That's likely the end result of the Blagojevich appointment. There's a nice roundup at Bench Memos. Volokh and Brian Kalt with more.
It is remarkable to me how many people have taken as fact the presumption that the Senate can refuse to seat this appointment. The controlling law here appears to be Powell v. McCormack. America has been here before and the Supremes have ruled that the member must be seated.
Certainly the Democratic Party doesn't have a monopoly on grandstanding, but in this instance their moves are incredibly cynical. They purport to not want Blagojevich to have this appointment power. They can take it away from him next week if they want by simply passing legislation calling for a special election. But by offering up the option that they can pretty clearly see is unconstitutional they are all but guaranteeing that Blagojevich will have this appointment.
I suspect that when all is said and done, Burris will be sitting in Washington in the Senate seat. And Democratic legislators will come back to their districts and claim they tried. The reality is that they didn't try.
Now we have other scenarios to consider. For example, if the Burris appointment goes to court but Governor Quinn tries to appointment someone else on February 15th, will the Senate seat that person? What would be the effect of votes cast by the Quinn appointee if the Supreme Court rules that he/she should never have been appointed.
The solution is easy. Let Roland Burris have this seat until April 7th. Elect a new Senator on April 7th and immediately seat that person.
"I suspect that when all is said and done, Burris will be sitting in Washington in the Senate seat. And Democratic legislators will come back to their districts and claim they tried. The reality is that they didn't try."
That's been the story of Democratic efforts to "fight" Blagojevich since he was re-elected. They support his re-election, but claim they oppose his policies. They claim to be fighting against him and his policies, but he implements them anyway, and they refuse to do anything about it.
Now, after six years of his selling off the state piece-by-piece, bankrupting us in the process, they want to claim they did all they could to stop him. Horsepucky - they wanted him re-elected, despite knowing what he was doing and what they were getting.
You expected the Democrats to endorse the Republican candidate? As lame as she was? Some times you just have to hold your nose and say 'OK, fine. I endorse him...'
As just an Illinois voter, I cannot support Burris even in the short term. Maybe the Democrats can but then they know his extensive loyality history in both power and $'s. And of course the IL Republican party will hold their nose and endorse him in the short term to look like 'team players to the voters' which they try to re-organize yet again.