The Supreme Court's final rulings of the term -- some surprises, but in the end really more of the same

Plus: Will Blago have to serve the full 300 years?

""Laws like Arizona's matching funds provision that inhibit robust and wide-open political debate without sufficient justification cannot stand."

-- Chief Justice "Smirkin' John" Roberts, in his opinion
in Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett

by Ken

Here's how the story was reported in Arizona:

Supreme Court strikes down provision of Arizona campaign finance law

by Mary Jo Pitzl - Jun. 27, 2011
The Republic | azcentral.com

In a 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday struck down a key provision of Arizona's public campaign-finance law.

The court's decision means candidates running under the Arizona Clean Elections system in next year's state elections will not be able to tap public dollars to match the funds raised by their opponents.

Matching funds were created to try and level the playing field between candidates running with public funds and those funding their campaigns with traditional fund-raising tactics. . . .

Man oh man, if there's anything the Roberts Court Gang of Five hates, it's trying to create a level playing field.

The most useful commentary I've seen so far remains the one provided by The New Republic's Rick Hasen: "The Arizona Campaign Finance Law: The Surprisingly Good News in the Supreme Court’s New Decision." Hasen (a visiting law professor at UC Irvine and the writer of Election Law Blog), as I noted earlier, finds in the decision "three pieces of unexpected good news to those of us who believe that reasonable campaign finance regulation is not only constitutional, but essential to prevent corruption and ensure fairness in our democracy":

(1) "[T]he Roberts Court seems to have retreated from the suggestion that all campaign finance laws, aside from disclosure, are in constitutional trouble. . . . [T]he Court confirmed that Citizens United did not overturn the law related to contribution limits, finding these restrictions 'less onerous' and to be upheld under a 'lower level of scrutiny.' That's important, because opponents of campaign finance laws such as conservative attorney Jim Bopp have been going around citing Citizens United in their attempts to get contribution limits struck down left and right."

(2) Confounding some expectations of where Justice Elena Kagan might stand on this issue, based on some of her academic writings, she emerges in writing the dissenting opinion "as a forceful intellectual voice for the constitutionality of reasonable campaign finance regulation. . . . Kagan's dissent was caustic, accusing the majority of missing the point and the challengers to the Arizona law as full of chutzpah. . . . Kagan has emerged here as not only an intellectual leader, but a pugnacious, take-no-prisoners' writer on an issue about which she feels passionately. It is a welcome contrast to Justice Stevens' meandering dissent in Citizens United."

(3) "The last piece of good news is that the Court did not level a death blow to public financing laws. Instead, it said that the decision of cities, states, or Congress enact public financing is 'not our business.' The problem with Arizona's law was not that it gave public financing for elections to candidates, but that it pegged the amount of financing to the political spending of opponents or independent groups opposing the candidate. But lump sum payments should be okay."

Professor Hasen adds:

The big question left open is the fate of public financing programs such as New York City's, which give extra matching funds to participating candidates who collect small donations. This program doesn't directly violate the rule in today's Arizona case, because the amount received is not triggered by opponent spending. But the question will be whether the motive for such programs is to level the playing field. Under the Roberts Court's view of the First Amendment, such an interest remains verboten, even if, as Justice Kagan points out, the law also is justified on anticorruption grounds. Without something like additional matching funds, it is hard to see how governments will enact public financing programs that are both constitutional and attractive enough to candidates.

IN TODAY'S OTHER MAJOR COURT DECISION, ON
SHIELDING MINORS FROM VIDEO-GAME VIOLENCE . . .

The conversion of the First Amendment into a right-wing cudgel continues, as the Court struck down California's attempt to prevent sales of extremely violent video games to minors on First Amendment grounds, with ideological lines zigzagging all over the place. The vote was 7-2, and the justices in the "majority" seemed to be ruling on two totally different cases (about the only thing they had in common was their "yea" votes), while the minority consisted of the odd couple of Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer.

