Jay Bookman

By Bionic Blonde

January 1, 2009 6:15 AM | Link to this

Many of us are glad that we are saying so long (and good riddance) to the last eight years of ____ (pick your favorite bad word or expression). The last eight years have been instructive, we hope, for the citizens of the United States—competence does matter. Almost anyone can be elected, but not everyone elected can govern.

All of us hope (and pray) that “POTUS Obama” can be conduit to help bring us back to the country that most of us remember fondly and believe can be great again. The characteristics that make Americans who we are have been missing for a while—let’s all of us work to try to find them again in 2009.

By Joey

January 1, 2009 7:50 AM | Link to this

If only Al Gore had carried his home state in 2000, we would all have had a bliss filled, soul enriching decade with clean air for all, no military conflicts and each and every common man would be driving a little fuel efficient car.

But who would president elect now? Based on your accusations against Bush, all of you Dems should be grateful to him. Since he set things up for Obama to come in and rescue US.

By The BlogFather of Scroll

January 1, 2009 7:51 AM | Link to this

Sounds like Bookman had a merry xmas and a happy hangover. (camera to me doing the raising of the glass to the lips to simulate heavy drinking mime with my right hand, and the air-typing blogging mime with my left) That still give Bookman one hand left over to come up with “Fodder for History”.

Bookman, bookman, bookman. You’re probably asleep right now, but if you’re any kind of philosopher, you’ll awaken and rush to the computer and kill that piece, or at least write a new one so this one ends up as fodder for history.

(camera to the twilight zone marathon…”Put Bookman’s piece in the cornfield, Billy…..”)

Never mix metaphors when there’s Children of the Corn around. “Bookman’s piece? It’s a cookbook! Run for your lives!”

HNY!

By Morningstar

January 1, 2009 8:02 AM | Link to this

((((the Bush administration will become fodder for history, and we should all hope it fares better among the historians than it has among those who have experienced it in real time.))))

Time will tell. I watched Chris Matthews “The Decider.” Hopefully, in 2009 we will have a leader who will listen and have all the facts before he “decides.”

By The BlogFather of Scroll

January 1, 2009 8:28 AM | Link to this

They didn’t even understand the tribal/sectarian nature of the Iraqis.

Iraq, like Vietnam, was the foreign-owned defense industry using our puppets to make war. Cheney is Pinocchio. Bush is Howdy Doody.

Both belong as Fodder for history, or something equally stupid.

By The BlogFather of Scroll

January 1, 2009 8:53 AM | Link to this

Bookman made an observation about time moving seemlessly from one instant to the next.

Time doesn’t exist, that’s why it seemingly moves seemlessly.

One problem we have with conceptualizing time is the beginning. We think in terms of what existed before the beginning. Then we think about the end, and what will exist after the end.

There can never be nothing. People ask, “Then where did the big bang come from?” Even their most cleverly phrased objections to the big bang theory involves their own misconception about what existed before the big bang.

Or what will exist when the universe collapses upon itself. Once again, the concept of time, beginning and end, destroys any chance we have of understanding the nature of the universe.

When we see starlight that is 12 billion years old, we think that we are looking back into time. That’s how we understand the concept of a distant star sending out it’s light 12 billion years ago, and then earth gets formed 5 billion years ago, and then we evolve and see the light just in time. That’s totally wrong.

Ask yourself this: If the starlight is 12 billion years old, and earth is only 5 billion years old, then how did we get here ahead of the light? Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. String theory suggests that the boundaries of the universe were formed instantly along with the big bang, so that earth formed where it did, ahead of the light coming from the ancient star. But that concept assumes there was nothing before the big bang. That concept presupposes boundaries that aren’t there. The universe has no boundaries, it is infinite, whatever that means.

Every measurement of time involves experimental apparatus designed by the observer. Time is simply a physics experiment that cant be repeated in order to secure authenticity or advance any theories.

There is no time. This is 2009 because we think it is.

So I cant wish you Happy New Year, instead, “Happy Same Frozen Thingie”

.

