I said:

I do tend to think that the Illinois legislature or the Illinois Supreme Court need to deal with it in the end.

I tend to think so because the Constitution places the naming of Senators with the respective states, but makes no rules about how the state is to do that. Historically (putting the open-seat situation to one side for the moment) this has been in various states by appointment by the Governor, by election in the state legislature, and by popular election. Possibly some other means have been used; I don't know.

There is currently controversy in Illinois over this appointment to the open seat. Yes, we are told that the Illinois constitution places that question with the Governor, and prima facie (and certainly under ordinary conditions) that would be the end of it, I suppose. Under the present regrettable conditions with Gov.B, there are maneuverings intended to get around that result. If such is done, whether by action of the Legislature, the Illinois Supreme Court, and/or another election, I think it a rock-solid likelihood that there will be litigation to overturn it, certainly in the Illinois Supreme Court and likely in the US Supreme Court. The upshot is in the laps of the gods.

For those state maneuverings to bear fruit, there would have to be at least a delay (possibly a long one) in the Senate's swearing Burris in. From what I've heard on NPR, that delay just might come about by burying the issue in the Rules Committee. I believe that, if he gets sworn in promptly, the state goings-on become moot.

I've seen (I think in this thread, but perhaps elsewhere), a statement that the Illinois Secretary of State is involved in some way with a governor's choice. Whether it is actually to approve or sign off on the selection, or merely to certify to the world that the governor did make the choice, I don't know. I suspect it is merely the magisterial act of certifying that the duly elected, sitting governor made the appointment.

As to "the Dems" versus "the Senate", while the Democrats have the majority in the Senate, I understand (yes, it's hearsay) that there are a number of Democrats who would not support an effort to prevent Burris's swearing in, and it wouldn't take too many of them to destroy the majority on the issue, so that it would take at least some Republican Senators to help make up a majority vote on the subject. I don't know on what basis such an issue might be referred to the Rules Committee, and whether a majority of the Senate would be required. And then, if it gets referred to that Committee, I haven't heard what the outlook of the committee Chairman might be as to slowing things down.

In any case, if indeed Burris gets seated, I hope it is under circumstances which leave his position and reputation untainted by the Blagojevich connection.

Dave Oesterreich