The assorted opinions seem mostly direct projections from the relevant justices' ids and superegos. Note, though, that in the end the decision follows the money. Companies wanna sell stuff, and the Roberts Court rarely gets between rich fat white guys and their quest for the Holy Buck.


ELSEWHERE ON THE JUDICIAL FRONT: DOES THIS
MEAN BLAGO'S OFF THE TALK-SHOW CIRCUIT?

Jury convicts ousted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich of trying to sell Obama’s old Senate seat

by Associated Press, Monday, June 27

CHICAGO — Rod Blagojevich, who rode his talkative everyman image to two terms as Illinois governor before scandal made him a national punch line, was convicted Monday of a wide range of corruption charges, including the incendiary allegation that he tried to sell or trade President Barack Obama’s Senate seat.

The verdict was a bitter defeat for Blagojevich, who had spent 2½ years professing his innocence on reality TV shows and later on the witness stand. His defense team had insisted that hours of FBI wiretap recordings were just the ramblings of a politician who liked to think out loud. He faces up to 300 years in prison, although federal sentencing guidelines are sure to reduce his time behind bars. . . .

What? You mean the bastard's not going to serve the full 300 years? It's an outrage!

UPDATE: Raúl Grijalva Responds To Supreme Court's Narrow Pro-Fascist, Anti-Democracy Decision

Calling the decision “a troubling sign that wealth now decides how much free speech you get," Grijalva explained that it will reduce the number of qualified people running for office because they can no longer respond to barrages of attack ads with public campaign funds. According to Reuters, about two-thirds of Arizona state candidates use the current public financing system. “Who wants that many Arizonans to decide they can no longer ask for our votes simply because they’re not wealthy?” Grijalva said. He pointed out that the Arizona law in no way prohibits any individual or group from buying advertising or otherwise communicating a political stance or opinion. “All the state said was that money shouldn’t be the determining factor in an election, and today the Supreme Court decided otherwise,” he said. “It’s part of a larger pattern that began with the ideological Citizens United ruling, which has made it impossible to fix what ails our political process. As soon as you decide a corporation is a person, with all the rights we’re granted as free citizens, you’ve turned government into a contest of corporate interests versus popular interests, and corporations always have more to spend than individuals.”

Grijalva said the logic of today’s decision is more about who influences elections than a plain reading of the First Amendment. “While the court majority described this as a matter of free speech, we should talk about the real issue: corporate control of the political process,” Grijalva said. “Working people’s voices continue to be drowned out by well financed corporations with expert marketing strategies. The Framers of our Constitution never meant for wealthy companies or individuals with their own agendas to drown out the rest of us in public debate, especially not by outspending us.”

The dissenting opinion points out that the victorious plaintiffs in the case “ask this Court to prevent Arizona from funding electoral speech-- even though that assistance is offered to every state candidate, on the same (entirely unobjectionable) basis.”

#

Will Texas joke Gov. Rick Perry name a wingnut foe of public schools (and avowed Obama-hater) to head the State Board of Ed?

Texas gubernatorial dim bulb Rick Perry -- having it all

"All things come to those who wait."

-- old saying

"She wrote in her book that sending our children to public schools is 'throwing them into the enemy’s flames even as the children of Israel threw their children to Moloch.' ”

-- TFN Insider, quoting rumored Texas SBOE chair nominee Cynthia Dunbar (right)

by Ken

Is Texas Gov. Rick Perry having it all or what?

Sure, he faces the formidable roadblock of a fellow Republican, popular U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, threatening his reelection -- and bringing to her primary challenge the unfair advantage of a measurable IQ. But otherwise, things are going just great for our Rick.

* First it was former Illiois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, with all that fancy-pants Democratic hair (like Democrats know how to do hair!), getting himself into all that trouble and eventually getting thrown out of office, leaving no doubt about who has the Loveliest Gubernatorial Hair.

