Senator Roland Burris is in Fact, a Senator

On Friday, CNN reported that the senate leadership has decided to not accept Roland Burris, the junior Senator from Illinois, to be admitted into their caucus, their body, or even on the floor of the Senate. This move, which has only been done by the House, is a rare move that it usually used only for the purposes of removing a person who will not remove themselves. It has never been used on a new comer, and it is Constitutionally dubious.

Nobody is questioning the fact that Burris is clearly a well qualified man for the job. He is the eldest black statesman from Illinois, served as the first black elected to two high-power positions, and basically laid the groundwork for Obama. He also has a granite carving of his qualifications, and it is quite impressive. Also, nobody is arguing that Blagojevich has the power to appoint Obama’s replacement. Really, the Senate is arguing that they have the right to make a power play over the states, and this is essentially a bad move.

While currently there is a state-wide court battle to confirm Burris as appointed (the SoS is refusing to do it, but the office will probably be ordered to by a court), the bigger battle is with the Senate. The Senate is arguing that they have the power to decide who is admissible into their membership. By using Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution the Senate is arguing:

“judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members”.

Basically, the Senate is saying that they have the right to decide who becomes a member of the Senate, and who does not.

The Senate, as has been their fashion lately, is conveniently ignoring the fact that the Constitution then spells out what the qualifications are in Section 3 of Article 1:

“No person shall be senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States.”

Basically, the Senate can enforce these conditions, but if the person meets them, and they were put in legally, as Burris was, then they must be allowed to be in the Senate.

The Senate, of course, disagrees with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court, who, on the other hand like the Constitution, has held that the qualifications are not up to the Senate to decide. In ruling against the House the court said that:

“The House is without power to exclude any member-elect who meets the Constitution's requirements for membership”

Basically, if they meet the requirements (age, residency, etc.) then they have the right and power to be seated in the House. This ruling should also apply to the Senate.

Basically, the Senate is ignoring the Constitution and precedent simply to make a political point.

Now, let’s take this a step further, let’s talk about the fact that this is an attack on state’s rights. While I support state’s rights somewhat, depending on the situation, I see this as a major attack on the power of each state in picking their own leaders. Sure, this is a very iffy nomination, and arguably, it shouldn’t be happening, but that is irrelevant. The Senate is blocking a legally selected appointee from their position! This should be freaking people out, I mean, the Senate could, in the future, BLOCK AND ELECTED PERSON, simply because they disagree with who the person is. No citizen of the US should support this move, as it greatly harms the states.

Lets take this even further, what if the Senate decided that it wanted to punish Ohio? Well, they could remove Voinovich and Brown, or just not let them talk. What if Brown proposed a measure that they didn’t like, but that would help Ohio out, well, they could fire him. Think about it, the body that was created to represent the states will be able to override them, simply because they disagree.

Basically, I think that the Senate should seat Burris as he is the legal appointee to the seat left vacant by Obama. Plus, if they do not at least let him vote (via phone) as the Junior Senator from Illinois, then I think the state should sue.

As a side not, I think that Blago himself should show up to the Senate. Forum rules provide him the right to walk around and address (not formally) the body. Seriously, this would be hilarious and kickass.

Read more ...

Whalertly Endorsements on the Judiciary

Post 63

As you may have noticed, there has been a slight layout change on my site. I have removed the tags link (don’t worry, it might be back after the election) and have added several text spots on the right. In the following days, I will be endorsing or expressing support for certain candidates and/or issues. These, along with a link to my reasoning (my entries), will be presented in that section. Please consider my arguments if you are undecided. Also, feel free to ask questions, give me some info (I am swayable), or generally argue with me if you wish.

Map updates will take place on Tuesdays from now on and will have no other text (or post number) with them.

Thanks
-Whalertly



-----------------------------------------------------------



Today I will be presenting my endorsements for the various judicial positions around the state. This will include names, parties, and positions. I will be listing my reasoning(s) along side of each judge that I endorse. Furthermore, this will include the judges who are running against thin air.

For State Supreme Court (starting 1/1/09)
Maureen O’Conner (R) vs Joseph Russo (D)
My first take on this case is that O’Conner needs to work on her website; a bright green is not pleasing to the eyes. Having attempted to enact tougher gang-laws and rape penalties, O’Conner has been a strong fighter for victims rights throughout her career on the bench. She has also gone after (strongly) repeat offenders, drunken-drivers (perhaps a little to hard here), and politicians with slight ethics problems. Overall, O’Conner is a better fit for the State Supreme Court

For State Supreme Court (starting 1/2/09)
Peter Sikora (D) vs Evelyn Stratton (R)
Judge Sikora has a strong record of impartiality when on the bench; he is known for looking at both sides of the issue fully. Having worked for years on holding parents accountable, working on ensuring family unity and community support, and being endorsed by the Ohio Bar Association, Sikora has what it needs to be on our supreme court.

Court of Appeals 10th District (starting 2/9/09)
John Connor (D) vs David Goodman (R)
Here I am judging mostly on experience. Connor has served as a judge and as a lawyer for years whereas Goodman has been a Senator and Legislature that whole time. I want somebody who has been on the bench for a while in this spot. Connor and his 15 years of sitting on the bench is a good fit for this spot.

Court of Appeals 10th District (starting 7/1/09)
Richard Brown (D) vs Lisa Sadler (R)
Here I would almost seem contradictory if I pick an unvetted person (Brown has never run for anything) over a person who has been on the bench for 5 years; however, the positions that Sadler has taken, which I see as slightly out of her bounds (or, frankly, wrong) make it hard for me to want her. By default, it seems as though Brown is a better candidate.

Court of Common Pleas (starting 1/1/09)
Daniel Hogan (R) wins by default

Court of Common Pleas (starting 2/9/09)
David Fais (R) wins by default

Court of Common Pleas (7/1/09)
Shawn Dingus (D) vs Richard Sheward (R)
Frankly, I kinda wished that Dingus had run for a different opening. I really like both candidates here; with them both being for judicial restraint and original intent (strongly), they both seem like good judges. I really want to keep Sheward in office, but Dingus gains an upper hand with his support of “settlement week”.

Court of Common Pleas (7/2/09)
Timothy Horton (D) wins by default

Court of Common Pleas – Domestic Relations
Dana Preisse (R) wins by default

Court of Common Pleas – Probate Division
Lawrence Belskis (R) vs Eric Brown (D)
Belskis has served the state well in his 18 years on the bench. While I have not always agreed with his decisions, he has an overall judicial restraint arc. Brown, on the other hand, handled the lethal injection case of the fat man very well. In this case, Belskis experience gives him the win. Read more ...