Originally Posted By Mr X Okay, well as much as I hate leaving 2008 behind with my final contribution being one of outrage (2008 being finished in less than 3 hours in my neck of the woods), I just have to say this Blagojevich thing has really opened my eyes to what an incredibly crappy system of justice we have in America. HOW is it that, three weeks after the scumbag is unearthed, NO action was taken to prevent the guy from going ahead and mucking up the entire system even further by appointing someone to the SENATE when he obviously has no business doing so? How is it that the Supreme Court itself was apparently unable to convene and make some important comments about this, perhaps indicating where things stand from a purely constitutional standpoint (what does the constitution say about criminal behavior anyway?), before some alleged criminal appointed a SENATOR whom every other Senator has insisted they will reject? How is it the PRESIDENT had no power to overrule a Governor (a soon to be indicted governor, no less!) on such an issue? And why hasn't President Bush taken any action on this? He's had three weeks to deal with it right? Who polices the Governors? (I guess state legislature does it right? But in this case shouldn't there be a Federal element? Isn't it a Federal crime to sell a senate seat? Isn't it a Federal issue, since a seat in the Senate is at stake here?) And how is it that our system of justice is so antiquated, so slow (molasses moves quicker!), and so pathetic that someone, ANYONE, couldn't have put the breaks on this farce within the past three weeks? And we all say "well, that's just how the justice system works"? It should work more efficiently. It should work towards the common good. And it should work well enough to prevent the further humiliation of the people of Illinois in the face of an obvious nutcase who has no business representing the state in ANY capacity, let alone appointing a representative from his state (who will obviously be outcast from the very start for obvious and valid reasons) to attempt to speak for the people of Illinois in the Senate of the United States under these circumstances! Am I missing something here? Yes I get the whole "Blagojevich is innocent until proven guilty" thing, and as the President-Elect stated he deserves his day in court. But how is it that until then there is NO mechanism in place to prevent the guy from doing further damage? Time to rethink the way justice works? I would exclaim a resounding "yes"!
Originally Posted By Mr X Sure, but does "due process" have to be as slow as it is? And shouldn't there be emergency contingencies to prevent criminals from committing even more crimes (yes, I know..this case is not "necessarily" a crime but there are certainly questions about campaign contributions which only add to the scandal to say the least)? If a rapist rapes, he is (I hope) taken off the streets immediately right? How exactly is Blagojevich any different? Why is HE left in place and at work, unlike any other common criminal?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Also if you're following here closely - there are potentially serious issues with the way the evidence against Blago was obtained - and the states attorney here knows that. The evidence - asdamning as it is- may be inadmissable. The crooks ( I mean politicians ) here are well versed and surrounded by some of the best attorneys money can buy - do not make the forgone conclusion he will be found guilty - even though he is. This play was a stroke of criminal brilliance - it has divided the community here immediately - you should listen to talk radio here this AM. The race card is being played big time and Rod knows Barack will try at all costs to stay out of that since it cannot help him in any way. He picks a known entity - who garnered cross party votes ( I voted for him more than once) - popular and to the glee of the GOP here now makes the Dem party here,who did NOT want a special election held for fear a GOP personmight take the seat ( I still thinkthat was doubtful) -look bad- or worse than they can. The divisions between the various factions in the Demparty here ( Daley faction / Madigan ( speakerof house and daughter attorney gen) faction / Jackson faction etc now national fodder for the foolishness that occurs every day in Illinois. This will get much better before it goes away -- as far as theSupreme Court getting involved - you mean like they did with Adam Clayton Powell -- they have little or no ability to weigh inat this time... and none at all on the nominee himself.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm going to over-generalize here but I think it still makes a point. X, what you want done to Blagojevich is what's being done to prisoners at Gitmo.
Originally Posted By Mr X That's not an over-generalization, that's a completely nonsensical fabrication. I'm not even calling for Blagojevich to be prosecuted quickly or ANYTHING like that. All I'm asking about is why he is able to remain in office and continuing to have the power to potentially inflict more harm. What the hell that has to do with Guantanamo, I have no clue. 50 Senators and the President-Elect have all called repeatedly for the guy to please resign. He is essentially spitting in all their faces and continuing to keep his job in the face of all of it. I'm just asking why the legal system doesn't have a means to deal with such a situation more efficiently. As I said, a rapist isn't allowed to keep raping until a preponderance of evidence is amassed against them..they are taken off the streets immediately and then subsequently dealt with. Are they not, SingleParkPassholder? I think your argument is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. I'm pretty sure I asked a fair question here.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Rod knows Barack will try at all costs to stay out of that since it cannot help him in any way.> Sen Barack could call for a special election, but the Democrats are worried a Republican could win. Or the state legislature could impeach the Governor, but I'm sure they were hoping to pressure the Governor to step down. Maybe now that he's shown he won't they'll ramp up to that.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 He's going nowhere on his own - trust me. He made that clear from day one. Without one GOP top elected official in the state their worry is about who in theDem party here will get that job, not a GOP candidate. I would have as much chance of winning asthey would- this is all about infighting for power within the Democratic party here.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Should Clinton have been removed from office udring impeachment prceedings or Whitewater hearings? That is the same as what you are asking . Turns out, it was good his duties were not taken away from him... listen - Rod is a scumbag - the trouble is so is basically every other politician here . Most want him gone for another reason - they are afraid investigations will expand and my guess is they all have something on each other. Mayor Daley has been sequestered in his bunker for thelast 3-4 weeks- for a guy on camera every day he has been non existent. Same for Rahm Emmanuel. Why do you think that is ? There's actually a part of me that expects Rod to turn up missing one day. This is like turning on the'family'so to speak. I for one want Rod to go- but I want him to take the ENTIRE Chicago-Illinois gang to prison with him - regardless of who that includes... you are getting a glimpse of the depth of corruption here - I would like a clean sweep.