By Taxpayer

January 1, 2009 9:06 AM | Link to this

But this single day that comes ‘round but once every year does have significance. As artificial as it may be, once the bell tolls twelve times on the last day of the twelve-month calendar cycle, all columns are tallied and the final numbers are recorded. As you said, Jay, the reset button is pressed and we start a new round of record-keeping for the tax man. But, it’s not a clean reset for all. Indeed, not. For those paying the price for their greed, whether it be that small amount of greed that keeps the axles greased or that excessive amount that smokes the tires right off the rims, the prior year’s losses must be tallied and set aside for later use in the flurry of number-crunching leading up to mid-April. So, try as some might, the afflicted will not be able to close history’s book and move on for it does truly take many, many years to write off such losses when one is limited to a mere $3000 in capital loss per year as offset against a personal income that some doubt may even be realized. Then, there’s the losses in tax-deferred accounts that may never be utilized to offset future gains but that’s another story.

Happy New Year. I predict that 2009 will be the year of enlightenment.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 1, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this

The deeper meaning of New Years is only significant to the Chinese and, apparently, Jay Bookman.

What are we in now, the Year of the Felon?

The Chicago Hack?

And what dish should we serve so the Felons and Hacks bring us good luck?

I do not need to consult any horoscopes or tarot card readers, nor eat any specials foods to know how awful these coming 365 days are going to be, hilarious yes, but painful and disgusting also.

America the new tinpot dictatorship.

Happy New Year!

By @@

January 1, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this

Another good column, jay! It gives me the opportunity to share:

“Hindsight alone is not wisdom. And second-guessing is not a strategy.” — George W. Bush

PoliFore:

Slurp the popsicle?

By GodHatesTrash

January 1, 2009 9:22 AM | Link to this

The 4 digit designation of the year has become unwieldy.

I hear that the House and Senate will pass a resolution designating 2008 CE (Common Era, or for the superstitious, Christian Era) as 1 BO (Before Obama). This year (2009 CE) will then become year “0”, for Obama, instead of zero, or zed. Obama will sign this into law at one of the inaugural balls on January 20, 0.

By moonbat betty

January 1, 2009 9:24 AM | Link to this

pofo, have you lost one of your senses?

use your third eye.

look deep into your mind’s eye and you will see.

it’s not the new year.

the new year is in 21 days 3 hours and 25 seconds or whatever da’ moonbats are waiting for.

i’m waiting too.

By GodHatesTrash

January 1, 2009 9:27 AM | Link to this

@@, trying to show up your Pappy ain’t much of a foreign policy strategery either.

Poor W. What a worthless drunk.

By GodHatesTrash

January 1, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this

Our national nightmare is soon over…

Can’t you even use a calendar, betty?

By moonbat betty

January 1, 2009 9:38 AM | Link to this

why thank you trash.

what is it now?

now.

now.

now

now

By @@

January 1, 2009 9:45 AM | Link to this

GHT:

Pure speculation on your part.

I’ve always said that those who revel in hindsight do so because life, for them, is always viewed from “the rear”.

By Dusty

January 1, 2009 9:51 AM | Link to this

Dear foggy BlogFather of droll,

Pull yourself together, quit looking at the stars and and say “Happy New Year”. YOU CAN DO IT! Your mind is wandering like a fireworks fizzle of roman candles. I appreciate your ability to fabricate the unfathomlessness(?) of tenuous time but let us be practical. Yes? Happy New Year, dear PoFo, the imperious prophet.

But..at least..you caught Bookman’s slip up on his attempt at optimism and appreciation. “Fodder” is how he felt about the whole year and how he reports it. It is hard for him to cover his hate for the man who has held our country together while terrorists made every effort they could generate to demolish and destroy us. Bookman tried to pour gravy over his lack of appreciation and feed it to us anyway. Inedible!!

So Happy New Year, Bookman, and may your polls show what you want and make you happy over the blessings to which you seem oblivious. Maybe a day in Darfur with the president of Sudan or a day with the president of Zimbabwee might enlighten you a bit about presidents.

