Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (30902)	12/30/2008 8:50:48 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 71588

"I think the USSCt would say Yes." Absent the US Senate taking any action then perhaps the SC would not find any fault. But the SC has long held that the Senate has primary authority to decide such issues... and has long deferred to them on this. (Generally... I'd say that the three different branches of American government tend to mostly avoid encroaching on each other's turf....)

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (30902)	12/30/2008 9:34:06 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

He is qualified....I don't think they can refuse to seat him...there's a USSC case right on point.....Powell v. McCormack?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (30902)	12/31/2008 9:54:49 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Does Burris have a legal right to be seated by the US Senate? Maybe you should ask that of Obama. Since he was an untenured, junior, part-time instructor on Constitutional Law there must be no higher authority. At least that is what his followers would have those of us with healthy skepticism believe.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (30902)	2/15/2009 12:57:20 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Burris Lied Under Oath; WaPo Buries Lying in Euphemisms By Tim Graham February 15, 2009 - 09:21 ET Appointed Sen. Roland Burris lied under oath to capture his seat in the Senate, but The Washington Post can't quite say that. On Sunday's front page, the paper promoted a story on A-3 with the headline "Burris Revises Story on Senate Seat." On the home page of washingtonpost.com, a tiny headline said only "Burris Reveals Requests From Blagojevich's Circle." Inside, the headline was "Burris Discloses Fundraising Requests: Senator Reveals Contacts With Blagojevich's Brother, Other Associates of Ex-Governor". Even reporter Peter Slevin couldn't muster the will to report directly: Sen. Roland W. Burris (D-Ill.), appointed to fill President Obama's former seat in the U.S. Senate, has informed Illinois lawmakers that he did not tell them the complete story about his contacts with close associates of former governor Rod Blagojevich (D) before he got the job. In a sworn affidavit made public Saturday, Burris said that the governor's brother asked him in a series of conversations to raise campaign funds for Blagojevich, who was later charged with trying to profit from his executive actions and removed from office. The sixth paragraph finally acknowledges the broken oath: "He was sworn to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and it's obvious that didn't occur," state Rep. Jack D. Franks (D) said. "I'm disappointed, and I do feel betrayed." Burris claimed he was now aiming to be "transparent" and further claimed "he had done nothing wrong in seeking the job." It's too bad The Washington Post felt the partisan need to be so remarkably indirect in describing what happened. —Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center newsbusters.org