First: I should have said “two unaccounted for votes”. Four people didn’t vote to impeach Blago. One voted against impeachment, one voted “present”, but I don’t know who the other two were and whether they voted “present”, “abstain” or if they weren’t around and didn’t vote at all. For all I know there are two unoccupied seats because of resignation/death/criminal conviction/whatever. Given this is Illinois, I’m picking “criminal conviction”.

Events are getting close to overtaking the argument here. From the Chicago Tribune:

Senate Democratic leaders and their staff in Washington are reviewing newly submitted paperwork on behalf of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s Senate appointee, Roland Burris, and Sen. Dick Durbin said a resolution to the controversy could come before Illinois lawmakers finish Blagojevich’s impeachment trial.

In the latest twist among Senate Democrats, Durbin told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that “point blank” the strategy was not to play a stall game and wait for Blagojevich to be removed from office so that Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn could name a senator. Blagojevich’s trial is expected to take weeks.

“To wait until Gov. Blagojevich is removed could be a matter of weeks,” Durbin said. “I think Roland Burris’ future and fate will be decided before then.”

…

Later Friday, Burris’s staff submitted new paperwork in an attempt to get around White’s refusal to sign any document with a Senate appointment from Blagojevich. That new paperwork is a document showing White’s office registered the appointment, accompanied with another piece of paper, containing White’s signature, authenticating the registration document.

You state:

The courts will indeed decide the issue, unless (say) the nomination of another candidate by a less corrupt governor spurs Burris to do what he should have done originally, and refuse Blago’s offer. The fact that he accepted instead of waiting says to me that he shouldn’t have the job.

Here in Illinois there are a lot of opinions stated regarding whether there should be a special election (my opinion = yes), whether Blago should have passed the appointment off to Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn, what steps the Senate should take in deciding whether or not to seat Burris, etc., etc. But I don’t remember anyone saying that nobody should accept a non-corrupt appointment from Blago.

I think part of it is that people figure that if nobody in Illinois was to accept an appointment from a corrupt government official then we’d not be able to have anybody appointed to anything in the state. I think that part of it is the racial aspect of this; they want to see a black person in the Senate - not that Quinn couldn’t do that, but the reports that Sen. Reid told Blago (before the FBI investigation became public) to forget the 3 blacks that he was thinking of appointing and suggested two white people instead didn’t escape notice. And part of it is that people want to see Illinois have it’s full representation in the Senate ASAP. Apparently most people figure, and I agree (although many here disagree) that the specific appointment of Burris is severable from the previous attempt by Blago to sell the appointment, and that as long as Burris’ appointment is not shown to have been bought by Burris it should go forward.

If you look at the legislature’s impeachment report and listen to the tapes you’ll find that Blago is accused of attempting to sell his signature on bills. Does that mean that any bill he signs should be invalidated regardless of whether or not it’s proven that corruption was involved?

PG Writes:
January 9th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
My whole disagreement with you, RonF and Phil is whether it’s really a big deal if Illinois doesn’t have a senator for a month (especially, as aforementioned, when the reason is that their former senator is now POTUS).

It is? I was under the impression that you and I were disagreeing about the theoretical question of whether or not a lack of a senator could potentially create a right which was individually enforceable in federal court. I’ve already said that I believe any right to have a senator would still need to wait for the mechanisms of process, which I believe is happening here.

It sounds like we have a philosophical disagreement but not a practical one. Philosophically, I view the fact that there’s no senator as a “bad thing”, and I think that it is improper. That said, practically speaking I think that it is acceptable in this case for there to be a short delay while the process goes on, just as most lawsuits force a delay on the aggrieved party.

But citizens aren’t being denied a senator, they’re being denied a senator chosen by Blagojevich, who apparently is not going to be governor for long.

I don’t think that’s really the right analysis. I think that it is properly characterized as “Illinois citizens are being denied a Senator as appointed under the laws of Illinois.”

That the laws of Illinois may be faulty is an issue for Illinois. to use a similar example, the Senate would not properly be able to say “oh, Massachusetts, we think you did a bad job districting, so we will not seat your Senator.” Those districts are not the Senate’s business.