But no more talk about such inadequacies. HAPPPY NEW YEAR TO PRES. ELECT OBAMA. May he fulfill his Democratic role of magician and warrior of wonder. Let us all be dazzled as the dream is fulfilled. May Bookman be there to throw rose petals as he will no longer feel the need to criminalize the president of the USA and will replace Dear Abby for the AJC.

By Ray

January 1, 2009 10:01 AM | Link to this

Keep in mind that 47% of the electorate did not vote for this clown. That is far from a mandate. A mandate is carrying 49/50 states (Reagan) or the same for Nixon.
And to be clear on one point, even the Annointed One admits that he was not born in a manger although that is a hard point for Bookman and the rest of liberalville to acknowledge.
He, like Blago, is just another Chicago, precinct, hack politician with a gift for gab. That fall from reality will be difficult for many in the lib community during 2009, especially for prophets like Bookman. We’ll see whether or not stuffing a flower down a Muslim gun barrel is effective. Apparently the Jews don ‘t think much of that idea.

By Davo

January 1, 2009 10:05 AM | Link to this

Existentialist mumbo-jumbo…Please don’t go all hippie on us in 2009 Jay.

I have a good feeling in one regard for the new year. I called a good friend last night from the midwest; I see him very rarely and only talk to him about once a year around this time. Our lives have diverged in many ways…he stayed; I left the little town. He and his family were what many of you urban liberals would call racists…superficial stuff, but ugly enough to cause some of us to wince.

So anyway…I asked him about how he felt about Obama, expecting something along the lines of the ugly. Surprise! My friend said he hopes only the best for the guy (didn’t vote for him, of course) but said to the effect “we can’t go through what W put us through again and if it’s a black man that leads, so be it.”

So maybe this petty notion of race in America is starting to dissolve in 2009; if he can look past his own bias and hope for real leadership we may have a chance after all.

Here’s hoping and happy new year!

By The Corporal

January 1, 2009 10:08 AM | Link to this

Off Topic

Regarding the growing controversy of Pastor Rick Warren evoking the name of Jesus at the end of this Inaugural prayer:

If we forget this in our prayers, we have lost the muscle and sinew from the arm of prayer, we have snapped the spiral column by which prayer is sustained erect, we have pulled down about our own ears the whole temple of supplication ….. For Christ’s sake is the one unbuttressed pillar on which all prayer must lean. Take this away, and it comes down with a crash. Let this stand, and prayer stands like a heaven reaching minaret holding communion with the skies.

Charles Spurgeon

By @@

January 1, 2009 10:26 AM | Link to this

Barack Obama assumes responsibility under circumstances more threatening than those faced by all but a handful of previous presidents.

And this is what’s foremost in the mind of liberals.

President Elect Obama is known for reaching out beyond the beltway to take the pulse of the nation. His website, Change.gov offers all of us the chance to communicate our hopes, dreams, fears and needs. This is governance from the ground up, the way it was meant to be. A new program just instituted on the website, is one where citizens may pose specific questions, and others can vote on their importance, bringing significant questions to the top of the list.

In the short twenty four hours the “Open for Questions” segment of Obama’s change.gov website actually stayed open, 7300 questions were posted, 10,000 people participated and 600,000 votes were cast for the most important issues on people’s minds. Guess which question had the most votes?

“Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”

Yes, it’s true. With all of the incredible and difficult issues facing us today, the question above was the most prominent in people’s minds.

Talk about deadheaded liberals!

It’s mind numbing…

By The Corporal

January 1, 2009 10:39 AM | Link to this

To @@

When I was a young man, especially when I was in the service, I despised the hyppie-dippie crowd.

Starting with the Clintons, they have gained immense power.

Maybe the Goths and Punkers will pay them back someday !

God help us all …………..

By Dusty

January 1, 2009 10:46 AM | Link to this

Dear @@,

Legalizing marijuana a big issue?

Sounds like getalife has been suggesting his “most important issue”.

By GaLiberal

January 1, 2009 10:51 AM | Link to this

Here is one of the new laws our great Rethuglicon-controlled government passed in 2008.

