Senate Dems May Try To Seat Franken

UPDATE: Coleman's Senate office has been ordered closed, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports:

With the recount battle still underway, the doors to Norm Coleman's Senate offices were locked this morning at the direction of Senate rules committee officials who declared his term expired.

"They can't carry on Senate business," said Howard Gantman, staff director for the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

Coleman, in a statement issued at mid-day, said "without question this is a unique situation in the history of the Senate, and specifics are still being determined as to the future of the Senate office."

CQ reports Senate Democrats may attempt to seat Al Franken as Minnesota's new Senator Tuesday, despite the objections of Sen. Norm Coleman and other Republicans.

Senate Republicans are gearing up to block any attempt to seat the Democrat until Coleman's continuing legal challenges are resolved. That could spark the first filibuster of the 111th Congress.

Jim Manley, the spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said Monday that there "likely will be an attempt to seat [Franken] this week."

A senior Democratic aide confirmed that Senate Democrats hoped to swear Franken in Tuesday, along with the rest of the freshman senators.

New York Sen. Charles Schumer seemed to endorse this move Sunday, saying the race was settled and that Franken had won the election.

"While there are still possible legal issues that will run their course, there is no longer any doubt who will be the next Senator from Minnesota," Schumer said. "With the Senate set to begin meeting on Tuesday to address the important issues facing the nation, it is crucial that Minnesota's seat not remain empty, and I hope this process will resolve itself as soon as possible."

Senate Republican leaders have said the chamber shouldn't seat Franken until all legal matters are settled, which could take months.

On Monday, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected Coleman's request to count an additional 654 rejected absentee ballots.

Comments

[Utopia]

All of this mess shows what incompetence we have in the Democratic leadership. God help Reid should he fail to stand up to the retugs on Franken, because the voters won't be so kind.

[zoozey]

It would take a lot more than this for the Dems to look worse than the Repubs.

Let us all remember who was in charge during the 90's when all the Congress wanted to talk about was Monica's blue dress, Vince Foster, and Whitewater. And when Clinton tried to attack bin Laden and focus them on that, they accused HIM of wagging the dog.

Please, let us remember those sad times and never downgrade our Dems too much.

[bdl0715]

Speaking as a democratic leaning independent, why is it crucial that MN's seat not remain open, but it's ok for IL's seat to remain open.

I am an IL democrat and I think it is foolish for the dems to not seat Roland Burris.

[BeyondKen]

Minnesota's Senator was elected by 1,212,431 voters. Burris was selected by a guy who was recorded auctioning off that seat to the highest bidder.

[Politisizer]

Maybe because Burris was given the senate seat by a crook?

[imjustawitchywoman]

But that "crook" has the right (and he is the only one that has the right) to seat that Senator (Burris).

As long as he is not one of the 5 Candidates that Blago was on tape, talking about trying to buy the seat.....h­e should be allowed to be seated as an Illinois Senator,.

The Dems should just do it instead of keeping this story going.....­which is hurting the Party and its credentials.

[PATina]

ALLEGED crook. While he's still Governor..­. it's his job to fill the vacant seat. The Senate has no say in who gets appointed.

[Yarrr]

Blago has NOT been impeached. He is still the gov. It is completely 100% within his right to appoint Burris to the senate. There's nothing unlawful about it at all.

If you don't like it, blame the Illinois house and senate for not doing anything quicker.

It's been done, Burris has been appointed to the senate by the governor. Which is the law.

[PATina]

Great question..­. and I agree... every vacant seat should be filled. It's a shame that after months of crying foul about the rights attempts to smear Obama w/ "guilt by associatio­n"... that some of his supporters are doing the same to Burris.

[milo h minderbinder]

I oppose Burris taking the seat, but not because of guilt by association, because an appointment by Blagojevich is inherently tainted.

I'd be perfectly fine with Burris if he were to be selected by the replacement governor after Blago is gone or if he won a special election.

[zoozey]

but the guilt by assoc. in this manner is because the whole reason for Blago's criminal troubles is for that very seat and for asking for pay to play.....

[CessnaDriver]

Burris' Certificate of Election does not comply with the Rules of the Senate, which are public. If he were to show up with proper credentials it would be a different story. Imagine the repugs going nuts if Burris were allowed to sit without the proper paperwork!

[milo h minderbinder]

It's not crucial but it's apparent who the winner is in MN and that result came from a proper recount. As far as I'm concerned, Coleman's legal challenges are frivolous.