Unless the laws of Illinois are violative of the US Constitution, I do not think it is the U.S. Senate’s role to override the process by which Illinois appoints its Senators. At the least, the Senate should have taken the option which would cause the least damage to Illinois’ representation. refusing to seat the Senator is an imposition of federal power on a process which should be controlled by the state.

Therefore I think that the Senate could–should–have seated Burris temporarily without perfecting his claim to the Senate, as appears to have been an option.

But a secondary question is whether a citizen can sue in theory. The basis for such a suit would rest in my earlier discussion: if a citizen can sue for being disenfranchised in their ability to vote for a senator, it is comparatively illogical to allow them absolutely no opportunity to sue for being denied a senator. So if Illinois said “we will decline to sue but we believe any of or citizens have standing to challenge the Senate’s refusal to seat a senator” would the courts then refuse to hear it at all? I am not so sure that they would.

But citizens aren’t being denied a senator, they’re being denied a senator chosen by Blagojevich, who apparently is not going to be governor for long. If Illinois can wait a few weeks, it will have a senator appointed by Pat Quinn. My whole disagreement with you, RonF and Phil is whether it’s really a big deal if Illinois doesn’t have a senator for a month (especially, as aforementioned, when the reason is that their former senator is now POTUS).

If the Senate were saying, “We refuse to seat any senators from Illinois,” this would be a different discussion and I think the governor probably could sue on behalf of the state for the state’s representation in the Senate. But of course that’s not what’s happening here at all.

The courts will indeed decide the issue, unless (say) the nomination of another candidate by a less corrupt governor spurs Burris to do what he should have done originally, and refuse Blago’s offer. The fact that he accepted instead of waiting says to me that he shouldn’t have the job.

Congressional representatives are quite a bit different in my view, because the presence or lack of a representative confers an unequal cost on a legally definable class of citizens: the residents of that state. Someone in that class is damaged by not having a senator; I am not.

The question then is who can enforce it.

It may be that only the state (through its governor) can sue. That may well be the case in practice, the theory being that the citizens need to act through the state. It may also be the case taht the courts would defer to potential state action and would discourage citizen suits.

But a secondary question is whether a citizen can sue in theory. The basis for such a suit would rest in my earlier discussion: if a citizen can sue for being disenfranchised in their ability to vote for a senator, it is comparatively illogical to allow them absolutely no opportunity to sue for being denied a senator. So if Illinois said “we will decline to sue but we believe any of or citizens have standing to challenge the Senate’s refusal to seat a senator” would the courts then refuse to hear it at all? I am not so sure that they would.

If you want to have a theoretical discussion, fine, but you don’t get to constantly ask me to defend my position, while ducking the questions about yours.

I’m not sure how you’ll believe that I am answering your questions — I’m just not giving the answer you want (to wit: “OMG, Sailorman, you’re right and I’m clearly totally wrong here, how could I ever have thought otherwise!”).

For example, you asked, “do you concede that there is a distinction between those categories [of representation for DC residents versus representation for a state's residents]?” and I said, of course there’s a distinction — our Constitution provides for every state to have two senators, while it does not provide that for DC — it’s just not a distinction that supports your argument that RonF has a Constitutional right to a senator while a DC resident doesn’t. See, question answered!

At the moment, you appear to be taking the position that the rights to representation are identical between the groups of [citizens for whom the Constitution provides for representation] and [citizens for whom the Constitution does not provide for representation]. In defense of that position, you’ve said.. not much. mostly you’ve alleged that the rights are unenforceable, though you’ve provided no particular evidence other than the fact that they haven’t been enforced.

I am taking the position that neither has a Constitutional right to the representation. I base this on the facts as follows:

1. Not everything in the Constitutional system creates a Constitutional right held by citizens.

2. The process of getting senators is not in the Bill of Rights or any other portion of the Constitution that clearly addresses the rights held by individual citizens (and concurrently the limits on government power).

3. The structural provisions of our federal government — such as the requirement that the president be a native-born citizen — have in the past been held by the federal courts not to be enforceable by citizen suit because citizens lack standing to bring the claims. Marbury v. Madison states, “But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.”

