Can The Senate Refuse to Seat Roland Burris?

This seems to be the constitutional question of the day. Governor Blagojevich appointed Roland Burris to Obama's Senate seat. He had that power and Burris meets the constitutional requirements age, residency, and citizenship. So can the Senate still refuse to seat him?

There is one relevant Supreme Court decision from 1969, Powell v. McCormack. Powell was embroiled in scandal but reelected to the House in 1966. "After the select committee conducted its investigation and hearings, in March 1967, the House passed H.Res. 278 by a vote of 307 to 116, which again excluded Powell from Congress and also censured him, fined him $40,000, took away his seniority, and declared his seat vacant." The court found in Powell's favor. The House can expel him with a two-thirds vote, but not exclude him. They can't invent new requirements not found in the constitution without an amendment.

But several experts have written that it's possible the Senate could exclude Burris. The arguments are mostly that they can judge the validity of elections and the word used in the constitution is "return" which includes election returns and appointments. Also, the Senate is the judge and it doesn't have to meet criminal standards of beyond reasonable doubt, merely a majority vote. Here are three articles...

Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz write in Salon How the Senate Can Stop Blagojevich

Lyle Denniston writes in SCOTUSblog Analysis: Must Senate seat Burris?

Jack M. Balkin writes in Balkinization Can The Senate Refuse to Seat Roland Burris? Quite Possibly

In reading these I came across Kilbourn v. Thompson from 1880. The decision includes this quote: "Especially is it competent and proper for this court to consider whether its proceedings are in conformity with the Constitution and laws, because, living under a written constitution, no branch or department of the government is supreme; and it is the province and duty of the judicial department to determine in cases regularly brought before them, whether the powers of any branch of the government, and even those of the legislature in the enactment of laws, have been exercised in conformity to the Constitution; and if they have not, to treat their acts as null and void."

Seems like a perfectly succinct argument against Cheney's unitary executive theory and the idea of court stripping (including in the law that the supreme court has no jurisdiction over the law).