Blagojevich has not been convicted of any crime...yet. That he might be in the future is for the future to decide.

In the meantime, I don't think that the Dems in the Senate should automatically dismiss his appointment of Burris to Obama's Senate seat. Perhaps they can do a little vetting for themselves and check the man's record. If he looks good, then seat him until a special election can be held or whatever the provisions are for the state of Illinois, regarding vacated Senate seats.

Personally, I view this as a problem for the state of Illinois and perhaps we should all keep our noses out of it for now. If the Senate finds there are irregularities in Burris' records or some hint of improprieties on HIS part (we already know about the alleged improprieties of Blagojevich) then perhaps they should refuse to seat Burris. Barring that, what is the problem with Burris? Just because the man who appointed him is an alleged lousy SOB, that doesn't make him cut from the same cloth. Gawd he'p us all if we are judged by the slimmest of associations.

_________________________________________________
"You can't fix stupid..." ~ Ron White"
"I never said I wasn't a brat..." ~ Talidapali

With all due respect, ignoring the presumption of innocence is not the issue here. Technical due process rights take into account the presumption as it applies to criminal defendants. Outside the realm of judicial proceedings, being charged with a crime has other implications that may not be subject to the presumption. If an elementary school teacher is formally charged with sexual molestation of students, would you argue that a presumption of innocence should preclude removal from the job until the criminal proceedings are concluded? Or a bus driver charged with being under the influence of serious narcotics while driving? Employers have to make decisions every day when employees are charged with various crimes, and many many factors must be considered. In the sector of elected public officials, the nature and severity of a criminal charge can render an official totally ineffective. The Ill. governor is facing serious charges that make it almost impossible for anyone in government to work with him. Whether he remains in office or not, he'll have a nice team of lawyers making sure he is afforded his due process rights in the courts.

David Hunter, I have come to respect you but 15 years ago we had a public exchange of opinion in the Sentinel that comes to mind today.

You wrote about arresting an alleged child abuser. I took offense at the presumed guilty tone and, in a letter to the paper, responded with my own "innocent until proven guilty" story.

A couple of months later, I was delighted to find myself referenced briefly in your column (KNS, Feb 8 1994):

Bearing in mind that, under our system of law, Michael Jackson is innocent until proven guilty and at the risk of invoking the screams of outrage and indignation from messianic, dewy-eyed, young public defenders who have to pretend to believe all their clients, I will pass along a story that was first told to me by a retired Minnesota state trooper.

Once upon a time, a defense attorney was grilling an old cop on a drunken-driving case, trying to get the officer to admit that sleep deprivation could produce some of the symptoms of intoxication. Here's how the old cop allegedly responded:

"Sir, I am not an expert on sleep deprivation, but is has been my experience that if a creature has feathers, webbed feet and a flat beak,if it waddles when it walks, and if it quacks like a duck - the odds are overwhelming that it is a duck."

A defense lawyer would probably ask for genetic testing to determine the bird's ancestry, but the old cop's definition works for me.

I am trying to weigh the various sides of this issue.

On one hand, Blogo is the Governor. The governor has the right to appoint anybody he wants to, who meets the constitutional requirements, as Senator. He has made no effort to disguise the fact that the man he appointed was nothing more than a spite appointment.

On the other hand, We have the evidence of our own ears that he refused to appoint more than one person that even he considered qualified because he was not going to be given payment for doing so.

I see no relevence to the "innocent until proven guilty" meme. Blogo the man is not being punished, fined, sent to jail, or anything else...Rather the people of Illinois are being protected from a probably corrupt action by a probably corrupt elected official. To allow Blogo to go about his days as if his actions were not tainted by malfeasance is absurd. It would be the same stretch of rationality to say that a man who committed murder in plain sight of any number of witnesses should be allowed to walk free on his own recognizance because, after all, he still must be considered innocent until we can convene a jury and have a trial, appeal, etc... Absurd on the face of it. The very requirement of bail is there to protect the public.

Denying Blogojevich the ability to install his tainted choice for Illinois Senator would be done for the same reason. He must not be allowed to harm the people of Illinois.

I see nothing wrong with moving to enjoin certain of his gubernatorial powers until the matter is settled - especially vis-a-vis his powers of appointment, the abuse of which being the central question related to the DOJ investigation.

____________________________

Dirty deeds done dirt cheap! Special holidays, Sundays and rates!

Mr Hunter. I don't think I have ever agreed with one of your editorials. But, in this post you are right on. That said, I am really enjoying the gut twisting among the Democratic party leaders on this.

Mr Axel - you are correct. However, no legislative action has been taken to limit Blago's powers to-date so he is within the law to make an appointment (and if legislative action were to be forthcoming, Blago would veto it - would the legislature over ride the veto?). He has not been indicted to date; only arrested while prosecution works on the indictment. Once again most enjoyable from my perspective.

Jeff Toobin made a good point tonight on CNN. That is, yes, Blago is legally innocent until proven guilty. But lots of people lose certain rights and/or privileges when they're indicted. His example was that if he had been indicted for fraud, etc. he would no longer be appearing on CNN as a legal expert.

So on the one hand it's not ridiculous for the Senate to consider the circumstances of this appointment, and to conclude that it's tainted by Blagojevich's behavior.

On the other hand, Burris himself seems free of corruption and qualified, if a bit of a grandstander (although I admit I can't respect anybody that let Blago appoint him under these circumstances). So it's a puzzlement.....

I suspect he will eventually be seated (although not tomorrow) if Blagojevich isn't impeached swiftly. If he IS impeached soon, I dunno.

At any rate, the race stuff is ridiculous and Bobby Rush should be ashamed of himself. Lots of things in American are about race. This one isn't.