agreed George. I dont see a single Constitutional reason why Burris cant be seated. In fact I believe there are only three Constitutional gates one has to pass, and Burris easily has the key to each.

However, perhaps some young lawyer might undertake to argue, depending on the intricacies of how the law is written in Illiniois– and federally– that a Governor accused of a 'felony' offense may have ALSO used 'innocent appointees' as 'soft bribery' to block further discovery of crimes ….as in rewarding silence in a third or fourth party.

I imagine that the Fed Copper is going to look at everything including who benefits from Burris being appointed, and who does not. The part of this contretemps that makes some people livid is hearing from some that the Senate 'must' have an African American in it. I think the cultural issue of seeming efforts, at least in some people's minds, for eidetic patterning in the Senate 'since Obama is African American, then his successor must be African American… is an interesting cultural trope.

dr.e

It seems to me that Burris is a perfectly acceptable appointment.

It also seems to me that the problem isn't Burris or Bobby Rush or the Blagomeister or racial politics or any kind of urban blah-blah-blah.

It seems to me that the problem is Harry Reid painted himself into a corner by proclaiming that the Senate would refuse to seat anyone appointed by Blagojevich.

If Reid were competent, this story, once exposed, would have stayed in Chicago.