* Then Princess Sarah, governor of the only state bigger than Texas, up and abdicated her throne, and there went the most credible challenge to our Rick as the Dimmest Gubernatorial Bulb.

We're so accustomed to thinking of these people as figures of fun, objects of derision, that we may lose sight of the harm they have the power to do -- for example, the power to mess with the minds of our children. At the moment my Texas colleague Vince Leibowitz (of the blog Capitol Annex) is sounding the alarm about the possible appointment of a certifiable wingut loon, an avowed hater of both public schools and one Barack Obama, to chair Texas's State Board of Education.

Vince directs us to a post on the Texas Freedom Networks' TFN Insider blog (see the on-site version for links):

Could it get any worse? Could someone who despises public education soon be heading up the board tasked with managing the Texas public school system? Well, the buzz suggesting that Cynthia Dunbar, R-Richmond, may be the next chair of the Texas State Board of Education is growing louder, writes Hearst Capitol bureau reporter Gary Scharrer for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News.

Look, we were under no illusions when the Texas Senate wisely rejected the confirmation of Don McLeroy as board chair in May. We knew Gov. Rick Perry would likely choose another member of the board’s far-right faction as chair (even though there are other far more responsible conservative Republicans on the board). After all, the far-right faction represents his electoral base, which he will need in his re-election battle next year.

But surely even the governor realizes that choosing an extremist like Dunbar would be almost inconceivably reckless and irresponsible. Dunbar has clearly expressed her loathing for public education in her book One Nation Under God, calling public schools a “tool of perversion,” “unconstitutional” and “tryannical.” She has also personally rejected the public school system, home-schooling her children. In fact, she wrote in her book that sending our children to public schools is “throwing them into the enemy’s flames even as the children of Israel threw their children to Moloch.”

Just before the November election, Dunbar also authored a vicious Internet rant in which she called Barack Obama a terrorist sympathizer who wants to seize total power by declaring martial law. In another Internet screed, she charged that Obama is promoting Marxism by calling for “shared sacrifice and social responsibility.” (Not surprisingly, both essays have been removed from the Web sites that published them.)

By appointing Dunbar, Gov. Perry would be sending a clear message that he shares Dunbar’s extremism and her contempt for education. He would be putting his political fortunes ahead of the education of nearly 5 million Texas schoolchildren. In short, such an appointment would be a shocking betrayal of all those children and their families.

Vince adds:

Needless to say, if Perry does this, it is part of his ongoing campaign to govern Texas solely for the amusement of one million Republican Primary voters who will likely decide between Perry and U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison next March.

Perry’s got to shore up his rightwing base, and a Cynthia Dunbar appointment would no doubt earn him a lot of points in that camp.

#

What, you mean Gov. Mark "Oh God, Please Save Me from Myself" Sanford hasn't quit yet?

by Ken

Howie passed along this item from yesterday's CQ Politics with the note: "I wonder how many would care if he was schtupping some nice Baptist gal from Tennessee instead of a foreigner?"

Most South Carolinians Say Sanford Should Go
June 25, 2009

Although South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford promised Wednesday to redouble his focus on state issues after admitting to an extramarital affair, three-fifths of his constituents apparently wish he would just go away.

Sixty percent of South Carolina respondents to a Survey USA poll conducted Wednesday said Sanford should resign his office in the wake of his disclosure of his relationship with a woman in Argentina. Just more than a third -- 34 percent -- said he shouldn't resign.

The poll was conducted in conjunction with television station WCSC in Charleston.

Most of the respondents also expressed anger over the two-term Republican governor's week-long disappearance that preceded his confessional news conference.

[and so on and on]

There are times when the all-infallible Conventional Wisdom lets us down. As far as I know, there is no established figure for what percent of a governor's electorate can wish him to quit before he's in trouble. The most nearly relevant precedent would be that of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and in Governor Rod's case, his feeling seems to have been that it didn't mean nuttin' till it got to 100 percent, and maybe not even then.