The new law exempts insurers from paying taxes on premiums in the sale of the high-deductible savings account plans. That would save health insurers $146 million in tax breaks over the next five years, according to consumer groups. Proponents of the law say it will spark competition among insurers to sell the plans, making it cheaper for consumers to buy. Critics said the new law is essentially a tax giveaway to insurance companies that sell the plans.

Why do Rethuglicons continue to pass corporate welfare laws using the phony excuse of increasing competition? Could it be they have figured out the average voter is a moron and can be so easily fooled by such simple smoke and mirrors? Insurance companies already sell high deductible plans because they are very profitable. Giving away $146 MILLION to the very profitable insurance industry means the state has to collect the money from other sources. That means you and me. If they were truly concerned about the uninsured, why didn’t they simply mandate that insurance companies doing business in Georgia also offer discounted high-deductible plans? That would not have allowed them to give out $146 MILLION in sop to their big contributors. So the Rethuglicon politicians get their contributions from Big Insurance, Big Insurance gets a fat tax break from the Rethuglicon politicians, and the average person gets stuck with paying for their largess.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And giving away $146 MILLION in corporate welfare is living proof.

By black eyed peas and collard greens

January 1, 2009 10:55 AM | Link to this

Looking backward gets us nowhere. What we do in the next year creates the new set of circumstances that in time creates events that come to seem inevitable.

That’s true in politics as well. In less than three weeks, the Bush administration will become fodder for history, and we should all hope it fares better among the historians than it has among those who have experienced it in real time.

then it’sObama time

oh oh…’scuse me, it will be blame bush time

By Cherokee

January 1, 2009 10:56 AM | Link to this

well, marijuana may not be a big issue. But when we spend billions and billions of dollars every year on a failed “war on drugs”, and 40% of our prison population is there because of non violent drug offenses, maybe it’s something that needs some attention.

By GodHatesTrash

January 1, 2009 10:56 AM | Link to this

When I was a young man, especially when I was in the service, I despised the hyppie-dippie crowd.

Must have been before you were spouting all those ancient shepherd fables?

For many so-called Xians, it seems that their real faith is hate and resentment… as opposed to what that mythical rabbi supposedly said about love one another.

By Ray

January 1, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this

Ga Liberal,

Sort of like giving that Fannie Mae moron, Franklin Raines, 190M in a separation bonus from a failing or failed company. Corporate welfare reaches out to a lot of very undeserving people, doesn’t it?

By Chad Harris

January 1, 2009 11:09 AM | Link to this

*19 more days and the scum sucking pigs that trampled on the Constitution, broke laws, and tried to leave dog sht on the rug by enacting a rush of last minute Executive Orders will be gone and we will reverse every last Bush Executive Order and decimate his signing statements.

Embryonic stem cell funding, and the systemic damage to medicine by the ignorant and non-scientific Bush administration will be repaired.

If Israel is smart they will decimate Hamass and Hezbollah. As long as there are rocket attacks, they aren’t decimated.

Only morons would settle for same old same old. Every member of the international community who wants Israel to layoff needs to contemplate how brave they would be if rockets were landing in their main streets.

Decimate Hezbollah and Hamas once and for all.

For all you JawJaws so preoccupied with what destruction for this country would loom if Mr. Buriss were in the Senate, I’ve got news for you. The precise cases I cited, where everytime a House member or Senate member has fought their seating, are now coming to roost in the minds of the slow and superficial MSM and the slow and superficial Ivy league lawyers just out of law school on the staffs of Durbin and Reid.

I hope Buriss fights using the Powell case I cited before just to educated the ignorant as to Supreme Court precedent in this are.

And as for Corporal and his suspend the Constitution idea, this ain’t WWI or WWII, and neither is Iraq. Iraq has millions of Republican mommies and daddies saying “Not mah kid but let the slaves (the mostly minorities go get killed so we can cheer for “victory” although we can’t define it).

Like the Bush family we is tuckin’ our kids safe into dorm rooms. Let the slaves get bombed in the streets of Iraq.

Situations When the Constitution is Suspended or Contemplating It

No one can cite a precedent for blocking Burris here. No one. Find me the case.