In IL, Burris was appointed by an accused criminal. I find that a perfectly valid reason to leave the seat open until Blago has been replaced or another solution found.

[vinny]

c'mon, Illinois deserves full representation no matter what Blago did or said...

[zoozey]

Right! And I might also add that this was not just any criminal violation, but one concerning the very act that Blago ended up doing.....­..it was pertinent to the crime he was being accused of.

[bygollymissmolly]

Well, they better not try it unless they are willing to make the Republicans actually filibuster. You know, like reading the phone book for days and days. The Democrats are never going to get anything passed as long as they continue to cave to the "threat" of a filibuster. Make them do it and publicize it to the world. Show the world what a bunch of whiny obstructionists the Republicans are.

[PallinAround]

Exactly -- time to call their bluff. Make the Repubes either start doing their jobs or show everyone how petty and partisan they are.

[Yarrr]

Amen to that. If the repubs can be obstructionists without having to actually fillibuster, well, I mean, you really can't blame them for taking advantage of such a ridiculous tactic.

[Chris]

Why is that when the dems are the minority party it is not obstrucitonist?

[kdublya]

That's how the game is played. Now, stop whining and get back to obstructing.

[Megaflow]

Compare the number of filibusters by Repubs in the last two years to the number of filibusters by the Dems the previous two years. Then get back to us.

[Horus45]

Yes, put them on everyone's TV reading the DC phone book so they will lose more seats in the 2010 midterm election.

Let the Nation see them blocking Change!

[MaryanneAZ]

Talk about the height of hypocrisy -- seat Franken, reject Burris. Dems (of whom I am one) cannot have it both ways. Franken is no less controversial in this seating with an outstanding legal proceeding than is Burris. To seat one new incoming Senator and not the other smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. I have contacted many of the Senators and urged them to seat Burris and Franken. Our Nation's business is so important and there is nothing to be gained by barring Burris or Franken. I have never heard of any candidate unseating another candidate once an election has been validated by the SOS. The only logical reason why Reid et al. do not want to seat Burris is that they are afraid he will lose the Dem seat in 2010. That is not their business nor their call. I was shocked to hear that Reid was on the phone with the various State Governors intervening in their selection of incoming replacement senators. Since when did we elect old Harry to run interference for all of the States? We now know that these processes are entirely fixed and flawed from all angles -Blago, Reid, Pelosi, etc. How do they have any business minding the State of Illinois or the States of Minnesota or Colorado's business in the seating of a new Senator? It seems our Republic still has quite a few flaws and it is far from perfected.

[Grunty1]

They are two very different situations, so why couldn't the results be different?

Franken is the winner of an election.
Burris was selected by a governor trying to sell the very seat.

[thisoldbroad]

Franken was voted in by the people. Why shouldn't he be seated? Doesn't compare to the Illinois fiasco Blago has created.

Does Coleman plan to complain all the way to the Supreme Court? They already decided a similar issue back in 2000 - deferring to the lower courts decision, (which in this case has already been made). That's why we had Bush instead of Gore for the last 8 yrs,

Does Coleman want to leave the people of Minnesota without representation during this important time? While he complains that some of the voters of Minnesota shouldn't have been included in this selection?

[CessnaDriver]

You have to remember that, in the sick and twisted mind of a repug, a vote for a non-republican is treason.

Therefore, elections don't matter.

I once asked a republican office holder about the morality of election fraud, and his answer was, "As long as the republican wins."

[CessnaDriver]

Actually, there is a great difference between the cases of Mr. Franken and Mr. Burriss: The former is elected, while the latter is appointed. The factor that the appointment of Mr. Burris to the Senate is sullied by Gov. Blago's problems as well as the lack of the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State further complicates the matter.

In the case of the Minnesota election, there is precedent for seating Mr. Franken provisionally while the final legal challenges are dealt with. The Senate has the right under the constitution to decide the qualifications of it's members.

My personal opinion is that a few Republican moderates will not go along with the party and vote to invoke cloture if a filibuster occurs.

[zoozey]

Your answer is quite simple and articulate. However, these posters keep asking the same questions over and over without reading similar explanations such as yours. So you may be wasting your fine assessment on people who do not bother to read the answers to their questions.

[PATina]

I agree... and will take it a step further... what's the difference between the Dems barring Burris and the Repubs barring Franken??.­.. NONE !!! If it's good enough for one party to do... the other party can too. You can't scream foul about the Republicans barring Franken... but think it's okay for the Democrats to bar Burris.