I suspect, though, that 60 percent is not a good number, no matter how you look at it.

Of course Governor Mark is just serving out a term in which he has clearly suffered markedly diminished interest. After that he was going to be term-limited out of office anyway; now I suspect his future plans have become a matter of strictly personal interest. And deservedly so.

This is a man of absolutist views in politics as well as in religion; in fact, he's made it clear that for him they're pretty much the same thing -- though he did keep reminding us in that hallucinatory press conference he held Wednesday that he's "a bottom-line guy," even as he never seemed to get around to that bottom line. And of course his head is jammed as firmly up his rectum when it comes to politics as when it comes to religion.

Sorry, I'm not going to conceal my satisfaction at the fall of the malignant pukeguts. I really do not like people of an authoritarian mindset who presume to tell other people how to live their lives, especially when their prescriptions are mostly sociopathic BS, and even more so when they wrap themselves in the mantel of God. The ultimate joke is on them if there really is such a being, of course, because He must be mightily peeved at all these BS Christians who have devoted their lives to bamboozling dimwitted parishioners for their personal profit (literal as well as figurative).

Is that a scene or what: all those sharks of 21st century American Crap Christianity waving to Jesus, whose they've spent their lives trashing, in Heaven as they file on down to their destination.

#

UPDATE: And Now For The Corruption Part, Courtesy Of Howie

As you probably guessed, the taxpayers of South Carolina, whose best interests the crazed and hypocritical Sanford always claims to have at heart-- even when he's trying to turn down federal funds for schools and unemployment insurance, were paying for his sexual trysts. That's right, the Republican presidential hopeful was stealing money from the state to pay for his uncontrollable lust. If you think there are many extreme right politicians who are very different from Sanford, you would be terribly wrong. Prediction: his next job will be that of a Baptist televangelist-- or maybe just a nudist Baptist deacon in Georgia.

Sanford's wife Jenny, another abused and deceived Christian-Republican wife who bought into all the bullshit, granted her first interview since South Carolina's governor came back from his latest tango lessons in Buenos Aires. She says she didn't think he had it in him. Grudgingly, Sanford has now agreed to pay back the state of South Carolina the $8,000 he stole to carry on his affair with his Bathsheba of the Pampas. Governor Family Values-- one of America's most virulent and vicious homophobes who always rants and raves we need to protect the sanctity of marriage-- has 4 young sons who he abandoned for the Father's Day weekend so he could get laid.

Time For Roland Burris To Step Down-- And For Bernie Kerik To Start Serving Time

Isn't American Justice now just about all movin' on?

Roland Burris has voted really well since being appointed to the Senate by Rod Blagojevich. In terms of progressive issues, he's up there with Dick Durbin (D-IL), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and Jeff Merkely (D-OR), the Senate's champions of working families. But Burris is more a champion of Roland Burris than of any families and every minute he's in the Senate is a blot on that already suspect institution of systemic corruption. A new secretly recorded transcript of a phone conversation between Burris-- looking to be appointed to the Senate-- and Blagojevich's brother-- looking to help his bro sell a Senate seat-- was released yesterday. In it Burriss offers Blagojevich money for the seat and frets about how bad it will look if the media finds out.

He was right. It looks bad. He should be removed immediately. Illinois has an exceptionally honest reform governor, Pat Quinn. I wish I could say the same thing about the state legislature but, unfortunately, it isn't that much different from other notoriously corrupt state legislatures like Texas', Florida's, Pennsylvania's and California's. This sounds like a job for Patrick Fitzgerald, far more from the hidebound, incumbent protection racket known as the Senate Ethics Committee.



And speaking of crooked politicians, Bernie Kerik was finally indicted. According to this morning's NY Times the Rudy Guiliani crony and bagman was "indicted on charges of making false statements to White House officials vetting him for the secretary's seat at the Department of Homeland Security in 2004."

