Republicans (MA) balk at Kennedy proposal to change succession law

[HughMoran]

Source: Boston.com (Boston Globe)

Republicans balk at Kennedy proposal

Massachusetts Republicans spoke out today against a proposal by US Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, under which Kennedy's Senate seat would be filled by an appointment by Democratic Governor Deval Patrick until a special election could be held.

House Minority Leader Brad Jones of Reading said the proposal was based not on "what's best for the whole Commonwealth but based on what's best for one political party."

"The hypocrisy is astounding. If we had a Republican governor right now, would we be getting that same letter?" he said.

“Everybody feels for Senator Kennedy, but the laws shouldn’t be created to benefit particular individuals, it should be principled,” said Senate minority leader Richard Tisei of Wakefield.

...

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/08/kennedy_urges_s.html

---

:mad:

[xultar]

1. The man is about to die and all they can think about is their own asses.

[HughMoran]

3. Can you believe they actually used the word "hypocrisy" when discussing this?

Republicans must not have mirrors in their houses :rofl:

[Ian David]

7. Our asses depend on Kennedy and his successor. n/t

[No Elephants]

27. Please see Reply 20 aand 25.

[ejpoeta]

2. why am i laughing at this ....

"but the laws shouldn’t be created to benefit particular individuals, it should be principled,”

yeah right... when have the laws you guys have passed been principled as opposed to benefiting your campaign contributors.

[Mz Pip]

4. Maybe I'm wrong on this

but wasn't the current rule passed by the Democrats when Romney was in office to prevent him from appointing a Republican Senator?

This might fall into the 'Be careful what you wish for" category.

[sailon]

10. Republicans

Yes, if you're going to get all picky about it.

[marshall]

13. That's one of the perks of being in charge

You can change the rules to suit your current needs.

[Igel]

42. That perfectly describes

some 3rd world countries. You're not in it for the country, you're in it for your tribe, however you define it. "Public service" means "how to use public power for your own group."

Let's define the debate as far downward as possible, why don't we?

[flyarm]

29. Yes the law was changed by dems when Kerry was running for Pres! eom

[xultar]

5. This post belongs on the Greatest Page because people need to see the Repubs in thier

mental sickness.

[hack89]

6. They are right.

They passed a law just so a Republican governor could not name John Kerry's replacement. Now they have a Democrat in charge, they want to change the law again. How can this be anything else but cynical political machinations to benefit one party over another.

[IsItJustMe]

8. I have a different take on it. Kennedy has been a Senator there for years. He has been a lion in

every definition of the word. I would consider it, Democrat or Republic, just because he they want it that way and they are dying. I call it compassion.

[hack89]

9. No - it is all about ensuring there are enough Democratic votes for health care

it is pure politics.

[rox63]

12. What do you have against health care for all? n/t

[hack89]

21. Nothing - I am against the idea of political parties

manipulating laws for partisan benefit. There may be worthwhile short term gains but it ultimately undermines respect for the law. Would you accept this if it was the republicans protecting a seat to ensure that anti-choice laws were passed? Didn't think so.

[KamaAina]

48. One would assume, then,

that you're also against Bush v. Gore, Diebold "election" machines, etc., etc., ad nauseam. :eyes:

[hack89]

49. Bush v Gore was not legislation

I am, for example, against gerrymandering. I think all ballots should be paper.

[No Elephants]

22. So is the Republican yapping. Please see Reply 20. They couldn't

scare up a prnciple if they wanted to and they never seem to want to.

[hack89]

26. I guess I don't have your level of cynicism

I still hold on to apparently outmoded ideas that laws reflect the will of the people and not the whims of the powerful. The only principal applied here is that power resides in the rich and connected.

[No Elephants]

37. First, I am not cynical, just realistic. Mass. Law originally provided

that the Governor fill vacancies. With that law in place, the people elected Romney Governor. Kerry ran for President. The Demoratic Legislature did not want Romney, the people's Governor to have the power to fill the vacancy if Kerry got elected. The people had nothing to do with that law, which is in place today. Most of them probably don't know what it says, even today, with all these stories out.

I "misspoke" originally, but it's now to late to edit my other posts. The law as enacted when Romney was Governor is still in effect. It says that the seat will stay empty until a special election is held, not that the Legislature will appoint someone.

A special election will put a Democrat in office, no question. So, again, it is not Republican v. Democrat. it is empty seat v. filled seat.

Kennedy does not want that seat empty while health care is under consideration. But, he is very sick and may not be able to make a vote as he has in the past, no matter how sick he was even then. If you want to call his concern about health votes his whim, fine. I don't.

Now that I have corrected my mistake, it's clear what the Republican's game is. He is trying to keep the 60th Democratic out of the Senate by leaving the seat vacant. Kennedy is saying, Massachusetts needs two Senators always, but especially now. Put things back the way they were before Romney-the Governor appoints until a special election can be held.

If you think all the hundred of laws on Massachusetts book every law on the books actually, speccifically reflects the will of the people, good luck.

I think the will of the people is that their duly elected representatives pass laws, be it the law they passed to thwart Romney or the law Kennedy is requesting to save national health care reform. Realistically, there is no reason to assume that the will of the people is reflected more by a bill passed four years ago than by a bill passed next week, or the Massachusett Consitution would prohobit amending and repealing laws, which is done all the time.

Sorry, but I think your objection is not really about the will of the people.

Bottom line: the anti-Romney law ought to be repealed anyway. The people of Massachusetts deserve two Senators at all times; and the nation deserves them too. That is the view of scholars, especially in these days when we don't know what can happen. In the event of a terrorist attack for instance, our entire Senate could be wiped out; and Massachusetts might not be able to hold a special election for some time. Then what?

[No Elephants]

20. No, they are dead wrong. People vote for and against things to benefit one

party over another all the time, none more than Republicans. Welcome to the real world.

Massachusetts is so overwhelmingly in the man's debt, as well as his famiy's. Further, the Massachusetts Legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic, both houses, as is the Governor. I would bet my bottom dollar they would name whoever Kennedy wants anyway. It's only for a few weeks anyway, ffs.

And, as Republicans are fond of saying, elections have consequnces.

So, the Republicans are just being totally creepy to a dying man for no practical reason whatever. Turds.

[hack89]

23. Except the peoples right to vote for a replacement is being taken away.

If elections have consequences why weren't the Democrats in Massachusetts willing to accept the results if Kerry was elected President? If you think laws are things that should be manipulated to benefit you, then think that. Just don't be surprised when that weapon is leveled at you by the Republicans.

[No Elephants]

39. HUH? Sorry, no idea where you are coming from with any of those points.

First, a correction: originally, I saie that the current law allows the Legislature to appoint an interim replacement and Kennedy wants the Governor to do it. That's wrong. Current law says the seat remains vacant until a special election. However, the wrong version Contemplates a special election. So does the correct version. So is the version Kennedy is requesting. NO scenario, right or wrong, eliiminates the special election, though, so I don't know where you're getting that.

I am never surprised when the Republicans do things to suit themselves. They ALWAYS do that. In fact, that is exactly why this Massachusetts Republic is doing, trying to leave the Senate with 59 Democrats instead of 60. However, in Massachusetts, it's highly unlikely they will get a majority in my lifetime. As I've posted, the Democrataic majority is both houses is overwhelming. It's been that way as long as I can remember.

But, again, this is not about result that benefits Republicasn vs. result that benefits Democrats, not under the right scenario, the wrong scenario, or the Kennedy requested scenario. In all cases, the Democrats decise what happens until a special election can be held. This is only about whether Massachusetts will have two Senators until a special election can be held or whether a seaat will remain vacant until a special election can be held, the way the law always was before the "anti-Romney" law.

[rox63]

11. There are very few Republicans in the MA legislature

They can bitch and moan all they want, but they still didn't win. :P

[Gman2]

14. They would rather have compassion on the lockerbie bomber.

[MissMillie]

15. To play devil's advocate.... the law used to allow for the appointment

of an interim Senator. That law was changed under the Romney administration in case Kerry won the Presidential election. Romney vetoed it, and the Dems pulled out the over-ride.

I certainly would like to see a Dem in that seat, and a Dem in that seat right away... but this really does look fishy.

[HughMoran]

16. 1) Dems are in charge 2) Why should a R get to appoint a R? 3) Kerry wasn't dying

You need to put a little bit of perspective on this. This is a big-time Democratic state - can you imagine in a Republican could have appointed a Republican to Kerry's seat?

[MissMillie]

19. Yes, I can imagine that... I wouldn't like it at all.

That doesn't make this tactic any less fishy.

Though I don't imagine that 5 years ago that Senator Kennedy had anything to do with it.

Now he's the one pushing for it.

And no matter how "bad" it would have been, that doesn't mean that this doesn't look like hypocrisy.

[No Elephants]

24. No, it isn't. It doesn't matter. They will appoint a Democrat come hell or high water.

The governor is a Democrat and there are fewer Republicans in the Legislature than there are Republicans in heaven. It's a Democrat either way. What's fishy--and inhumane--is why this pisant is making a big deal of it. Please see Reply 20.

[Igel]

45. Back in the '80s there was an

analysis of differences between repub/dem parties. It wasn't entirely wrong, it just wasn't exhaustive. I think the conclusions would be weaker today--the parties have shifted a bit--but to some extent it still stands.

One difference was process versus outcome. If you reason through a process, everybody has sufficient access to the process, and the process itself seems a priori fair, it doesn't greatly matter if the outcome is "wrong". Disparate impact in racial discrimination cases is a prima facie example of such a difference. At best you look back at the process to see if the process is fair--inequities that pre-exist the application of the process are a different kettle of fish and unless the process is intended to remedy them (instead of its original purpose), they're immaterial. There, I've just summed up about 50 years of disputations over affirmative action.