Now let’s try using logic.
If X [individual right], then Y [right to resort to law for a remedy to enforce that individual right].
The contrapositive of “if X, then Y” is “if not-Y, then not-X.”
If no right to resort to law for a remedy to enforce an individual right, then no individual right.

then you should perhaps reread marbury. there is nothing there to conclusively preclude the court from determining that an individual could successfully bring suit for a hypothetical denial of his right to representation.

It’s really odd that you say “I don’t see a damn cite in [PG's arguments],” right after you acknowledge that I cited Marbury. (You however misunderstand the point for which I cited it in replying to RonF: I said, “At most, [Burris] can demand that his appointment be fulfilled, but that’s Marbury v. Madison stuff — I’m not sure the federal courts will take the case even from him.”)

I also cited this group of cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Litigation
by referring to the challenges to Obama’s citizenship that were dismissed for plaintiff’s lack of standing. I didn’t realize that a blog comment required a citation to U.S. Reports to be understood as citing to caselaw. In prior comments, I’ve also cited Powell v. McCormack and Nixon v. United States.

You, in contrast, can’t be bothered to look up the 17th Amendment when you “don’t recall, nor do [you] really want to recall ;)” the process for a Senate appointment. Which is why I noted that despite knowing much more law than RonF (I assume, for example, that you’re familiar with the concepts of standing and political questions), you’ve made no better legal argument, and you’ve in fact put much less effort than RonF has into discussing the law and relevant precedents at issue.

Instead, you just keep saying, “But it seems fairly obvious as a facial issue that if the right to senators is violated then this is a violation of a constitutional right.” You never say why this is.

If you want to have a theoretical discussion, fine, but you don’t get to constantly ask me to defend my position, while ducking the questions about yours.

At the moment, you appear to be taking the position that the rights to representation are identical between the groups of [citizens for whom the Constitution provides for representation] and [citizens for whom the Constitution does not provide for representation]. In defense of that position, you’ve said.. not much. mostly you’ve alleged that the rights are unenforceable, though you’ve provided no particular evidence other than the fact that they haven’t been enforced.

So: DO the federal courts have the power to enforce Ron’s rights to a senator? That decision is of course up to the federal courts, and we don’t get a conclusive answer unless and until an appeal has been filed with the Supremes and either heard or rejected. It is certainly the case that even if the courts have such a power, they would defer to some reasonable process as appears to be the case here. But the fact that the courts may not elect to step in during this particular situation is far from conclusive evidence that they cannot do so.

You should know this. And as your argument seems to be based on the logical path of -there can be no remedy through enforcement
-a right without a remedy is not a right
-therefore there is no right

then you should perhaps reread marbury. there is nothing there to conclusively preclude the court from determining that an individual could successfully bring suit for a hypothetical denial of his right to representation.

Moreover, there is good reason to argue that it is ludicrous to grant Ron the power to enforce his right to the franchise, and thus to gain representation in the mob at Capitol Hill, but absolutely no opportunity to protest the removal of his representatives in the mob, in any circumstance.

And as for this: “Despite knowing more about law than RonF, you’ve made no more of a legal argument than he has.”

Eff off, willya? you’re no law professor last I saw, nor the acme of legal argument here. Your own writings are filled with a combination of your own “obviously” and “unconvincing” arguments and I don’t see a damn cite in them. In fact, your legal argument here sucks. So drop the snark.

To address your last paragraph:

Obviously the two categories are not identical,

OK. So what does that do to YOUR point, which you seem eerily unwilling to discuss? Remember, you don’t occupy the null zone. Only one of us can be right, but we can both be wrong.

For you to be correct,…You have to demonstrate how the “state resident’s Constitutional right to a senator” has been recognized by, well, anyone.

Nope. If this were true, then your argument would logically equate to “all cases of first impression should be found against the supplicant.” Whether or not the courts have considered the issue* does not mean that the argument is incorrect; even if the court have considered it it may be in a category which permits reconsideration.

For someone who is complaining that the arguments aren’t legal enough, you are raising some very strange points here.