[PallinAround]

Apples and oranges, my dear. You seem smart enough to grasp that... maybe I have over-estimated you.

[zoozey]

Just curious---ya'll keep asking the same question. Maybe you should read some of the responses that explain the DIFFERENCE.

[Mark2100]

Didn't the repugs fly someone out to DC in the middle of the night a few years ago to swear him in - while the votes were still being counted? They sure have this arrogance thing down.

[zoozey]

They have different rules than everyone else. They make them up as they go along. they have been led for 8 years by the most arrogant and ignorant of all.

[hopefullee]

It will be interesting to see if Reid has grown a spine, or if the Dems back down at t h r e a t of a filibuster.

[Chapmanp2]

Not only should they try, they should pull out ALL the stops on this one.
Al Franken will be declared the winner today. If the shoe were on the other foot the Republicans would simply steam roll their guy in & paint Dems as obstructionist whiners. It's time to stand up & fight for your Country Dems. Show the Repugs what you're made of or risk setting an extremely ugly tone & precedent for the 111th Congress. Leadership needs to cram this down their throats...

[bboyy]

on your mark---- get set------g­o--------a­nd the obstructionists are off.

[rmetz74]

It's interesting that they have both this and the Burris matter to consider at once. If they seat Franken, it's harder to agrue against seating Burris. Not impossible, but harder. I'm curious to see what happens.

[bygollymissmolly]

I see no reason why seating Franken would make denying Burris harder. If Franken is certified as the winner, then he should be able to take his seat.

They are denying Burris because they had already said they wouldn't seat anyone Blago appointed. They are only staying true to their word. If they seat Burris, they will be tainting that seat and will have a very difficult time getting him out and someone else appointed after Blago is finally gone.

[Chris]

You mean like delcaring Franken the winner beofre it has been certified? And actually according to MN law the legal challenges can delay the certification.

[PATina]

Except they don't have a legal standing for barring Burris... anymore than the Repubs have a legal standing for barring Franken. Reid nor any of the Senate Democrats had any right to say they wouldn't seat anyone Blago appointed.­.. it's not their call to make.

[JackND]

The GOP has so little capital right now as it is. If they want to waste it on this, I promise to laugh the whole time.

[SurrealPumpkin]

not really. If they filibuster no other business moves forward in the Senate. that said, I really hope they're stupid enough to filibuster on this. The House can work on the economic stimulus plan.

[PallinAround]

Time to hold their feet to the fire. If they are stupid enought to filibuster this - while "Rome burns" so to speak - they are just sealing their fate for the mid-terms in 2010. The GOP is on life support and fading fast as it is. They can block the seating of a legitimately elected and certified Dem Senator at their own peril -- either way Dems win! Woo-hoo!

[Mike4Obama]

Legal matters were settled. The lawsuit was rejected. End of discussion.

As Justice Scalia put it in 2000: "Get over it"

[EllisWyatt]

The results are not official until legal challenges are heard. On the other hand, Burriss has been legally appointed and the dems won't seat him.

Hmmmmmmmm

[PallinAround]

You're taking some interesting liberties with the word "legal." Let's remember that one person was elected (as in "the will of the people") while one was appointed (as in "the will of a corrupt and unethical politician"). Big diff there, my friend.

[PATina]

Except the appointment is mandated by the Constitution. Blagojevich did nothing wrong in appointing Burris. The Senate has no say so in who a Governor appoints to a vacant seat in the Senate. As a courtesy..­. he or she may take their advice... but it's still the Governor call... and his alone.

[bygollymissmolly]

Also, in case you missed it. the SOS in Illinois is refusing to certify the appointment. Until such time as he does, it is NOT a legal appointment.

[Chris]

One has to wonder if the SOS has the legal authority to deny ceritifcation without a legal cause.

[marignymitch]

It's legal if his victory is certified by election officials in Minnesota. Such certification is expected today.

[MichaelDeane]

Actually not true but why let the facts stand in your way?

[Chris]

These are the facts as reported by this very site

The Canvassing Board _ made up of four judges and the secretary of state _ was to meet later Monday to go over the final results and sign off on them. That would trigger a seven-day waiting period before an election certificate is signed by Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.


So certification will not occur for at least 7 days.

[Grunty1]

You always lie. Burris has NOT been legally seated, as the Sectretary of State of IL has not signed off on the pick.

[philosopherkingtomas]

Congrats Senator Franken !

[spitar1]

Why wouldn't they? He won.