[http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html]]

Corporal let’s see that federal cop in you hit the law library. Dust off your Westlaw and Lexis and show me a case that trumps Powell. Doesn’t Exist.

By the way, for all of you suffering short memory syndrome, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin defended Ted Stevens who received a standing ovation in the Senate even after he was found guilty. Before he was found guilty, Reid and Durbin proclaimed Stevens was innocent until proven guilty. Contrast Burris who by the way was supported by Obama in 2002 in his run against Blago.

All the huffing and puffing by Reid, Durbin, and legal idiots like Corynyn is going to give way to Supreme Court precedent.

By blog female dog

January 1, 2009 11:15 AM | Link to this

thanks for the short bus clean and concise point chad.

library moron.

link much?

By GodHatesTrash

January 1, 2009 11:16 AM | Link to this

Ray, I admit I don’t pay your rantings that much attention, but I don’t remember you complaining about corporate malfeasance and ridiculous bonuses before. However I do remember your continuing reference to the President-elect with derogatory racist terms, so I feel the following question is appropriate:

Ray, does it bug you more that Raines got $190M, or that he’s black?

By Ray

January 1, 2009 11:25 AM | Link to this

Trash,

Break out the race card and blame everything on some “white racist” having a problem with corporate irresponsibility. No, the fact that he is black doesn’t seem to have much credence with most people. And it doesn’t with me. He just happens to be a black criminal. Don’t you have some trouble with this moron escaping with this much loot after raping and destroying the company that he was hired to protect? Does it matter to you that stockholders, the American taxpayer and corporate America is paying dearly for this idiot’s 8M$ condo that he just bought in South Florida? Or are you blind to the fact that people of all races are crooks, thieves and generally bad people? Pull of the blinders, Trash…… hiding behind the race card is making you look pretty bad.

By GodHatesTrash

January 1, 2009 11:30 AM | Link to this

Chad, you are well versed in this kind of stuff - my read of the 17th amendment mentions the “executive authority” (not governor), and the Illinois Secretary of State says the certification to the US Senate requires his seal and signature (along with the governor’s), and he will not sign. So the discussion of seating Burris to me seems moot, since arguably the Sec of State is part of the executive authority in Illinois.

What’s your take?

By sunshine and thunder

January 1, 2009 11:32 AM | Link to this

GAL LIBERAL

It’s pitiful that you don’t even know who the majority party is in congress. It’s even more pitiful to see someone not in the know use juvenile spellings such as “rethuglicon”.

I hope we can all grow up a little in 2009.

By Chad Harris

January 1, 2009 11:38 AM | Link to this

The Constitution will not be suspended over Roland Burris (althought the now leaving Bush administation ignored it)

http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon5.html

POWELL V. MCCORMACK, 395 U. S. 486 (1969)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/486/case.html

By blog female dog

January 1, 2009 11:39 AM | Link to this

GHT, quit talking to yourself

you know. chad…

By The Corporal

January 1, 2009 11:49 AM | Link to this

Chad

I don’t recall ever saying suspend the Constitution. I have said there are ways to change it instead of cheapening it by having it say things that are just not there.

To GodHatesTrash

Precisely ! Now I am forgiven (as I am imperfect) and I reach out to you guys. Isn’t that great !

By GodHatesTrash

January 1, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this

Ray, you’re absolutely right.

The whining and bleating of white racists does not absolve Raines of the fundamental immorality embodied in his receipt of (legally) ill-gotten gains.

But, that’s the essence of capitalism, no?

Greed, and get what you can.

Of course, you’re free to whine and moan and point fingers and selectively direct your ire at the non-Caucasians.

Let’s face it, Mr. Raines ain’t the only one lining his pockets. Secretary Paulson is shoring up his portfolio with the bailout money. Bernie Madoff made off with $50B, more than 250 times what Raines got. Bob Nardelli took $210M with him when he ran Home Depot aground.

But anyhow, do what seems to come natural to you.

