What's the downside for Burris, though?  If he doesn't end up getting seated as senator, it will be slightly embarrassing, but it's unlikely that anyone will remember his role for very long.  And if he does get seated, how long will people dwell on the fact that the appointment was tainted?  

The upside is clear - he has a chance to spend two years as a U.S. senator.  Jon Corzine spent $60 million on a Senate seat, it has to be worth something.

As an Illinois citizen, I don't thoink its bad for Burris, Blags, or Illinois.  You can be sure Burris is not on the tapes or else he would have to turn it down.  A special election will take too long (and cost millions).  And Illinois needs representation.  Blago is the only person who can appoint a Senator (as bad as that might be).   So he appoints someone who appears unlikely to be in it for the long run, and without any real taint from the tapes.

Jason I think you're putting too much value on "the way he'll be remembered" -- he might well think "I'll be dead, what the heck will I care?"  Note well: the Illinois Dems were all gung-ho for passing a special election law until they realized they might lose the seat to a moderate republican like Mark Kirk.

Well, it may not be the way Burris would have chosen to get into the Senate, but at least it might get him there.  Reid isn't exactly the steeliest poker player in DC, so it's at least a decent bluff to allow one's self to be appointed in the hopes that the "leadership" in the Senate will quail when faced with the option of voting down an African American with decent credentials.  I assume that, like most politicians, he's willing to break a few eggs to get where he wants to go, even if it's unseemly.

If Burris is not in any way tied to Blago, underhanded or otherwise, there is no reason to turn down the appointment. And since his reputation is that of a clean politician, which apparently is a rare thing in Illinois, he might win the election in two years.

It's pretty hilarious that Harry Reid is about to lose a fight with a man that had a 4% approval rating *before* he was named in a criminal complaint and became a national joke.  Leadership!

Nice Wesley Willis, ref, Jason.  Rock over Springfield, Rock over Chicago.

I amazed Blago found someone to accept his offer to a U.S. Senate appointment. It sounds like a career-killer to me. Or at least a drip of tar on one's obit.  Oh, well. . .

+1 on the Wesley Willis reference.  Blago singing "Eat that Mule $**"

Burris is a good choice.  He is completely untainted.  He's been out of politics for, what?, 14, 15 years?  I forgot he existed until today.  He doesn't know Blagojevich.  He wasn't around for Blogjevich.  He went down when the Democrats went down to Jim Edgar's GOP the second time.  That's ancient history.  He wasn't under consideration by Blagojevich or on the radar.  "Elder statesman" may be overstating it, but he is neither exciting nor offensive, and is regarded I think as a good guy.  Believe it or not, Blagojevich is kinda sorta doing the right thing with this appointment, although resigning would certainly be preferable.

I think Reid needs to talk to some lawyers and historians about the actual extent of the Senate's power here and whether it will be wise to attempt to deem Burris "unqualified" or if, legally speaking, the Senate even has the authority to do so merely because Blagojevich appointed him.  I recall one argument suggesting that the "qualifications" at issue are constitutional qualifications, which is very narrow.

Trivia:  In the movie The Fugitive, shot in Chicago, Burris can be seen marching in the St. Patrick's Day parade in which Harrison Ford attempts to escape attention.

This is a smart move on Blago's part, for all the reasons stated above.  It allows him to kind of framw the issues differently, and- knowing Blago- a good way to stick it to his enemies.  The only way he could anger Chicago more would be to appoint Henry Burris.  

I'm not sure the Reid and Senate could refuse to sit the person.  The Consitution gives the Senate the sole power as "Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members."  Because this is an appointment and not an election, the first two parts do not apply - only Qualifications.  And the Adam Clayton Powell case of 1969 seems to kill that idea.  There the Supreme court said that the "Qualifications" mentioned in the Constitution are ONLY those qualifications found in the Consitution, such as age, citizenry, residency, etc. I guess the new Senator could take the oath and then be expelled by a 2/3 vote.  The problem with all this is that Burris does not appear to have any taint of corruption.  What reason would anyone have to say Burriss should not sit absent proof of his own corrupt activities?

rpnslg, Do you happen to know the name of that case?  That's what I was alluding to above.  Everyone keeps talking and acting as though the Senate has absolute authority here, but I don't think that's true.  If it's not, we need to get that crucial bit of info into the mix....

It really should be said that, for a man as dumb as Blago would have to be in order to get caught in a wiretap when he knew he was under investigation, this is a pretty smart move.