Originally Posted By markymouse X makes a good point, and vbdad makes a good counter argument. I do know that, with all due respect for due process, a teacher charged with child abuse or a cop charged with assault would be relieved of their duties until things were settled. Yes, they are innocent until proven guilty. But somehow, the system is able to remove people in those situations. But vbdad makes a really good point. It would be inconceivable that President Clinton would have been relieved of his duties during his impeachment proceedings. This is certainly an interesting and messy situation. I wonder how long an impeachment takes. Given that a state legislature is under very different, much looser rules than a court, it seems they ought to be able to act quickly. You can give my kids' and my kids' kids' money to Citibank in a couple of days. But getting rid of a scum bag who has finally been caught, that seems to take weeks.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< HOW is it that, three weeks after the scumbag is unearthed, NO action was taken to prevent the guy from going ahead and mucking up the entire system even further by appointing someone to the SENATE when he obviously has no business doing so? >>> Obvious, based on what? What you've read in the newspaper, or on the Internet? Based on the US Constitution and Illinois law, the sitting Governor is the one that appoints a replacement for a vacated US Senate seat. As long as B is still the Governor, then he's the one with the power to make this replacement appointment. <<< How is it that the Supreme Court itself was apparently unable to convene and make some important comments about this, perhaps indicating where things stand from a purely constitutional standpoint (what does the constitution say about criminal behavior anyway?), before some alleged criminal appointed a SENATOR whom every other Senator has insisted they will reject? >>> I'm not so sure that the US Supreme Court really had a matter at hand upon which to rule. What is the question that they are to rule on? <<< How is it the PRESIDENT had no power to overrule a Governor (a soon to be indicted governor, no less!) on such an issue? >>> This goes back to the fundamental construction of the United States. Although the federal government has supreme authority in any matter where there's a conflict with the states, the federal government exists to serve the states and the people, and not the other way around. In many nations, the national government is considered to be the supreme sovereign, with the equivalent of state and local governments existing to handle issues that the national government delegates. In the US, at least in theory, has the opposite construction - per the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Put another way, the President doesn't act as a supervisor or boss of the state governors. Unless explicitly provided for, the President does not have any power whatever to override the decision of a state governor. In this particular case, the situation involves the composition of the US Senate. Considering the separation of powers and checks and balances in the federal system, do you really want the President to be making decisions that affect who is seated as a US Senator? <<< Who polices the Governors? (I guess state legislature does it right? >>> This is provided for by each state's constitution. I would imagine that in most cases, it would be the state legislature that would have the power to impeach, try, and remove from office the governor. In some states, the people also have a direct say, as in the case of Governor Gray Davis of California who was removed from office via a recall vote of the people, and replaced with Governor Schwarzenegger, also by vote of the people. <<< But in this case shouldn't there be a Federal element? Isn't it a Federal crime to sell a senate seat? Isn't it a Federal issue, since a seat in the Senate is at stake here?) >>> Those are interesting issues. Keep in mind that originally under the US Constitution, US Senators were not directly elected by the people, but were appointed by the state legislatures - only US Congressmen were directly elected by the people. This was changed less than 100 years ago by the 17th Amendment, which provided both that US Senators were directly elected by the people of their state, and that state governors were responsible for filling US Senate vacancies from that state. So, the notion that a US Senate vacancy is filled by the state governor is specifically provided for in the US Constitution, and I do think it would be A Bad Idea to have the US President intervene in such situations. And yes, selling a US Senate seat is almost certainly a federal crime, but keep in mind the Gov B has not been convicted of any crime. <<< And how is it that our system of justice is so antiquated, so slow (molasses moves quicker!), and so pathetic that someone, ANYONE, couldn't have put the breaks on this farce within the past three weeks? >>> "So slow?" I have to say that I don't think that a situation of an elected official being removed from office based on accusations of wrongdoing not being resolved in just three weeks is "slow" or "moving like molasses." Consider the situation of an elected official being falsely accused of wrongdoing in a deliberate attempt to remove them from office or power in a controversial situation. There has to be more than just an accusation before an elected official is removed from power, and I can easily see this taking more than 3 weeks. Post #2 was brief, but perhaps said it all. <<< And shouldn't there be emergency contingencies to prevent criminals from committing even more crimes (yes, I know..this case is not "necessarily" a crime but there are certainly questions about campaign contributions which only add to the scandal to say the least)? If a rapist rapes, he is (I hope) taken off the streets immediately right? >>> It's an interesting question, and an interesting dilemma. In the case of a US Senator, the US Constitution's provision that the Senate itself is the final arbitrator of any disputes involving its membership is the check and balance. If in the hypothetical situation of a rogue state Governor that was so clearly on the take as to auction off a replacement senate seat to the highest bidder, the Senate itself could choose to not recognize the replacement. But most decisions made by a state governor aren't of the same character of the act committed by a rapist. In the event of an accused rapist, if they were to remain free and commit additional rapes, those rapes cannot be "undone" by an act of law later on once all of the facts are established. The same isn't true of a governor, generally speaking. <<< Time to rethink the way justice works? I would exclaim a resounding "yes"! >>> What would you suggest?