By Taxpayer

January 1, 2009 11:55 AM | Link to this

Limbaugh-Republicans are the epitome of perpetual antagonization — the antithesis of all attempts at lasting good. Their will be done. They even turn on their own when they can find no other to attack. Poor Bush. For years, he was revered by his Limbaugh-Republican party. His actions defended, his words embraced, his every move admired — with God’s mouthpieces behind him every step of the way, he could do no wrong for he was the Limbaugh-Republican’s chosen one. Then, after one too many election-day embarrassments, the Limbaugh-Republicans found themselves in need of a scape goat, for something was amiss. The chosen one’s party is losing majority membership and all the rewards that follow said membership status. What has gone wrong. There must be a flaw but our party is without flaw — we have so ordained it. So, the flaw is with the leader. The leader has failed to lead. After nigh on eight long years of flawlessness, the chosen one has failed us. He must be blamed and banished. We must turn our backs on him now and seek out a new leader. Someone to return our party to its rightful place at the head of the feeding trough. Someone to cast out the demons that have invaded our very core for we are the real Americans and we shall overcome. Sing, hallelujah. No go forth brethren and recruit more believers before the coming of the next election cycle. Tell them what they want to hear and just to be certain, ask them what they want to hear first. Do not fail us for we have tasted the fruit after forty long years in exile and we will not be denied. Anyway,

Happy New Year, Limbaugh-Republicans and good luck with that denial phase. You’ll need it.

By @@

January 1, 2009 12:03 PM | Link to this

Dusty:

I think Getalife has a prescription. If not, Midori….years ago, told him where she gets her “good stuff”. Comes in from outside the U.S. if I recall.

Corporal:

I’m in the middle of getting a New Year’s Day meal together, so no time to engage.

I’ve always wanted to see a realistic debate on the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana. While I can see the pros as they relate to funds, I also believe that the cons would eventually diminish the pros.

Job-related accidents where innocents are killed or maimed.

Low job performance.

Excessive absenteeism.

Progression to harder drugs.

Child neglect and abuse.

Liable suits.

All of ^^^ those would come at a high cost, both socially and financially.

By PineTar Rag

January 1, 2009 12:08 PM | Link to this

The world has taken a turn already in surrealism, for who would have thought that such an erudite commentary concerning “String Theory” would ever invoke a thought from such a paltry mass of plebiscite’s.

By Slick

January 1, 2009 12:15 PM | Link to this

Jay,

Your article was very appropriate and thought provoking for the first day of the New Year. BlogFather’s post at 8:53 introduced very interesting and further thought provoking concepts that moved further into theoretical notions and constituted a very appropriate response and challenge to Jay’s article.

I thought this was going to be an enlightening, intellectual discussion on the blog for today…instead of the name calling, insults, shallow thinking, bias, and in some cases, downright stupidity and ignorance that so often appear here.

It did not take many posts by the usual suspects to show me how mistaken I was…

By Taxpayer

January 1, 2009 12:33 PM | Link to this

If we were to never age, how long would it take to be born.

By The BlogFather of Scroll

January 1, 2009 1:27 PM | Link to this

If we never aged, then nobody would have sex, and nobody would ever get born. We only have sex as a comfort for the fact that we’re aging and dying by the second.

Also, if nobody aged, there would be no reason to do anything, much less allow a hagged out dried up skank ho in your life. We’d play frisbee golf all day and get stoned.

Speaking of not aging, did anyone see Dick Clark last night at the New Year’s Eve celebration with Ryan Seacrest? I’m glad I age. Then Dick Clark actually started making out with his wife at midnight, ruining sex for me, if I still had sex, forever. Of course Ryan Seacrest ruined sex for me a long time ago. So did Paula Abdul. So did Chastity Bono, and that facebook video of Steve Gutenberg running around that park with his franks and beans hanging out. (Check it out).

I’m thinkin’ ‘bout taking a vow of chastity and joining a convent as the first male nun. How do you solve a problem like Blogfather? How do you hold a weenie in your hand……ew.

By Midori

January 1, 2009 2:05 PM | Link to this

If not, Midori….years ago, told him where she gets her “good stuff”. Comes in from outside the U.S. if I recall.

got a link/source for that accusation, @@?

Or are you trying to yet again excuse your stalking?