Here is a good article from the LA Times regarding the Senate's authority to reject a Blagojevich appointee:

www.latimes.com/.../la-na-senate12-2008dec12,0,3224027.story

The basic conclusion is that while the Supreme Court has said that the "qualifications" at issue are indeed constitutional qualifications (basically, you have to be 30), many experts think that the Senate has the authority to refuse to seat an appointee if it disputes the *legality* of the appointment process.  Today, if the candidate is elected, and there is some dispute regarding the vote, the Senate is empowered to judge basically who wins, quite apart from the constitutional qualifications.  (In that scenario, both candidates would be "qualified.")  Although rpnslg is right that that situation is plainly dealt with by the Constitution's vesting of authority to judge elections and returns with the Senate, I suppose that many scholars think there is analogous authority when it comes to appointments.  For example, suppose that Illinois law requires the certification of the the appointment by the Secretary of State to become effective.  Suppose that the Secretary of State refuses to so certify, thus raising an issue as to the legality of the appointment.  (A more extreme but unlikely scenario would be more than one person claiming to be the appointee.)  The Senate is probably competent to judge those issues under the Constitution.  (Now, perhaps the decision by the Secretary of State is not discretionary, and Burris could sue him, but you get the idea.)

Assuming that the Secretary of State is required to certify the appointment and does so, what happens then?  What is the Senate's argument respecting the legality of *this* appointment, and not some other hypothetical appointment that Blagojevich didn't in fact make?  I'm not sure that "general taint" from the Blago tapes is sufficient.  There is zero to suggest that *Burris* "bought" a Senate seat.  How would this get resolved?  A lawsuit by Burris.  Perhaps Reid and Co. are hoping that mild-mannered Burris won't have the balls or the desire to fight his way onto the Senate, but he might just, and he might just win.  The courts would *want* to stay out of it, but I'm not sure they would -- they would have a plaintiff saying he's entitled to a seat on the Senate and the alternative is a vacancy.  As noted above, Adam Clayton Powell sued in similar circumstances and won.

OTOH, this is a potential problem for Burris, courtesy today's Tribune article online:  "Burris has given more than $20,000 to Blagojevich's campaign fund on his own and through his consulting and law firms, state campaign finance records show. Burris' consulting company received about $290,000 in state contracts with the Illinois Department of Transportation a few years ago, according to state comptroller records."

jhildner - it's Powell v. McCormack and, if I read it correctly, means that Reid's posturing means exactly zilch, because he can't do a damned thing without mustering 2/3 of the Senate to his side to expel the guy.

FWright - your comment on Reid's leadership is even more sharply unkind and concise than my attempt on another thread was. Well said.

Beautifully put.  One of the best I've read - and I've been reading quite a few.

I am with the first batch of posters, rpnslg, lymon, drdanny, etc. Hell, blago can appoint me for all I care what anyone else thinks, but I suppose being a total misanthrope helps for me. If Burris is clean then I have no problem with it, lymon is right, why risk losing a Dem seat, better let the Repubs bitch.

jhildner, Burris gave $20,000 or so to Blago's campaign, but that must have been a routine action apparently free of pay for play.

Satyendra, well, yes, it appears very, very unlikely that Burris's appointment is some kind of reward.  Still, the fact that Burris -- and, I suppose, his "firms" (does that mean other employees too?) -- gave $20,000 to Blagojevich and the fact that his firm received a state contract worth $300K raises the specter of pay to play -- not with respect to the Senate appointment but with respect to that contract.  Money for state largesse (and withholding state funds after a failed shakedown) goes to the heart of the pay-to-play scandal.  Now, you of course could argue that there is nothing suggesting that this transaction is tainted or unusual in any respect, that the amounts aren't large, that Burris is a Democrat and would naturally give to Democratic candidates, that his political consulting firm would naturally receive such a contract, and that, if everyone who contributed to a campaign was foreclosed from getting a government contract, nobody would get government contracts, on the state or federal level.  You could also argue that even if something were fishy here, it doesn't go to the legality of the *appointment* which is all the Senate has the authority to consider.  All true.  Still, for Burris's bid to win any substantial support or sympathy -- and it may not anyway -- he's going need to answer questions he wouldn't otherwie have to answer, including about this transaction, and appear crystal clean.

Jhildner, in case you haven't seen this

www.suntimes.com/.../1356051,CST-NWS-sweet31.article

I don't know Danny Davis's backstory or his reputation in other matters but I find his scruples interesting.

Actually, when I lived in Chicago I hardly paid attention to local pols and knew little more than the names of my senators and congressional rep (Emanuel).  Now I know a little more about them because they've been thrust on the nat'l stage.  I tend not to follow local politics here, either.

This move was the only one Blago had left to retain any fragment of goodwill from anyone before he begins the ugliness that will be his impeachment.  He now has one fragment.  Burris will accept the seat and then resign it mid-Spring after negotiations with the Dem leadership and the Obama administration.  He will leave having been a US Senator, serve as a transition figure during the first days of the Obama adminstration (disconnecting the latter from the mess), and largely cancel any advantage the Illinois Republicans might have had in the special election that will follow.  I think it is a brilliant move.