Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Wed 01/07/2009 View Tue 01/06/2009 View Mon 01/05/2009 View Sun 01/04/2009 View Sat 01/03/2009 View Fri 01/02/2009 View Thu 01/01/2009
1
2009-01-07 Home Front: Politix
Feinstein Breaks With Democrats to Back Burris Appointment
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2009-01-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ]  Top

#1 "The comments flew in the face of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's assertion"

Forget the flying comments. I want to see chairs, water pitchers, and perhaps the occasional page.
Posted by Milton Fandango 2009-01-07 01:18||   2009-01-07 01:18|| Front Page Top

#2 I consider myself fortunate that the one and only time I watched Geraldo's daytime show was the day he caught a flying chair with his nose.
Posted by Classical_Liberal 2009-01-07 03:03||   2009-01-07 03:03|| Front Page Top

#3 There is something tortured about the reasoning that would allow Rangle to be seated in the house but Burris to be rejected in the Senate. How can the malfeasance of the appointer be more pertinent that the personal scandel of the office-holder himself. I expect that ability to block a duly appointed senator will be used against Republicans down the road. All it will take is a frivilous lawsuit against a governor like Sarahcuda, for instance, to become a pretext for blocking anyone she tries to seat.
Posted by Super Hose 2009-01-07 07:38||   2009-01-07 07:38|| Front Page Top

#4 That'll teach The One not to run DCI appointments by her.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-01-07 07:45||   2009-01-07 07:45|| Front Page Top

#5 At least some good may come out of this: Dingy Harry taking one on the chin.
Posted by Spot">Spot  2009-01-07 08:39||   2009-01-07 08:39|| Front Page Top

#6 IMHO they should allow Burris to be seated and make him a lightening rod for everything that is wrong with the left.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2009-01-07 08:48||   2009-01-07 08:48|| Front Page Top

#7 And a crook. And a grub. And a leech. And a blow-hard. And a fool. And an egotist.

In other words, Steve, your standard Democrat politician. Why shouldn't he be seated?
Posted by Glenmore 2009-01-07 09:39||   2009-01-07 09:39|| Front Page Top

#8 I notice that Sen. Feinstein refers to Mr. Burris as "a senior, experienced politician."

She has not called him a senior, experienced statesman, administrator, or leader.

As others have noted here, the Democrats are disinclined to follow the Constitution when the Constitution doesn't suit their convenience. Legally, Mr. Burris is eligible, whether he merits consideration or not; and the Democrats may wind up tying themselves in some embarrasing legal knots trying to keep him out.

See Ann Althouse's column from yesterday, and her link to Walter Dellinger's op-ed piece on Burris in yesterday's NYT.

althouse.blogspot.com

Posted by mom">mom  2009-01-07 11:38|| idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2009-01-07 11:38|| Front Page Top

#9 Looks like he might be seated after all.
Posted by Deacon Blues">Deacon Blues  2009-01-07 12:38||   2009-01-07 12:38|| Front Page Top

#10 Dick and Harry just got pimp slapped.

Blago, Feinstein: 1
Dick, Harry, Obama:0
Posted by Poison Reverse 2009-01-07 13:57||   2009-01-07 13:57|| Front Page Top

#11 Feinstein's smacked Reid on this and the Panetta snafu. If I was cynical, I'd think she was angling for Senate Majority Leader.
Posted by Pappy 2009-01-07 15:13||   2009-01-07 15:13|| Front Page Top

#12 She seems to have larger testicles then Harry.
Not that that's saying much...
Posted by tu3031 2009-01-07 15:25||   2009-01-07 15:25|| Front Page Top

#13 Dinty Harry has testicles? who knew?
Posted by Glusoting the Galactic Hero9467 2009-01-07 16:16||   2009-01-07 16:16|| Front Page Top

#14 IIRC someplace along the Ohio River in either Indiana or Illinois in a House race during the '80s, a Republican won on a recount in a tight election, but the Donks who controlled the House refused to seat him and gave the seat to his opponent in face of all the legality of the election process. So, why should the Senate really care when there is no election, if they refuse to seat someone? It's about power.
Posted by Procopius2k 2009-01-07 16:54||   2009-01-07 16:54|| Front Page Top

#15 Her check cleared. Harry's still waiting.
Posted by DoDo 2009-01-07 18:59||   2009-01-07 18:59|| Front Page Top

23:49 Verlaine
23:44 Verlaine
23:43 Verlaine
23:42 Gritch Brown4916
23:37 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
23:32 phil_b
23:28 bigjim-ky
23:20 bigjim-ky
23:15 bigjim-ky
23:14 European Conservative
22:50 Abu do you love
22:44 Clinert Smith4068
22:42 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
22:39 Cornsilk Blondie
22:32 Cornsilk Blondie
22:32 GK
22:30 Cornsilk Blondie
22:26 Ebbusonter Oppressor of the Brontosaurs1894
22:14 Procopius2k
22:11 SteveS
22:08 mhw
21:56 rabid whitetail
21:55 rabid whitetail
21:54 rabid whitetail









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com