AP: Supreme Court Says Burris Appointment Is Valid W/Out White Signature
According to an AP report, the Supreme Court just ruled that Secretary of State doesn't have to sign the certificate appointing Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate. The court declared that White's only responsiblity under Illinois law was to register the selection, which he did...
According to an AP report, the Supreme Court just ruled that Secretary of State doesn't have to sign the certificate appointing Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate. The court declared that White's only responsiblity under Illinois law was to register the selection, which he did. The justices further asserted: "No further action is required by the Secretary of State or any other official to make the Governor's appointment of Roland Burris to the United States Senate valid under Illinois law."
Harry Reid and Dick Durbin said earlier this week that they would wait for the Supreme Court to act before deciding how to proceed. The question now is whether Reid will green-light the appointment anyway.
Read the court's opinion below (click on the button in the upper right corner to expand):
UPDATE (1:55 p.m.): A statement just out from Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office:
It is clear that Secretary White is not the roadblock to Mr. Burris' appointment to the U.S. Senate.
It remains within the power of the U.S. Senate to seat Mr. Burris. They should do so immediately.
Share
The legal eagles out there are telling me that Reid can't reject Burris' appointment on the grounds that it lacks White's signature. If he tries to do so, Burris will have grounds to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court and will probably win.
If Reid still wants to deny the appointment -- and there's little indication he does -- then the only avenue left is to argue against it on the grounds of the "return" itself (i.e. Blagojevich's vote of one).
What really remains to be seen is the playing out of the
stall, say another appointment by the person who
may or may not by the impending actions of the vote
of the Senate to impeach and a trial ending unfavorable for
our Governor.
Will another appointment take away the legal authority
that the Governor had even though the Senate is trying
to give VETO power to the Sec of State and the SENATE??
For no one has been able to sing the song
that the legal appointment of Senator Burris
was not something the Governor
could do simply because he was arrested.
This is why the present Sec. of State
refuses to apply his official signature,
somebody has forgotten to tell him that
his signature and name is only required
because of his OFFICIAL DUTIES, period.
He appears to act as though his personal
name is being used for some other purposes,
and if he felt that strongly about the Governor
being charged with a crime, he should not
have signed any papers from that day to
this instead of being selective with his
obligation to the people who entrusted
with this job to do it, not to pick and choose
when he will do it.
Roland Burris should sue him for
dereliction of duty:
( if that would be legal)
There are two good points
for Senator Burris's attorney's to
address:
The Supreme Court has stated in no
uncertain terms the signature is not required.
15 ILCS 305 / 5 (4) Duty under Section 5 (4)
Excerpt regarding record which is what the
appointment and signature papers are in this context
record or paper in his office is to have his
certificate and seal of the state.
The law does not include his signature,
the Senate even in their zealous personal
rule ( as it appears) can not supersede that
fact just because they get to write their
rules about the process of appointment
or this discussion would not be needed.
They could simply seat their choice with
a signature of the Sec. of the State
signing off on it and completely disregard
the appointment of the Governor as they
appear to be stalling to do.
The Senate is using a tradtional aspect
to deny confirmation while rewriting
a ruling of the Supreme Court and
the Constitution in the process
just to stall the appointment of the
Governor that is and was legally done.
Our Senate needs to be very careful
about giving themselves and the
Secretary of State VETO power.
Thanks for letting me vent.
So does this mean if Reid wants to wait until the IL Senate removes Blago from office and Quinn gets sworn in - which could come as early as next week the way things are moving - Quinn could rescind the appointment and appoint someone else? Can Quinn rescind the appointment? If so who do we get? Frankly a few weeks ago before Blago appointed him I wouldn't have objected to Burris. But since we've seen his ego tour, and yanking him back only to appoint him again would look even weirder and superfluous I'd rather see a Senator Davis or someone else. At least Danny had the good sense to say "get away from me" when Rod asked him first.