*Maybe they have. I don’t want to search lexis, and apparently neither do you. but feel free to show me the applicable caselaw and i’ll change my tune.

Originally they weren’t going to include the Senate seat sale, but they apparently managed to get U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald to give them some of the evidence he had so they were able to add it.

The vote was 114-1. There are 118 members in the Illinois House. They needed 60 votes. The one was Rep. Milton Patterson (D-Chicago), who said he wasn’t comfortable voting against the governor. “I have no firsthand knowledge of any of the evidence,” he said. Rep. Elga Jefferies (D-Chicago)voted “present.” I don’t know what the other two missing votes were yet.

So, now there’ll be a trial in the Senate. There are 59 Senators and it’ll take 40 to convict. These hearings should be very educational. Hopefully Blago will not resign, but will testify and name names, dates, places, times, amounts, etc., etc. He’s just egotistical enough to do it.

There is, however, arguably a “right to a senator representing Illinois” for people who live in Illinois. It is inherent to the combination of their citizenship and their residence in that state. As compared to DC, it is also inherent to their residence in a state for which the Constitution provides a senator to be appointed.

You still haven’t explained how RonF can have a constitutional right to a senator from Illinois, yet be unable to enforce that right through the federal courts. We don’t consider the lack of a senator to be a concrete, individualized injury to an Illinois citizen’s rights, any more than the lack of birthright citizenship in the president is a concrete, individualized injury to any U.S. citizen’s rights. That a native-born president is a requirement of our Constitutional system does not mean that I have a “Constitutional right” to a native-born president. Despite knowing more about law than RonF, you’ve made no more of a legal argument than he has.

Do you still maintain that “Anyone who believes that having two Senators is that breath-takingly important to Americans’ civil rights had better be in favor of getting Congressional representation for D.C. residents, Puerto Ricans, and all other Americans who currently lack it.”? Or do you concede that there is a distinction between those categories?

Obviously the two categories are not identical, but that doesn’t suffice for your point. For you to be correct, the categories have to be different in a way that impacts civil rights, and as I’ve noted above, you haven’t made any convincing argument that RonF has a civil/ Constitutional right to a senator. Just asserting that he does isn’t enough. You have to demonstrate how the “state resident’s Constitutional right to a senator” has been recognized by, well, anyone.

# PG Writes:
January 8th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

Sailorman,

I thought I was responding to it. My point with the DC comparison was to note that people clearly don’t consider the “right to a Senator” to be something inhering in, say, their 14th Amendment or other Constitutional rights as a citizen.

You are misstating the comparison in a way that ignores the salient point.

There is no “right to a senator” for people who live in DC, and DC residents are citizens, so the constitutional right obviously doesn’t spring solely from citizenship. There is, however, arguably a “right to a senator representing Illinois” for people who live in Illinois. It is inherent to the combination of their citizenship and their residence in that state. As compared to DC, it is also inherent to their residence in a state for which the Constitution provides a senator to be appointed.

You say that because having a Senator for a state is in the Constitution, it must be a Constitutional right. I pointed out that having a VP for the whole country also is in the Constitution, yet you seem unwilling to consider that a Constitutional right.

Not what i said, actually. I suppose I might consider a VP a constitutional right, though of an entirely different sort: the damage from a violation of a right resoluting in “no VP” affects the country equally, while the “no senator” damage is more isolated.

As with DC, I think you are failing to acknowledge the obvious distinguishing characteristics of the VP example. For both DC and the VP, it makes them inapposite to the Illinois senator situation.

So let’s go back to the original point. Do you still maintain that “Anyone who believes that having two Senators is that breath-takingly important to Americans’ civil rights had better be in favor of getting Congressional representation for D.C. residents, Puerto Ricans, and all other Americans who currently lack it.”? Or do you concede that there is a distinction between those categories?

Does the Chicago Tribune not count? or is it as untrustworthy as the NYTimes?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-010709-burris-senate-jan08,0,2257180.story
Also, you didn’t say where you got your “quid pro quo” claim.

