I read elsewhere that Reid and the Senate can’t refuse to seat the appointee. They can only expel on a 2/3 vote. If true, this will be even more fun...
Reid’s just being racist.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95D7M180&show_article=1
The last time the Senate refused to seat a member was in 1947, when Mississippi Democrat Theodore Bilbo was accused of corruption and bribery, according to Don Ritchie, associate Senate historian.
Why shouldn’t he be seated. He’ll fit right in with the rest of those thugs and crooks.
I'm not an expert, but I believe that there are two precedents in the past that would support Reid. Although, it would be much more entertaining if the Senate were forced to impeach Burris - but, I can't imagine what the grounds for impeachment would be.
It's a mess, and I'm loving every minute of it!
Who is going to vote against the black guy??? LOL
“I read elsewhere that Reid and the Senate can’t refuse to seat the appointee. They can only expel on a 2/3 vote. If true, this will be even more fun...”
I heard Karl Rove on Fox tonight. He opined that, arguably, the Senate cannot refuse to seat; can only expell.
In any event, this keeps democrat corruption in the news, and that gives right-thinking Republicans an opportunity to speak to the news, about this aspect of our governmental process.
With Reid, Durbin, et al speaking out so strongly, it shows they fear the impression that it could make. So politically Reid’s position is the smart one to take.