Posted: Thursday, January 8, 2009 12:00 am
Where are all the indignant voices who normally rise up in defense of "the rule of law"? How come they are not in full cry about the initial refusal of the U.S. Senate to seat an appointee from Illinois?
On Tuesday the Senate refused to admit Rolan Burris, who had been appointed to the vacancy created by the election of Barack Obama to the presidency.
The Senate refused because in Illinois, the secretary of state had not signed off on the appointment. And the secretary of state had not signed off because the governor who made the appointment is under fire for being a foul-mouthed crook.
But what about the rule of law?
The governor has been indicted but not convicted. Moreover, voices are now being raised that what he did was not necessarily a crime. On wiretaps he was heard talking about seeking favors in return if he did someone the favor of appointing him to the Senate. Unseemly sure. But a federal crime?
In any case, the important thing is that the Illinois governor remains in office, He can do whatever the office authorizes him to do. That includes appointing someone to the vacancy in the Senate.
The secretary of state had no right to withhold a signature that is a mere formality. That the governor is an embarrassment is not an excuse to not do one's duty, like signing off on a form and putting the state seal on it.
Burris has been described as merely a pleasant fellow and longtime fixture of Illinois politics, not a giant on the state or the national scene. But so what? The Senate is full of ordinary people without any outstanding personal merit before they joined that august chamber, or since.
On Wednesday it looked as though the Senate would relent. And as for the rule of law? As this episode illustrates, politicians invoke it when it suits them. They ignore it when that alternative seems like the better way to go. (hh)