The NYT always refers to people as Mr. or Ms., with the exception of royalty, who tend to be styled either by their first name alone or by reference to their title, presumably to avoid confusing readers who probably don’t think Queen Elizabeth II has a last name.

The issue of the State legislative panel seems pretty iffy to me, though. That panel is not under the control of the Senate and has no obligation to it. If the Senate has issues with Mr. Burris’ qualifications, the Senate should be looking into it and not sloughing off the responsibility to someone else whose agenda, timing and objective they have no influence over. The Senate’s job is to make a decision in a timely manner, not pass the buck to someone else.

The state legislative panel will find it much easier to investigate the matter than will the Senate, because the witnesses, evidence, etc. are pretty much all in Illinois. It’s similar to why you hold a trial in the place where the crime or civil breach occurred.

I’m not a lawyer. I could be wrong about this. But I don’t see that your statement is obvious on it’s face. If I’m wrong, show me.

I hate it when people on the internet won’t engage a discussion because they “don’t have time to educate” on why it’s wrong for someone who isn’t a sex worker to discuss issues of privilege among sex workers. However, the issues of standing and political questions were a large chunk of my Constitutional Law class, and an ever bigger part of my Federal Courts class, and I honestly *don’t* have time to explain them right now. I recommend starting with Wikipedia and exploring better sources from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question

Suffice it to say that when I refer to a “political question for the political branches,” I am not referring to whether something is all about politics. For a recent case involving standing and political questions, read up on the guy who tried to bring a case in federal court challenging whether Obama was Constitutionally eligible to be president. Every court said he lacked standing to bring the case. After you review the caselaw on standing and political questions (in which, btw, conservative judges are much more restrictive than liberal ones about who can bring a case), let me know if you think that also was a travesty.

On another thread we’ve spoken of the legitimacy of satire, so why David’s essay in as public a forum as you can get is of no note but that someone subsequently circulating a parody of that privately to a few friends is horrible is beyond me.

Are you aware that “magic negro” or “magical negro” is a concept in cultural criticism (something in which Ehrenstein specializes, by the way) that long predates his use of the phrase? And that the cultural criticism sense of the phrase is NOT how it was used in the satirical song? I refer you to the Wikipedia entry as it stood before Ehrenstein’s column:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magical_negro&oldid=114752395

And there should equally be no question as to whether he can properly make the appointment - of course he can.

Why of course? Why should someone who appears to have been using a power corruptly be permitted to continue to exercise it? Even if he isn’t blocked legally, we do have mechanisms other than the law to prevent people from doing whatever they want. Although given the mausoleum, I’m not sure that the social force of shaming is something in which Burris puts much stock.

The Chicago papers as of yesterday had not reported the deal that you quote. But lets say it’s true - I should hope that the NYT could manage to get a direct quote of a U.S. Senator right.

Mr. Reid said he hoped the Senate would soon be able to consider Mr. Burris’s appointment if Mr. Burris is able to get the Illinois secretary of state to sign his credentials and convince a state legislative panel considering impeaching the governor that he offered nothing in exchange for his selection.

Mr. Reid? I thought the man was a Senator. Anyway - I’ve already noted that I accept the lack of certification from the Ill. SoS as a legitimate reason for holding up seating Mr. Burris - I’m looking past that. The issue of the State legislative panel seems pretty iffy to me, though. That panel is not under the control of the Senate and has no obligation to it. If the Senate has issues with Mr. Burris’ qualifications, the Senate should be looking into it and not sloughing off the responsibility to someone else whose agenda, timing and objective they have no influence over. The Senate’s job is to make a decision in a timely manner, not pass the buck to someone else.

It seems to be universally acknowledged that what’s happening with Burris is a political question that will be left to the political branches;

Which I think is a curious viewpoint and I don’t see that it’s universally acknowledged at all. The question of whether Burris should be seated is not an issue of party or politics. The issue is whether the law has been followed or broken.

you, as a citizen of Illinois, cannot bring suit to demand that your senator be seated.

