The Burris Appointment

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
(15 ILCS 305/) Secretary of State Act.

Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State:

2. To make a register of all appointments by the Governor, specifying the person appointed, the office conferred, the date of the appointment, the date when bond or oath is taken and the date filed. If Senate confirmation is required, the date of the confirmation shall be included in the register.

I'm not an attorney, much less one with a clue of issues at this level.

I could make some emotional comments but won't. I'll be paying attention to developments.

Seems kinda stupid of Burris to me.

From what I'm hearing locally, Jesse's lack of participation is tantamount to refusal to perform the duties of his job, not an act that will prevent the seating of Burris.

Burris indicates that he plans on traveling to Washington to be sworn in and will not make a federal case out of it (heh, sorry) if he is turned away.

It's a Very Interesting Choice by blago. It plays numerous cards (race, obama, dem) all at once. I'm not at all convinced that he came up with this one all by himself.

No idea what Burris is trying to accomplish. If I read the appropriate legislation which you posted, Deb, correctly, then the Sec'y of State's responsibility in this matter is no more than clerical.

Here is Burris's Complaint for Mandamus:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/44301757.pdf

Burris is relying on 15 ILCS 305/5-1:

Sec. 5. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State:
1. To countersign and affix the seal of state to all commissions required by law to be issued by the Governor.

I did not believe this subsection applied because I did not equate a "commission" with an appointment to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat. But again, the duty is mandatory, not discretionary. Thus, I believe the Court will issue a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to comply with his duty.

That makes sense, JPB: nods.

Strikes me as kind of odd. If the Secretary of State is required to approve without judgement, it's kind of pointless.

It doesn't matter how his image has been damaged or that he has been charged with crimes.

As long as he is the Gov of Illinois, he has the authority to name a replacement for Obama.

If the Ilinois Dems want to short-stop Blago-Gate then good for them. I would if I were them but the Law doesn't make it so easy for them to do so.

Special Election -- Why not?

It would resolve all of this seedy shite, but it might result in a Repub Senator.

So the powers that be - DEMOCRATS - are not about take such a chance.

So they desperately try to send Blago t0 the rubble so that they can have a far more party attuned replacement step in.

It is filthy politics no matter what you are inclinded to embrace.

Know this - It is all personal fortune befoe the fortune of the nation.

Conservative are just a little bit better than Liberals