Chicopee John Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Here is one prediction: Roland Burriss, nominated by Blago to replace Obama as Jr. Senator from IL, will, in fact, be seated in the Senate. What legal grounds could be used to prevent this from happening? None, IMHO. He was appointed by the sitting Governor of Illinois. According to law, this is the proper procedure. Not only was Blago not convicted of any crime, he has not yet been indicted. What is all the fuss about? This is a no-brainer IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Harry Reid is showing his veto power over Gov. Blagooocrook. Its sounds that they are trying to distance themselves from the corruption that was maid known before Burriss name was picked. Then again the dems didnt want him because they dont think he will be able to get re-elected. crazy isnt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Harry Reid is showing his veto power over Gov. Blagooocrook. Its sounds that they are trying to distance themselves from the corruption that was maid known before Burriss name was picked. Then again the dems didnt want him because they dont think he will be able to get re-elected. crazy isnt it. DOES the President of the Senate have veto power over something like this? I don't know. I just read an interesting article by Ralph Nader and the centeral theme was that the press, in particular, has to start asking congress "On What Authority Are You Acting?'. The article basically pertained to Paulson just taking charge without Constitutational Authority. Is Reid doing the same thing? BTW, who thinks that this would be portrayed as a racial issue if we were talking about Repubs rather than Dems? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 The media does hold a double standard. If this was done by Republicans the media witch hunt would be all you would see here and told everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 Those who know these things, even conservatives, say that there really is NO legal basis for denying him his seat. Just because the dirty gov is being investigated etc etc, doesn't mean he's still gov. The rules and the law seem to only apply when the far left in gov want to use them as a political weapon. Nothing really matters, it seems, except for their accrual of power and the further hope to implement their agenda. Which, is actually in part, the accrual of power. GGG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Burris has to be certified not only by the Gov. but also by the state of Ill. secretary of state. so he is not legal yet to have the seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.