shouldn't it be the result. I dislike Reid as much as any sane person could, but in this example he is doing the opposite of the Dem's history and supporting the standing legal position. Illinois will have an election in two years, and Burris couldn't be any worse than Rockefeller, Schumer, Lieberman, Landrieu and Feinstein. Even Harry sees this.

I agree Joan, but I personally don't like to contemplate just what's under Harry's trousers, Mormon or not.

It looks like the Senate Democrats' hands are tied by existing law, both state and federal. Powell v. McCormack seems to put paid to the idea that the senate can deny a seat to anyone whose meets all the qualification of Article 1, Section 3.

And, there is no reason to believe that the Illinois Supreme Court will not compel the Illinois AG to sign the appointment. Short of a quick impeachment of Blagojevich, which is as likely as the Pope entering into a gay marriage with Cardinal Egan, the state has no legal justification for denying the appointment.

One has to believe that Blagojevich is sneering at his betters, and loving every minute of it. He has painted them into a corner out of which the only exit is into a shark infested tank.

Let the games begin.

1. Mr. Blagoyevich is still the governator of Illinois and has the power to make the appointment.

2. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty. It is important to always, always remember and honor that. Because this is an indictment to be brought by Mr. Fitzpatrick, I have no doubt that Mr. Blagoyevich is as guilty as sin. On the other hand, need I remind you of another black and white case involving some Duke Lacrosse players and a whore?

I live in Illinois. Most of the people are depressed about this.

Whatever joy we had from Obama's win is gone.

Most of the people supporting Burris are republicans for obvious reasons. Because he cannot win.

I am sick to death of:

Bobby Rush acting like it's 1968 and his grandstanding.

People who are calling racist those who reject Burris (most of the ones rejecting are from Illinois, by the way). Instead of calling us names why don't they turn to their own states and ask why they are not electing AA senators and do so before pointing fingers.

People thinking they know more about this and have a bigger voice then we, the people of Illinois.

Blago getting away with his Sh** time and again. And he has played the so called progressives (I am a democrat by the way)like a fiddle.

This is our state and we, the people, want our voices heard and have a special election. Blago is corrupt and Burris is a failed mediocre pol with ties to him.

This is a slap in the face to Obama, the state and it's people and our right to adequate representation.

but we deserve a president that was chosen that way?

That to avoid the scent of corruption on the Democrats side, Burris shouldn't be seated because Blago is under investigation. But weren't Abramhoff and others convicted of crimes? Not just the scent of corruption, but convictions of actual crimes.

Isn't the main point that we want the new administration following our countries laws? Not bending them or twisting them to suit our one time needs. I even agree with the first block because of a missing signature, if a signature is needed to confirm the appointment than rules should be followed.

That's what the american public wants to see, laws followed, rules adheared to, no more fancy lawyering to find loopholes for an administration to do what they feel like.

Sure, Blago is a jerk, he should have let someone else make the pick to avoid the scent of corruption.

But the fact of the matter is, he's still govenor, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, he still has the legal authority to make the appointment and the Senate has no legal standing to block Burris's appointment.

Plus, look how many people are backing a white lady with a vauge resume who's never run for anything and a famous name to replace a white lady with a famous name who just left her seat. I think for whatever Blago's faults or crimes he may have commited, he's certainly an adept politician to pick someone he knew that if blocked people would cry racism, racism instead of how much did he pay!

I loved the line about Harry Reid's accordion legs. The Democrats are finally in power, and they have political capital, and yet they are (especially when it comes to Senate Democrats) still so spineless. It's disgusting.

Being a 4-time state loser (Burris) or being dangerously inexperienced and unqualified (Caroline Kennedy)?

Lestat1 and sonofloud, you're not required to read EVERY blog post to comment, but it's worth noting I've been quite critical of the Caroline Kennedy movement as well.

For once I totally agree with you ........to seat a senator while things are the state they are in will simply provoke thoughts of business as usual ......

And Rush's statement once again points out that politicians shouldn't be allowed out in public.

Despite my disgust with Harry Reid, I think that it that folding at the proper time is what is needed in this situation. The Illinois Legislature failed the people of their state and the country in their slow response to Blago's corruption. The Illinois Supreme Court failed the same people by refusing to declare Blago temporarily unfit to carry out his duties. And, perhaps most importantly, Roland Burris failed his state and his country by agreeing to accept a clearly tainted nomination out of blind, selfish ambition, knowing full well that Blago was using him because of his skin color.

The failures started well before Harry Reid. Turning Burris away at the door was the right thing to do. But legally, there is little that can be done to prevent Burris from eventually being seated anyway (unless the Democrats want to keep the issue in the court system until the 2010 elections). Burris is NOT "the junior Senator from Illinois" as he claims, but it is hard to see an outcome where he is not eventually.

Given the choice between a Constitutional battle over how much power the Senate has in turning an appointee away and finding a graceful way to seat Burris, seating Burris is the safer course. The question for Democrats is how to pull it off.

The case for turning Burris away Tuesday was solid. His documents are not in order and the law and Senate rules are on Reid's side. Just giving in now and seating him would be a disaster, but there is a path to seating him sooner rather than later that would save face for the Democrats. If Burris gets the Illinois Supreme Court to force the Secretary of State to sign off on his nomination, then the reason for Burris being denied entry Tuesday will go away and Democrats can seat him with much public grumbling.

If they seat him without the proper paperwork, they have no excuse for not seating Al Franken while the Coleman lawsuits go forward.

I do believe that when the Democrats do eventually seat Burris, it is imperative that they immediately begin a very loud, very public ethics probe into the process of his selection and let Burris serve with the knowledge that he could soon be kicked out of the Senate (which is easier to do than keeping him out).