...perhaps the Hayes-Tilden election. Unless it's about getting votes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well, after all, Democrats = Jim Crow. I suppose one could read history...perhaps the Hayes-Tilden election. Unless it's about getting votes.... Jim Crow still sticks it's ugly head up with issues of gay rights and illegal aliens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 He was invited to come in and watch the swearing in ceremony, just not participate in it. And Al Frankin isn't being sworn in yet, even though he has been certified by his sec. of state as winning his election, while Burris does not yet have the required sign-off from the Illinois sec. of state. Technicalities that virtually nobody will notice. What matters most is whats seen on the TV and Internets. Black man...in the rain, with the press, showing up for work and kept out of the Capitol. With this whole thing Blago went from feeling the cold metal of handcuffs to pulling the strings of the puppets. Brilliance. True, but what also matters (in my understanding) is that Congress can set its requirements for membership, but they cannot add requirements not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution (such as age and citizenship). The Constitution does not mention certification by the Secretary of State. This was clarified in a 1969 SCOTUS decision, Powell vs. McCormack. Like it or not, the appointment appears to be legal and Burris should be seated. He was appointed by a sitting governor who has not been indicted or convicted of any crimes. To not seat Burris is a massive slippery slope you are going down. ALso, if the Secretary of State will not discharge his duties, as directed by a sitting governor, the secretary of State should be immediately replaced. Thats insubordination. Finally, Durbin should be especially outraged since everything in the Senate depends on senority. Even a few days seniority make a big difference when it comes to committee assignments etc. Its why Patterson should have gotten off his a$$ and appointed Hillary's successor immediately, no matter who it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Starvation in Washington. The tards are eating thier own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Says"the Lord touched the Governor on the shoulder and said to pick me" What are those people drinking? He was appointed by the standing Governor of Illinois according to law. That wrinkle of requiring a Ill. State of Sec. signature is quaint, with no US Constitutional basis. He should be seated. "Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive (note the singular) authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive (singular) thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.". Harry and Nancy are trying to dance out of a pr nightmare. Too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 He was appointed by the standing Governor of Illinois according to law. That wrinkle of requiring a Ill. State of Sec. signature is quaint, with no US Constitutional basis. He should be seated. "Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive (note the singular) authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive (singular) thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.". Harry and Nancy are trying to dance out of a pr nightmare. Too bad. Yes, it is entirely legal. Blago has the legal right to appoint whoever he wants, and the Senate has no legal standing to deny him that right. This does not change the fact that Blago is a first-class sh-- who should be impeached for corruption, who if he were a decent human being would NOT make the appointment (on the grounds that his impending trial and impeachment proceedings for attempting to sell the seat invalidate any moral authority he may have had), and Burris, if he had any sense, would have declined the appointment (on the grounds that Blago is a douche). But that these people are crooks does not alter the fact that they're crooks with the legal right to do what they're doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well, now you're all in good company. <<(CNN) – Outgoing Senate Rules Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday she disagrees with her Democratic leadership blocking Roland Burris from being seated in the Senate. “The question is really one, in my view, of law,” Feinstein told reporters in a Capitol hallway. “Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? The answer is yes. Does that affect his appointment power? The answer is no, until certain things happen,” she said. “So, if you don’t seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America. Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician. He has been Attorney General, he has been Controller, and he is very well-respected. I am hopeful that this will be settled.” Feinstein is currently chairman of the Senate's Rules Committee, although New York Sen. Charles Schumer is slated to take over that post in the next few days.>> The thing is...he's tainted not only by the appointer, but by the way he's been acting since then. Very unprofessional. He could have let Blago@#$@$@$$ make the announcement and then stated that he'd wait to take his seat until Blago@#$@$@#$@ had been dispensed with and his right to take said seat vetted. The Senate wouldn't be crippled because he and Al Franken are missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Well, now you're all in good company. <<(CNN) – Outgoing Senate Rules Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday she disagrees with her Democratic leadership blocking Roland Burris from being seated in the Senate. “The question is really one, in my view, of law,” Feinstein told reporters in a Capitol hallway. “Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? The answer is yes. Does that affect his appointment power? The answer is no, until certain things happen,” she said. “So, if you don’t seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America. Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician. He has been Attorney General, he has been Controller, and he is very well-respected. I am hopeful that this will be settled.” Feinstein is currently chairman of the Senate's Rules Committee, although New York Sen. Charles Schumer is slated to take over that post in the next few days.>> The thing is...he's tainted not only by the appointer, but by the way he's been acting since then. Very unprofessional. He could have let Blago@#$@$@$$ make the announcement and then stated that he'd wait to take his seat until Blago@#$@$@#$@ had been dispensed with and his right to take said seat vetted. The Senate wouldn't be crippled because he and Al Franken are missing. Holy sh--, I not only agree with you, I agree with Diane !@#$ing Frankenstein. I think I'm going to be sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I'm not sure about any of this. I guess I think they should seat him. But it is 100% clear that Blowjobovich is just doing it to fukk with people, and I don't think there is one person anywhere, including him and Burris that doesn't know and believe this regardless of what they say. So maybe there is a good reason for not seating him regardless of the legality. Like, for instance, what would you say if he appointed a homeless crack whore who couldnt speak English to the post. Would anyone want to seat her? It's legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I'm not sure about any of this. I guess I think they should seat him. But it is 100% clear that Blowjobovich is just doing it to fukk with people, and I don't think there is one person anywhere, including him and Burris that doesn't know and believe this regardless of what they say. So maybe there is a good reason for not seating him regardless of the legality. Like, for instance, what would you say if he appointed a homeless crack whore who couldnt speak English to the post. Would anyone want to seat her? It's legal. Well a homeless crack whore couldn't afford to pay a dime for the seat so THAT taint wouldn't be there. And, arguably, his or her morales would be on par or better than many of the others already seated in Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I'm not sure about any of this. I guess I think they should seat him. But it is 100% clear that Blowjobovich is just doing it to fukk with people, and I don't think there is one person anywhere, including him and Burris that doesn't know and believe this regardless of what they say. So maybe there is a good reason for not seating him regardless of the legality. Like, for instance, what would you say if he appointed a homeless crack whore who couldnt speak English to the post. Would anyone want to seat her? It's legal. Of course nobody would want to. Still legal. The real problem is that although CLEARLY Blago shouldn't be appointing anyone, you can't simply set aside the law just in this case. And while it would be nice to alter the law in such a way that a governor can't appoint someone if there is a criminal conflict of interest, it couldn't realistically be made retroactive to remove Burris from office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 I'm not sure about any of this. I guess I think they should seat him. But it is 100% clear that Blowjobovich is just doing it to fukk with people, and I don't think there is one person anywhere, including him and Burris that doesn't know and believe this regardless of what they say. So maybe there is a good reason for not seating him regardless of the legality. Like, for instance, what would you say if he appointed a homeless crack whore who couldnt speak English to the post. Would anyone want to seat her? It's legal. What do you have against Demacrap voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Of course nobody would want to. Still legal. The real problem is that although CLEARLY Blago shouldn't be appointing anyone, you can't simply set aside the law just in this case. And while it would be nice to alter the law in such a way that a governor can't appoint someone if there is a criminal conflict of interest, it couldn't realistically be made retroactive to remove Burris from office. I guess. I mean, I would vote for a homeless non-English speaking crack whore before I voted for Al Franken, so I suppose they should just seat Burris. But to me it is rewarding what I think may indeed be criminal behavior, which is doing something traitorous to the U.S. Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 I guess. I mean, I would vote for a homeless non-English speaking crack whore before I voted for Al Franken, so I suppose they should just seat Burris. But to me it is rewarding what I think may indeed be criminal behavior, which is doing something traitorous to the U.S. Senate. Oh, it definitely is. And there ought to be a law. But there isn't. Hell, I can't even think of a way to write one that doesn't violate some Constitutional principle. Best I can think of is to require the state legislature confirm the executive's nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 Well a homeless crack whore couldn't afford to pay a dime for the seat so THAT taint wouldn't be there. And, arguably, his or her morales would be on par or better than many of the others already seated in Congress. Better morals than Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts