As to the matter itself, I concur that, from what I have learned thus far, there is no problem with the credentials of Mr. Burris himself; and Governor Blagojevich remains the sole, legal Governor of the State of Illinois. He has not been impeached, let alone removed from office; and he has not been found guilty of any crimes. At most, we have heard leaked portions of audio taped conversations, in which there is the suggestion that he wanted to profit in some manner for whichever appointment he would make. Whether or not that evidence, along with any other evidence that the prosecutor may be able to bring forward in a court of law in due course, succeeds in obtaining a criminal conviction of the Governor is a future question; for now, we should act only on the legal presumption of his innocence.
Thus, there is at the present time no legal barrier to the Governor in making an appointment to the U.S. Senate; and there is no question on the qualifications of the appointee himself. I therefore would disagree with any action on the part of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate in denying him that vacant seat; and if they were to attempt such action, then I would support a legal challenge, on the premise that the Constitutional power of the U.S. Senate to act in such a manner may be exercised only where there are real questions on said qualifications of the appointee or elected person himself.
I believe that we Republicans should champion the law over personality. Senator Harry Reid, in claiming even before Mr. Burris had been appointed that no person appointed by Governor Blagojevich would be allowed to take that vacant seat, even when the Governor has yet to be convicted, has said essentially that "the legal process be damned." Only bad press, even if deserved, alone apparently suffices now to preclude a Governor from the legal exercise of his duties; and the U.S. Senate will determine in its own "wise counsel" when a matter has become so "publicly controversial" that the persons involved are stripped of their Constitutional prerogatives. We may see readily how this will set a bad precedent, where a Governor with unpopular positions may be castigated as "beyond the pale" and thereby not allowed to fill a vacancy from his own state, just because a majority in the U.S. Senate has that desire. Blagojevich clearly is not a saint, but he may become in time a very unfortunate precedent, if his appointment is not allowed to stand, based on what we know at this time.
When I urge Republicans to champion law over personality, I say that it is not only the most principled of alternatives, but that also it is politically astute. The principle speaks for itself: we are a nation of laws, not of men; and we are a nation that upholds a real presumption of innocence, not just in theory, but also in the actual exercise of Constitutional power. In terms of political advantage, we stand to gain in championing the right of Mr. Burris to be seated. Of course, he promises to be a solid, Democrat vote in that chamber; nevertheless, there is no real prospect that the Democrat controlled legislature in Illinois is going to strip Blagojevich of that power and hold a special election. Furthermore, since he has made his selection, in my mind it is doubtful that any subsequent act of the Illinois State Legislature to call for the special election and therefore to turn aside retroactively his appointment would pass a legal challenge. Even if a special election were to occur, the prospects for a Republican would be dim at best at this time, even with the Blagojevich scandal in view; most likely, a Democrat with a reputation for opposing the present Governor (like the Illinois State Attorney General) would end up winning. Thus, our only political advantage will be found in standing up for law and order, which in this case means championing the cause of Mr. Burris to take the seat, in opposition to the Democrats’ apparent disdain for proper, legal process.