Says who? What is your basis for this statement? I should think I can demand that he or she either be seated or that a cause be shown why they shouldn’t. I should be able to demand that the Senate do it’s job under the Constitution. Article I, Section 5, paragraph 1 says that each house “shall be the judge” of the qualifications of it’s members. Shall is an imperative - it MUST do it, whether by simply accepting the election or appointment process of the States or by actually “judge”ing that process. I believe that I have the right to demand that it act and perform its duty. Why shouldn’t I be able to seek a writ of mandamus against the Senate?

I’m not a lawyer. I could be wrong about this. But I don’t see that your statement is obvious on it’s face. If I’m wrong, show me.

I suspect the Republicans don’t need the additional burnishing to their reputation on racial matters, after this past election and having their potential RNC chair sending around songs calling Obama a “magic negro,”

Actually, calling Obama a “magic negro” was a slur of the left. David Ehrenstein, a black liberal writer called Obama that in a opinion piece in the L.A. Times. On another thread we’ve spoken of the legitimacy of satire, so why David’s essay in as public a forum as you can get is of no note but that someone subsequently circulating a parody of that privately to a few friends is horrible is beyond me.

Burris is acquiescing to Blagojevich’s belief that he can do this sort of thing and still be treated as a person who properly can make appointments.

There’s no question that Blago (a common usage, BTW) legally made the appointment. And there should equally be no question as to whether he can properly make the appointment - of course he can.

This goes back to our disagreement about whether there is an appointment process or if Burris’s selection can be analyzed without regard for what preceded it.

I wouldn’t say that there should be no regard given to what we heard on the FBI tapes. It’s reasonable to enter an inquiry as to whether he did make the appointment properly. What I say is that the Senate needs to either approve the appointment or make the inquiry. If the Rules Committee wants to hold hearings, fine. But then get going on it - make it a priority and make it happen. Neither seating Burris nor making an inquiry is wrong and deprives Illinois citizens of their representation in the Senate.

Not that there’s a whole heck of a lot of inquiry to make. “Gov. Blagojevich, did you ask for a bribe?” “No.” “Mr. Burris, did you offer a bribe?” “No.” “Was anybody else in the room?” My guess is “No”, but if so then haul them up and ask them questions. Unless any bank records show any transfer of funds or a bug actually recorded a conversation that is at odds with this, I don’t see where there’s much they can uncover that would justify saying “Whoa, this was a corrupt process, we will not seat Mr. Burris.”

Now, if the State of Illinois acts in an expeditious fashion (not it’s usual modus operandi, but miracles do happen) and the Senate wants to take their word for it, that’s O.K. too. But the Senate shouldn’t wait.

I thought I was responding to it. My point with the DC comparison was to note that people clearly don’t consider the “right to a Senator” to be something inhering in, say, their 14th Amendment or other Constitutional rights as a citizen. You say that because having a Senator for a state is in the Constitution, it must be a Constitutional right. I pointed out that having a VP for the whole country also is in the Constitution, yet you seem unwilling to consider that a Constitutional right. Evidently “anything that’s in the Constitution” =/= “Constitutional right.”

The process for having senators is set forth in the constitution. I don’t recall, nor do I really want to recall ;) the exact process for appointment. But it seems fairly obvious as a facial issue that if the right to senators is violated then this is a violation of a constitutional right.

The Constitution doesn’t set it up as a “right to Senators,” particularly not as a “right to Senators possessed by individual residents of the state.” Do you believe there’s also a “right to a vice-president” for all Americans, because the Constitution structurally provides for a VP? If so, how do you think you would enforce this right? The structural aspects of our government — e.g. the process for establishing a Cabinet — don’t all confer individual Constitutional rights on the citizenry.

First; I said “Constitutional rights”, not “civil rights”. Someone else made that change and I missed it when I replied (although I did engage in a sidebar about same-sex marriage). Let’s stick with Constitutional rights for now.

Speaking of the Constitution and same-sex marriage sidebars, have you found the missing Constitutional text that says you can’t discriminate on the basis of race, but you can discriminate on the basis of sex?

Constitutional rights are a subset of one’s civil rights and liberties. (That is, there are some civil rights and liberties that are created by statute or other non-Constitutional forms of law, but I can’t think of any Constitutional rights of citizens — as opposed to rights of states or of elected officials in that capacity — that aren’t civil rights and liberties.)

