Burris Denied His Senate Seat

The Democrats aren’t going to let Burris take his seat. At least not yet.

A determined Roland Burris entered the Secretary of the Senate’s office on the third floor of the Capitol this morning to present his credentials. The media were gathered around the corner – several abreast stretching down the hallway, held back by Capitol police.
Terrance Gainer, the sergeant at arms who would be charged with blocking Burris at the Senate chambers door if necessary, escorted him into the office. The secretary’s office is one floor above the entrance to the Senate chambers.
Leaders have been negotiating what Burris will do today – and there was some word that Burris might accept his rejection in the secretary’s office. Guards initially had been told they were to treat Burris as they would a senator, easing his path through the Capitol entrance, but were later told to take him through security as any visitor.
“We’ve been back and fourth four times,” a Democratic aide said of the choreography of the morning.

They made him go through security like a visitor?
Classy.
What’s unbelievable is how little Democrats seem to care for the rule of law here. Burris was appointed in a perfectly legal matter by Blagojevich. There’s no evidence to suggest that Blago made that appointment as part of any quid pro quo arrangement, and Burris himself is not suspected or accused of any legal wrong-doing. Burris’ appointment documentation is lacking a signature from the Illinois Secretary of State, but there is no legal reason why that official has refused to sign his certificate other than he simply doesn’t want to.
All of this may make for entertaining political theater, but I think we’re treading on dangerous ground here. We’ve got a legally appointed US Senator trying to take his seat in the Capitol and Democrats, motivated by political expediency, aren’t letting him.
Is this a new development in the legal games Democrats like to play around election time? Have we gone from endless lawsuits in close races which often result in victories based not on actual votes but legal technicalities to playing partisan games to try and exclude members of Congress from their seats based on more legal technicalities?
I’m all for following the letter of the law in these circumstances, but I don’t think it’s being followed here. I don’t like Burris, nor do I like the man who appointed him, but I see no way to deny him his seat in the Senate without also ignoring the law.