Kerik, who served as commissioner from 1998 to 2002, allegedly gave false and misleading answers to Bush administration officials about his relationship with contractors who renovated his Riverdale apartment, according to the indictment handed up by a Washington grand jury.

Prosecutors allege Kerik received and concealed benefits of about $255,000 in renovations to his home from contractors seeking to do business with the city of New York.

Kerik's camp-- i.e., the never ending Giuliani campaign-- claims the Justice Department is out to get him and that this is just "the latest example of the Department of Justice's overzealous pursuit of high-profile public figures."

Even if Dems own up to the IL Senate mess, there's really not much they can do about it, unlike Republicans, who could end the MN mess anytime

Can anyone get Illinois Sen. Roland Burris to quit? Well, can anyone get the GOP legal thug patrol to allow Minnesota's Al Franken to take his Senate seat?

by Ken

"Roland Burris, resign."

That's the headline on the editorial in today's Chicago Tribune, which begins:

The benefit of the doubt had already been stretched thin and taut by the time Roland Burris offered his third version of the events leading to his appointment to the U.S. Senate. It finally snapped like a rubber band, popping him on that long Pinocchio nose of his, when he came out with version four.

Let's see if we have it right: Burris had zero contact with any of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's cronies about his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by President Barack Obama—unless you count that conversation with former chief of staff Lon Monk, and, on further reflection, the ones with insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma and, oh yeah, the governor's brother and fundraising chief, Robert Blagojevich. But Burris didn't raise a single dollar for the now ex-governor as a result of those contacts because that could be construed as a quid pro quo and besides, everyone he asked refused to donate.

[and so on and so on and so on]

There's been a lot of finger-pointing as to who could have done what to avoid this mess, and I guess it's true that the Illinois state legislature could have moved faster on impeachment, trying to reserve the Senate appointment to Gov.-to-be Pat Quinn, but could they have prevented Gov. Rod Blagojevich from making an appointment? And maybe Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats could have delayed seating Burris long enough for, well, something to happen.

The Trib editorial reproaches the legislature for not at least scheduling a special election. ("If they had done that, voters today might be weighing the lost credibility of candidate Burris, instead of expressing their disgust with Sen. Burris.") But in the end there wasn't much anyone could have done, given one reality beyond anyone else's control: Governor Blagojevich's startling insistence on hanging tough, metaphorically chaining himself to the governor's chair until the guards finally came and chucked him out of the statehouse.

I've got this bad feeling that the new round of speculation regarding Senator Burris's continued tenure is going to be similarly fruitless; he doesn't show any sign of being prepared to go quietly. And here the end game is foggier, with nothing comparable to Blagojevich's impeachment in prospect. Speculation now focuses on the possibility that "Prosecutor Pat" Fitzgerald may have some disclosures to disclose, presumably from his taped collection of the Best of Blago, which may unjam the logjam.

Democrats have to own up to their mess, but they're isn't much they can do beyond trying to help Senator Burris see that ultimately he's doomed. This is in marked contrast to the situation in Minnesota, where Republican officials know they've lost but clearly have any intention of giving up on their naked power play. They all know that former Sen. Norm Coleman isn't returning to he Senate except perhaps as a visitor. But if that "R" vote is lost, they clearly do have the power to prevent it from turning "D" anytime in the immediate future.

When it was Coleman who appeared to have a minuscule lead in the 2008 election vote-counting, the senator couldn't have been clearer or more vocal about what came next: The only honorable course was for Democrat Al Franken to concede. Then the Minnesota elections people did a heroic job of establishing as good a vote count as they're going to get, and while it obviously was close, it went the other way, and Coleman developed amnesia with regard to those pretty principles of his. (Well, the now-former senator has always had a shaky relationship with principle. He'll be a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, whatever serves his immediate interest.)