I’m not sure how one can have a Constitutional right that cannot be enforced by bringing suit in the federal courts. It seems to be universally acknowledged that what’s happening with Burris is a political question that will be left to the political branches; you, as a citizen of Illinois, cannot bring suit to demand that your senator be seated. At most, he can demand that his appointment be fulfilled, but that’s Marbury v. Madison stuff — I’m not sure the federal courts will take the case even from him.

If the Senate said “We have some questions regarding the validity of Mr. Burris’ appointment” and set forth both the questions and a process to resolve those questions, with the expectation that he would be seated if those questions were resolved, I’d have no dispute.

One more time, in case you missed my comment above. From the NYTimes:

After a private meeting with Mr. Burris, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, outlined conditions that would allow Mr. Burris to take the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. …
Democratic leaders were highly complimentary of Mr. Burris and said that their questions about whether he should be seated had helped to assure his legitimacy, since Mr. Blagojevich has been accused of trying to trade the appointment for personal gain.
“We know that there’s been a lot of issues raised as to why we held this up,” Mr. Reid said. “Well, it’s obvious: We have a man who was arrested for trying to sell the office.” …
Mr. Reid said he hoped the Senate would soon be able to consider Mr. Burris’s appointment if Mr. Burris is able to get the Illinois secretary of state to sign his credentials and convince a state legislative panel considering impeaching the governor that he offered nothing in exchange for his selection.

So I guess you now have no dispute. Where did you see the claim you made in comment 29 that Senate Democrats were offering Burris a quid pro quo deal in which he had to support impeachment of Blagojevich in order to take the Senate seat?

You say in support of your claim that this is “partisan”:

Sen. Reid seems to think that the fact that both are Democrats means that the Democrats should own the process. Why? The man was appointed to the Senate. His qualifications are the business of the entire Senate, not just it’s Democratic caucus, regardless of party. Yet Sen. Reid is treating this as if it’s the concern of the Democratic caucus alone.

From the same NYTimes article:

Under the developing situation, Mr. Burris’s appointment will still need to be reviewed by the Rules Committee if he gets the needed countersignature. If the Senate panel were to recommend he be seated, the full Senate would vote, leading Democrats to warn that Republicans could potentially be a roadblock. But one senior Republican official said Wednesday that he doubted any Republican would try to tie up the appointment, not wanting to entangle the party in what has been a Democrat dilemma
“I think the unanimous Republican view is that this is a mess, an ethically tainted, challenged mess,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Mr. McConnell, the Republican leader, and his fellow Senate Republicans would prefer the new Illinois senator be chosen in a special election, which would provide them a chance to win the seat. But they have little leverage to force such an election.

So it looks like it’s the Republicans who want to stay out of it, not that the Democrats are keeping them out of it. I suspect the Republicans don’t need the additional burnishing to their reputation on racial matters, after this past election and having their potential RNC chair sending around songs calling Obama a “magic negro,” of blocking an African American from the seat. Rush Limbaugh certainly is enjoying making hay of the Dems’ discomfort in this respect.

First there needs to be evidence that the powerful person in fact has behaved badly - or more specifically, corruptly. So far no one has shown that this is the case in the instance of Mr. Burris’ appointment.

This goes back to our disagreement about whether there is an appointment process or if Burris’s selection can be analyzed without regard for what preceded it. I apparently am with Mitch McConnell on this — Blagojevich has behaved corruptly, and by taking an appointment from him, Burris is acquiescing to Blagojevich’s belief that he can do this sort of thing and still be treated as a person who properly can make appointments.

That is entirely different from the issue of D.C. The Framers considered D.C. as a voting bloc and specifically elected to decline to give them representation, arguably for a very good reason. Since that was a specific decision, not based on a discriminatory class, it does not make sense to argue that the general rule of “right to vote” should somehow override that decision and grant a DC citizen the right to get a representative or senator.

Another way to look at it is that denying Illinois the right to representation, or granting DC representation, would both require constitutional amendments to achieve.

In my view, if you have to amend the constitution to get it, then it’s not a constitutional right.