Illinois High Court Won't Rule On Blago Fitness

The Illinois Supreme Court has refused to rule on a challenge to the fitness of Gov. Rod Blagojevich. The court rejected the challenge without comment.

The challenge had been brought by state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who argued that the governor — arrested last week on corruption charges — is no longer capable of running the state and thus should be removed from office. Much of the urgency rests with Blagojevich's power to appoint a Senate successor to Barack Obama.

It was that power — and Blagojevich's comments, caught on tape, that he was willing to sell the seat to the highest bidder — that is part of the vast corruption case against the governor.

Resignation. There is no sign at all that a resignation by the governor is imminent. In fact, by all appearances, he looks like he intends to fight not only the charges but any effort to remove him from office. Blagojevich said this morning, "I can't wait to begin to tell my side of the story. ... There's a time and place for everything. That day will soon be here and you might know more about that today, maybe no later than tomorrow." Stay tuned.

Impeachment. Meanwhile, the state Legislature has convened a 21-member panel to study the possibility of impeaching Blagojevich, something that has never happened to an Illinois governor. A House vote to impeach would be followed by a trial in the Senate.

Obama. Democrats want this over as quickly as possible; they squirm every time Obama is asked about the situation at press conferences, which happened both Monday and Tuesday. The issue with Obama is about the discussions anyone on his team — specifically, incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel — may have had with Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. Obama has said that in deference to the inquiry undertaken by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, he will withhold comment on the matter. But the prez-elect has promised to release information next week.

Some conservative commentators are slowly losing their patience with Obama's answers, on this and other matters. Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard is quoted in today's Washington Post as saying of Obama, "The guy is strategically soporiferous. He's trying to be so boring that no one will notice that he has avoided taking a position on virtually every issue that we've seen arise over the past three months."

Special election. This was first raised by Sen. Dick Durbin (D), but Democrats have slowly been distancing themselves from that position. The Democratic-controlled Legislature seems to be putting that possibility on the back burner, if not eliminating it altogether, despite the arguments by many newspaper editorials and, less important, Illinois Republicans. Obviously, the GOP's best shot at the Senate seat would come via special election. An appointment, no matter who is eventually in charge of the state, will not go to a Republican. Asked about this yesterday at his news conference, Obama said simply that he'll leave the decision of a special election up to the Legislature.

Slander. A most egregious charge, this one coming from Janet Pickel of Pittsburgh. And it's not directed at anyone from Illinois.

I think your overwhelming interest of late in the Blagojevich scandal is because it is such a remarkable parallel to "Buttongate." I refer, of course, to your own "pin to win" extortion scheme. I had to read just two of your pre-election columns to find your oft-repeated, brazen request to your readers. From your column dated Oct. 1, 2008:

MEET THE CHALLENGERS: Back in 2006, we initiated this feature, in which we asked you to send in campaign buttons for candidates for the Senate, House and governor. Our end of the bargain — aside from satisfying Ken Rudin's button craze, which is bordering on the unhealthy — would be to feature the candidates in a "meet the challenger" section.

I find it interesting that you simultaneously boast of both your button addiction and your corruption while seeking to remove yourself from them. You attempt this by referring to yourself in the first person plural ("we initiated" and "our end of the bargain"), as though others were involved in your "end of the bargain" AND in the third person ("Ken Rudin's button craze"), as though you weren't even in the room when the request was being made. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't referring to yourself in the plural elevate this to a conspiracy?