Buttressed by the whole League of GOP Thugs (Hon. John Cornyn, Your NRSC Thugmaster), Coleman and his enforcers have made it clear that they will do whatever they have to do, whatever it costs, to prevent Franken from taking the seat to which he was elected, however narrowly, for as long as they can. "It's what we do," I'm sure the Republithugs are thinking. "We're the Party of No."


UPDATE: PLAY "SEAT THE SENATOR!" ON BUZZFLASH

While visiting Bluestem Prairie for our next Minnesota-related post, we found a heads-up on BuzzFlash's "Seat the Senator!" contest, in which all you have to do is guess correctly the date on which Al Franken takes the oath of office in the Senate. You simply leave your guess in a comment on Meg's post updating the Minnesota election mess, using your BuzzFlash username (if you're not already signed up, sign-up is free), by 11:59 p.m. CT, Feb. 28, 2009.

The Gopher State-appropriate prize is the Coen Brothers Movie Collection, "which includes five DVDs of the Minnesotan sibling duo's critically-acclaimed films: Fargo, Barton Fink, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, and Blood Simple."

#

Governor Rod says: "I did a lot of things that were mostly right." UPDATE: It's bye-bye, Rod!

"I did a lot of things that were mostly right."

-- Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, interrupting his media whirlwind today to visit the closing of the State Senate's trial of his removal from office

by Ken

Well, I guess that's okay then, governor. Never mind.

The news could come any time now, as the Illinois Senate should be voting on whether to convict Gov. Rod Blagojevich on his impeachment charges, which would result in his immediate removal as governor and replacement by Lieut. Gov. Pat Quinn, and also whether to bar him from holding public office again.

This morning, as threatened, I mean promised, the governor made his farewell address, I mean gave his closing argument to the Illinois State Senate, as it wound up his trial on the articles of impeachment voted by the State House, speaking after the prosecution gave its closing argument, which was an actual legal closing argument.

Instead of speaking for 90 minutes, as dreaded, I mean expected, Governor Rod spoke for only 45, which was undoubtedly good news for the senators. Where the governor is concerned, less is plenty. No, make that more than plenty.

On the awkward if not downright icky side, (1) the governor wasn't under oath, and (2) he refused to take questions, which would have smacked of, you know, cross-examination, like some kind of a trial. The governor, as you know, had boycotted the three days of his impeachment trial.

Legislators, while nervous about committing themselves to such a drastic step without what might seem a proper criminal trial (though of course impeachment isn't a criminal trial), seemed less than awed by the final-day swoop-down. As Malcolm Gay and Susan Saulny report on the NYT website:

Since he will not be giving testimony, senators said his appearance would not be included as evidence in their deliberations.

“All the testimony was heard, so the things that we will consider, all that has taken place,” said Senator James F. Clayborne Jr., a Democrat. “I’m waiting to hear the closing argument tomorrow.”

(Presumably the "closing arument" the senator was referring to was the prosecution's, since the governor's wasn't going to be "considered.")

Further news as it develops.

NOTE: The Washington Post has posted a transcript of Governor Rod's remarks, for those who just can't get enough of the lovable lunk.


UPDATE: IT'S ALL OVER FOR GOVERNOR ROD.
IT'S GOVERNOR QUINN NOW

By 5:45pm ET the AP was reporting that the Illinois Senate had voted to remove Governor Blagojevich from office, and was poised to deliver the second blow: barring him from holding public office again.

Here's Reuters' report. And tomorrow we'll have a report from someone who knows Gov. Quinn really well. John Laesch will tell us who this guy is and why we can expect better things from him than we got from Blagojevich (even of Blago did go down screaming about how Rahm Emanuel is a criminal).

#

So Illinois has a new senator -- or does it?

Former state Att'y Gen. Roland Burris is named by Governor Rod.

First the announcement:

Blagojevich Names Obama Replacement

CHICAGO (Dec. 30) – Defying U.S. Senate leaders and his own state's lawmakers, Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday appointed former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. Blagojevich, accused of trying to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder, praised the 71-year-old Burris' integrity and asked that the corruption allegations not "taint this good and honest man."

