The senate democratic leadership is notoriously risk averse. When faced with the choice of taking a potentially losing stand on an issue or capitulating, they invariably capitulate. Even the possibility of a hard fought victory on a core issue (ie FISA) leaves them running the other way rather than court controversy.
So, why take such an immediate stand on the Burris appointment? Reid is already taking heat from the Congressional Black Caucus and others for rejecting potentially the only African American senator to serve in this upcoming congress. I can think of one possibility...
Reid and the rest of the leadership has been active in the Colorado and New York senate appointment decisions. I would be surprised if Obama hasn't taken a direct hand in these appointments as well. Between Obama's reputation for careful planning and the senate leadership's penchant for taking the easy way out, it seems to me that they already have things worked out. I don't know what the situation in New York is, but here in Colorado there's been some outside buzz that current state senate leader Peter Groff, an African American, is on the list of possible nominees for Salazar's seat. (as hinted in Politico). Having been tipped off by CO Gov Ritter's intention, or applying some leverage to ensure the outcome, Obama and the leadership might be counting on the controversy defusing once the sore spot of "lynching" the only African American senator is eliminated.
As for the labyrinthine constitutional questions caused by the refusal to seat any appointment by Blagojavich, Reid has only said specifically that the Democratic Caucus would not seat him. Possibly he meant that Burris wouldn't be accepted in the caucus and so would not receive any committee seats. In essence he would be sent to the purgatory that Lieberman should've faced when he left the caucus.
While I wouldn't put it past Harry Reid to engage in that much weaseling in order to appear to take a moral stand, some inside knowledge might also be in operation here. Article I section 3 of the Constitution as amended by the 17th amendment only allows for the interim appointment of senate vacancies until the next election designated by the legislature
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided that the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct
It's customary for interim appointments to serve until the next general election, but not necessarily so. The Illinois legislature is already considering a special election, so Burris might only be a senator for a few months, possibly less. Again, if the Obama and the leadership have been on the inside of this they might have a timeline all set to go and have this thing wired.
sorry if this duplicates anybody else's idea-- I haven't kept up lately and this occurred to me today while I was delivering pizza. I had to get it down before I got distracted by the pretty fireworks