Law and Letters: obligatory blagojevich post, with questions

Law and Letters

"Lots of really marvelous stuff" -- Larry Solum. "A particularly nice mix of academics and introspection" -- Dan Filler. "I think that she writes very substantively, and interestingly." -- Ann Bartow. "A must read blog--no qualifiers." -- Dave Hoffman. "One of the most entertaining and elegantly written blogs anywhere." -- Jim Chen. "I like your blog, too." -- Orin Kerr. "Your blog is awesome." -- Kermit Roosevelt III. "Belle, you are mighty too." -- Jeremy Freese.

Name: Belle Lettre

Location: United States

Recovering academic, blogger-back-from-the-dead, and one-year veteran of the workforce. Now an organizational embed, with lessons learned from the trenches and stories to tell. All with a not-so-slightly academic twist.

View my complete profile

Thursday, January 01, 2009

obligatory blagojevich post, with questions

Why on earth didn't Illinois call for a special election?! Republicans are blaming the Democrats for blocking this. True?

I was telling TD that the legal opinions appear to be all over the place on whether the Senate can refuse to confirm Burris. Volokh says no, some guy at some other school quoted in the NYT says no, Balkin, Tushnet and Amar say yes, and so now I don't know what's the right interpretation of Powell v. McCormack.

Predictions: a big ol' mess. Blagojevich is one sick, corrupt, Willie Stark like guy. Senate will vote not to confirm, Burris will sue, and a big ol' mess in the courts will ensue.

What do you think? Who's right about Powell? Even if the Senate is the "top court" for appointments as Amar says, if Burris sues, it would go to the SCOTUS, right, as it rests on the interpretation of Art. I Sec. 5 of the Constitution? I'm inclined to go with Balkin and Amar on this one, but I am not an expert in this type of law.

Law and Letters

About Me

Subscribe

Recent Comments

Belle in a Nutshell

Thursday, January 01, 2009

obligatory blagojevich post, with questions