If Senate Democrats do indeed block Roland Burris from entering the Senate chamber, as they have threatened to do, it will be the strongest action they have undertaken, like, ever. Hearing Democrats invoking Article One, Section Five of The Constitution is more reminiscent of Republican attempts to impeach President Clinton or destroy filibusters than it is of anything under Harry Reid's leadership. It is worth noting that blocking a Democrat who was unquestionably appointed legally, from being seated in the Senate is the issue where Democrats decide to grow a spine and play hardball. I mean, really, this is the issue where Senate Democrats decide to stand up for themselves?
The selective outrage over this appointment kills me. The dry powder brigade rubberstamped a war of choice "justified" by a pack of lies. They accepted torture, domestic surveillance and the total politicization of the DOJ. They swallowed brazen defiance of lawfully issued subpoenas. They never even seriously considered censure, much less impeachment.
Now, when a crooked Dem gov pulls off a cheap political stunt that, like it or not, is entirely lawful, the dry powder brigade opens fire w/ both barrels. Where was this outrage when Mukasey wouldn't admit that waterboarding was torture? Where was it when AGAG lied under oath to Cong. committees knowing that they knew that he knew he was lying? Where was this outrage on retroactive FISA immunity? How about when Miers, Rove, et al thumbed their noses at Cong. subpoena power?
If Reid wanted to be consistent here, he'd send a strongly worded letter to Blago and then agree to let Burris be seated and to get committee assignments.
It is more than a little worrying that the only moment when Senate Democrats decide to take the gloves off is to block a Democrat who was legally appointed to the Senate from being seated. Kind of makes you think that Senate Democrats are more willing to stand up to other Democrats than they are to Republicans.
Perhaps this will herald in a new era where Senate Democrats are willing to use aggressive tactics in many areas, rather than, say, allowing a record number of filibusters to pass without actually forcing those threatening to the filibuster to actually filibuster. If that were the case, then this would be a hopeful move. Article One is in desperate need to revitalization. It is more likely, however, that this will be an isolated incident and not representative of a new tone from the Senate leadership. Don't expect this sort of action if, say, the 2012 Presidential election turns out like the 2000 election. It isn't worth spending political capital when Republicans steal a Presidential election, but it is worth blocking a legally appointed Democratic Senator because you don't like the guy who appointed him.