By Slick

January 1, 2009 2:20 PM | Link to this

BlogFather,

You’re in pretty good form today…i.e.,

“hagged out dried up skank ho”

“running around that park with his franks and beans hanging out”

“How do you hold a weenie in your hand?”

Very descriptive terminology…

By saxby is amvet's senator

January 1, 2009 2:20 PM | Link to this

u stinki irimom\d

By Chad Harris

January 1, 2009 3:14 PM | Link to this

GHT—

The short answer and the concensus of most of the academic law blogs is that the 1969 Supreme Court opinion, and the absense of any other, trumps anything the Illionis Secretary of State would do. Most of the law profs weiging in feel that there is no legal way to block Burris.

You might enjoy following some of the law blogs like Jack Balkin’s blog Balkinization (Professor at Yale. They’re having a good time batting this around. Balkin’s blog is one of the most popular and frequently quoted legal blogs today and I totally disagree with his take on Burris and I thought you’d like to check it out.

The reason I disagree with Balkin and many of the legal prof blogs do is that to prevail in their argument they have to find taint or pay for play or something criminal in Blago’s appointment of Roland Burris. I don’t think it’s remotely there. Burris gave a few thousand bucks to Blago over the years.

You want to talk bribes?

When Roy Barnes was governor, I remember that the Fulton Daily Report ran headline stories because there were two people appointed as Judge just days after they gave a few thousand dollars to Barnes.

One was Dekalb State Court Judge Alvin Wong. Another was Fulton Superior Court and former Grady Homes resident as a kid Marvin Arrington. Barnes took a lot of flack when he appointed Penny Brown Reynolds who now is a TV Judge Judge Penny where she makes more money. At the time Penny had not one second of litigation experience in a court room and Roy put her on the bench. She aided in a federal appeal for the University of Georgia and her side lost. She was also the plaintiff in a sexual harassement suit.

Jack Balkin disagrees with most of the legal Blogs. He’s here:http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/12/can-senate-refuse-to-seat-ronald-burris.html

I also noticed that Illinois Treasurer and other high ups in the Illionis government have been chiming in on some of the blogs like the CapitolFax blog.

What makes me grin is that Rush Limbaugh has weighted in urging caution in people going after Burris.

This is surprisingly sesible and reasonable coming from Rush.

Rush asked his audience “not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointor.”

“There are no African-Americans in the Senate and I don’t think anyone — any U. S. Senator that’s sitting in the Senate right now wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate.

“Feel free to castigate the appointor but don’t lynch the appointor,” Governor Rod Blagojevich said as he left.

In making these arguments no one looking at this is focusing on whether Blago did something illegal or how he looks right now and I don’t think they should.

It’s great fodder particularly for TV cable news, so they will be showing this as much as they were showing Reverend Wright—and maybe a lot longer if it goes to the courts. It looks like that’s where it’s headed.

The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and it was written in 1911. Many amendments written 100 years or more again didn’t have very precise language so they lend themselves to more than one contemporary interpretation much of the time when they get parsed.

The way I read the 17th Amendment, the governor has the right to appoint someone. He’s the governor. There’s no language that says if the governor is pending indictment while DOJ keeps asking for extensions so it can build a decent case the governor must step down from his legal right to appoint or must not appoint.

He can deny certification until the cows come home, but I think if Burris litigates this in federal court his denial is going to be swept aside because the Sec State’s attorneys won’t be able to cite any legal precedent or reason for his denial. Blago is still governor. Fitz filed a motion yesterday to request a 90 day extension for indictment. This isn’t surpising because Fitz is a guy who is very uncomfortable without interviewing every possible witness and getting years of evidence if he dan, and Fitz wants the strongest possible case that envelops the most people and has as many witnesses and as much evidence as he can gather. Fitz obviously does not like to be rushed.

He hoped to get Blago to resign so that Blago wouldn’t appoint anyone—that was the whole reason Fitz rushed of course to arrest Blago using a complaint. Blago has vexed and outmanuevered Fitz there.