Originally Posted By Mr X Well, without getting into a point by point I'll just say that what you wrote makes perfect sense..HOWEVER, I don't believe I suggested he be removed from office immediately or with no investigation or anything like that. But considering the nature of the accusations here I think it's pretty clear that there should have been SOME mechanism for preventing him from moving forward on this very same matter he is accused of attempting to corrupt. The entire Democratic caucus and the President Elect sure seemed to think so, though now they are forced to back off from their convictions since the Governor had ample time to do an end run around them. Sorry, but the whole thing smacks of a farce frankly. ***What would you suggest?*** Special elections or appointments by committee rather than a single person appointing the vacancies would be a start. And a quicker process for a time sensitive issue would be fantastic too.
Originally Posted By alexbook >>But considering the nature of the accusations here I think it's pretty clear that there should have been SOME mechanism for preventing him from moving forward on this very same matter he is accused of attempting to corrupt.<< There is a mechanism. The Illinois legislature could have acted to prevent this. They didn't. Not really a problem with the legal system itself.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***when he obviously has no business doing so? >>> Obvious, based on what? What you've read in the newspaper, or on the Internet?*** Sorry to revisit this one more time, but no. My comments were not based on what was said in print, on TV, or on the net. My comments about his being "obviously" corrupt on this very issue were based on his own words, and nothing more. Now, if it turns out that the investigators put out false statements or something, I'd be open to hearing about it of course..but Blagojevich has not claimed he didn't say such things, has he? If I were him and it were some huge conspiracy against him, that'd be the FIRST thing I'd say! So, assuming it's true that he said what he said, it's obvious to be that he was a rampant criminal trying to sell a senate seat. Obvious to all the Democrat senators too, and the President Elect as well. And today, obvious too to the people who are unanimously voting to impeach him. So, why was why *I* said so "hasty" and "wrong"? Why was my opinion somehow invalidated by virtue of the fact that the media is calling a spade a spade? Seems pretty cut and dried here. And yet I'm accused of trying to "guantanamo" the guy. Nothing of the sort. What *I* asked was why, when it's pretty obvious to ANYONE with a brain that something nasty is going on (based on HIS words alone, not based on media commentary), how it is that there is no preventative mechanism in place to keep the guy from going ahead and screwing things up even more for the people of Ill... ER...never mind. I'll just stop there. Obviously the people don't care much either. I'll just say I'm perplexed, but I hardly think I'm in the wrong for my comments (or, at least, I have a lot of high level support lol).
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The Illinois legislature could have acted to prevent this. They didn't. Not really a problem with the legal system itself.*** Are they not a part of "the legal system itself"? And they ARE acting. Just incredibly slowly, given the circumstances. Slow enough for the corrupt scumbag to make the appointment he shouldn't have made in the first place. And NOW, they'll impeach him. Nice. But where does that leave the people of Illinois (I don't really care personally, it's rhetorical of course)? They now have a castrated senator in place. Well done, all. *sigh*
Originally Posted By alexbook >>***The Illinois legislature could have acted to prevent this. They didn't. Not really a problem with the legal system itself.*** Are they not a part of "the legal system itself"?<< My point is that the problem isn't with the laws but with the people executing the laws. We have safeguards in place, but people aren't willing to use them. >>But where does that leave the people of Illinois (I don't really care personally, it's rhetorical of course)?<< I don't know about Illinois law, but in many states either the legislature or the voters could act to remove the Senator and replace him with someone else.