"The people of Illinois are entitled to have two United States senators represent them in Washington D.C.," Blagojevich said. "As governor I am required to make this appointment."

Burris, standing at the governor's side, said he's eager to get to work in Washington. He said he has no connection to the charges against Blagojevich, who was arrested on Dec. 9 and accused of trying to profit from appointing Obama's replacement.

Burris was the first African-American elected to major statewide office. He's served as Illinois' comptroller and ran for governor three times — the last time losing to Blagojevich.

The Democratic governor's announcement as Burris as his pick may be an empty gesture. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who must certify the appointment, said Tuesday he will not do so. And U.S. Senate leaders reiterated that they wouldn't accept anyone appointed by Blagojevich, who was arrested Dec. 9 on federal corruption charges.

In a statement Tuesday, Senate Democrats maintained that Blagojevich should not make the appointment because it is unfair to Burris, unfair to the people of Illinois and ultimately won't stand.

"It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety," the statement said.

"Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus." . . .

[Blagojevich's] own lawyer said recently that there would be no point in Blagojevich naming someone to the Senate because leaders there would reject his appointment.

White, who handles the state's paperwork, said he would not formally certify any appointment made by Blagojevich "because of the current cloud of controversy surround the governor."

It's not clear whether White's administrative hurdle would be enough to prevent a Blagojevich appointment from taking effect.

Burris, 71, was the first black politician elected to major statewide office in Illinois and has connections across the state. He's a native of Centralia in southern Illinois who graduated from Southern Illinois University before earning his law degree from Howard University.

Burris served as Illinois' comptroller from 1979 to 1991 and as the state's attorney general from 1991 to 1995. He also served as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1985 to 1989.

More recently, however, Burris has had a string of political disappointments. He lost campaigns for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination in 1994, 1998 and 2002 -- the last time losing to Blagojevich. In 1995, he was badly beaten when challenging Chicago Mayor Richard Daley in the primary.

Before taking public office, Burris worked in banking and served as national executive director and chief operating officer for Operation PUSH, the Chicago-based civil rights organization. . . .

Now some political analysis from Politico's Arena, in the form of a "bold prediction for 2009" from attorney Thomas C. Goldstein:

Roland Burris is very likely to be a U.S. Senator until the Illinois Legislature can hold a special election to replace him, which they may now decide to do quickly. It's clear that if Burris were elected and duly qualified, the Senate couldn't refuse to seat him. That's the Supreme Court's holding in the Adam Clayton Powell case, Powell v. McCormack (1969). The question is whether there is a different rule for appointments by governors rather than elections. Those are covered by the Seventeenth Amendment, which lets states give the appointment power to governors "until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

But what if Blago gave the seat to someone who bribed him? The Senate could probably refuse to seat that person as not genuinely fulfilling the "qualifications" of the seat (which it gets to decide under Article I of the Constitution) because the appointment would be unlawful under other provisions of federal and state law (due to the bribery) and therefore not a valid exercise of the appointment power under state law. But there presumably was no bribe with respect to the Burris appointment, which means that he gets the seat.

The Senate's remaining option would be to seat Burris but then turn around an expel him by a 2/3 vote (another power under Article I). But that would open up another can of worms because Burris will not have engaged in misbehavior and it would be an obvious attempt to circumvent his right under the Constitution to be seated.

Stay tuned!


UPDATE: THE PRESIDENT-ELECT WEIGHS IN

President-elect Obama, whose Senate seat it is that is being filled (or not), issued the following statement:

Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.

Meanwhile, what I'm still hearing from legal eagles familiar with applicable law, neither the folks in Illinois nor the U.S. Senate appear to have legal or constitutional grounds to reject Governor Blagojevich's appointment, absent indication that there was something illegal about the actual appointment, like a bribe -- of which there is no indication that anyone is aware of.

#