What often happens as you can see, is that when you start parsing these amendments, particularly most of them that were written so long ago, they weren’t very precise in their language, like much of the Constitution. People would argue though that the Framers, and the early legislators that wrote the early amendments were awfully presient or even brilliant in making docments that are viable enough to be debated all the time in the federal courts today.

I don’t think that the Illinois Sec state has much to stand on—and he doesn’t have IMHO a viable state vs. federal claim that would color any kind of Federalism argument or Supremacy argument.

Burris is plenty knowledgable and he seems to be poised in the limelight and relishing it. He doesn’t seem to want to go away with his tail between his legs.

I would imagine that however much notice Burris had, he has been to the rodeo before. He knew his appointment would spark a firestorm and he relishes it. I expect he was able to pull up all previous controversies on being seated on Westlaw and wouldn’t have accepted Blago’s appointment unless he was poised for a fight and thought he had precedent on his side. I think he does.

I take your point. As you can imagine the law blogs and law profs are all over this since they love any suggestion of Constitutional confrontations or executive legislative branch conflicts especially when the issue is a state appointment to a federal body like this one.

The concensus is right now that the one case law precedent in the Supreme Court if litigated would easily trump the Secretary of State in Illinois.

Although the Sec State may have popular opinion behind him because the transcripts released were so inflammatory and frankly sounded so much like sound bytes from a Soprano’s episode and made Ilinois’ governor look crude and corrupt, legally I don’t believe he has any grounds under Illinios law or federal law to deny Blago’s appointment of Burris.

I think now the question is whether Burris wnats to pursue this, and every indication is that a lot of the African American politicians in Illinois do.

Race is of course not at all the reason that people who oppose Roland Burris are opposing him—it’s all about Blago of course, but Obama was the only black Senator and he was from Illinois.

There are a lot of well educated black politicians and some constitutional law esxperts that will probably rally to Burris’ cause to try to litigate getting him seated.

I don’t know of any real compromise that could be worked out. The people enraged at Blago (it didn’t take much as you know because he wasn’t a popular governor in Illinois) and the US Senators are pushing for a special election.

I’d love to see this litigated for the selfish reason that I love to see Constitutional issues played out in court on a national state—it’s just fun.

Adam Clayton Powell back in 1969 whose colorful flamboyant existence was probably well before a lot of readers’ time or time old enough to pay attention

By Pogo

January 1, 2009 4:53 PM | Link to this

Now there is a move afoot to bail out failing newspapers such as the New York Times with taxpayer money. Can anyone say, “state sponsored media”? No wonder Jay and the AJC and the rest of liberal press love the democrats so much. Goodbye freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of expression and hello to socialism and maybe something much worse. The ironic part of this is that the university system and its elitist liberal professsors, who have been soldiers for the liberal democratic party and who have have preached freedom of expression and freedom of the press in their classrooms since the sixties, are going to see the effect of their work accomplish something exactly opposite of that which they held so dear, government control of individual thought.

By GodHatesTrash

January 1, 2009 5:05 PM | Link to this

I did a little more wiki-ing - the language in the 17th amendment says “executive authority”, not governor. But the Illinois constitution (Article 5 Section 8) gives the governor “supreme executive power”. So it would seem that Blago’s decision can’t be challenged at the state level… and since Blago is still the guv, it looks like a done deal.

By GOP is gone

January 1, 2009 6:18 PM | Link to this

Oh wittle Mickey gets get so offended when told how he is just as partisan as he claims the opposing team is. You routinely show up here to say the same damn thing daily. Jay is a hack, blah blah blah, soon he will lose his job blah, blah blah……………Rarely do you comment on the subject.,you just repeat the same old thing over and over.

Kind of like Management, with less free time.

Most of the time I will make a post ON TOPIC, sometimes I will just get fed up with people like you and comment on the hypocrisy you claim about everyone else.

Apparently you do not read most posts, just the ones that call YOU out.

You are utterly boring and predictable. Like Dusty, I’m a patriot and you are not, only less intelligent.

So if you really want Jay to lose his job, try not supporting his blog site daily with your “hack writer” posts.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

January 1, 2009 8:14 PM | Link to this

Things may get better or they may get worse. Only time will tell.