For some dems, and more repubs, process matters. For some repubs, and more dems, the outcome matters. The argument in this thread mostly says that the outcome isn't at issue, and is the proper one, so the process is immaterial--tweak it as needed to secure any other short-term advantage. The argument in 2004 was contrary: The long-term outcome wasn't at issue, but the short-term one was, so to achieve the One True Outcome, the short-term process needed to be tweaked.

It means the process is a party's plaything, which is far too cynical for me to support.

As for the urgency, Ted Kennedy hasn't been much in evidence for months, and the likely outcome was known a year ago. He stayed in the Senate, denying his party representation, in hopes of returning to the Senate. Now that he's denying his party representation on an issue he cares deeply about, he wants his mistake fixed, for special action to be taken. Had he quit the Senate 3 months ago there'd be a special election just about now, give or take a couple of weeks, and the process deemed fair and right in 2004 could still be deemed fair.

[No Elephants]

40. No, and no. Senator Kennedy had nothing to do with the change 5 years ago.

That was the Democratic Legislature. He's asking for the law now because he is too sick to go to his last sibling's funeral and is worried about what will happen to health care votes if he resigns. Nothing fishy abaot that either.


And no, this does not look fishy or look like hypocrisy. If anything looked "fishy," it was the anti-Romney law, not the law that would repeal the anti-Romney and put things back the way they always were.

But, in truth, none of it is fishy. The U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures the power to make the decision. The people elect the legislature, knowing it has that power and also knowing that laws get amended, repealed or repealed and replaced from time to time. Therefore, I have no clue what is fishy about a legislature changing laws.

Who fills a vacant seat and for how long, etc. is nothing but a political play that the U.S. Constitution trusts to State legislatures. A state that decade after decade elects a legislature consisting almost solely of Democrats kind of expects them to make poliical decisions that favor Democrats, wouldn't you say?

However, If anything looks fishy, hypocriical or purely political now, it's this state Republican turd trying to capitalize on Kennedy's condition to interfere with federal health care reform.

Please also see Reply 37.

[24601]

62. How is that different than Jessie Ventura appointing an (I) to

the seat held by the late Sen. Wellstone?

This points to differences in the House and Senate - but they were because the Senate used to represent the states without a statewide direct vote - while the House always has represented the people and the only path to the House is by election*. Now Senators are elected by direct vote like house members, and it may be time to have the same set of rules.

How OK are you with having AHHHNOLD appointing a Boxer or Feinstein?

* Let me qualify that in that the Constitution says the House selects its Speaker but doesn't say anything about having to pick from among its members. Why couldn't the house, with 435 members select an outsider, say Bill Clinton, as speaker? (Because perhaps he would take the title literally and has a track record for speaking way too long.) So Howard Dean instead...

[MaineDem]

17. There's a link to a survey on the page.

Be sure to take the poll.

[Turbineguy]

18. This is good.

Whatever they do to screw the voters is good. If there was a Repub governor, they would be falling over themselves to change the law.

[No Elephants]

25. This is not Republican vs. Democrat. EVERYBODY in office in Massachusetts now is

a Democrat, the Governor and almost every single legislator in both houses. This jerk knows he's not going to get a Republican no matter what. He is just sticking it to a dying man for the fun of it.

[karynnj]

32. They really do have few Republicans

None in DC, 5 out of 40 in the State Senate and 10 out of 160 in the state legislature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_General_Court

[Frisbee]

28. "it should be principled"

I'm SHOCKED! I had absolutely no idea the word principled was even in the republican's vocabulary! I wonder if they actually know the meaning of the word?

[Igel]

46. The question isn't, Do they?

The question is, Do we? In any more than a purely formal, abstract sense.

The answer seems to be that "we" have about as much a handle on the idea as "they" do.

[cascadiance]

30. If they want"principles", then they should have Ensign, Vitter, and Craig ALL resign!

Otherwise Rethuglicans, Shut the F' UP!!!

[Arkana]

31. There's approximately 6 Republicans in the entire MA state legislature.

If Deval Patrick wants this to happen, it will happen.

[No Elephants]

38. If Kennedy wants this, the Mass Legislature would override Patrick's veto. They love Kennedy more

than they love Patrick. (So do I.)

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Dumak]

34. They should change the law

so that the senator themself can appoint their own successor, to complete the term.

[No Elephants]

41. That would violate the United States Constitution. Please also see Reply 37

because I made a mistake in my earlier posts.

[Dumak]

47. Wow, looks like you are right about that

I wonder what knuckleheads wrote up that amendment (XVII). It does make it clear that the state legislatures can add/remove the temporary appointment power of the governor at will.

[No Elephants]

55. Yep. And what would make a state legislature make changes like that--

bearing in mind that taking away the Governor's power deprives a state of a U.S. Senator?


Politics, as when an overwhelmingly Democratic state has an overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature and two Democratic Senators, but a Republican Governor. .

[GodlyDemocrat]

54. Possibly not, see Wyoming's succession law

The Governor must appoint a person of the same political party as the outgoing Senator.

[No Elephants]

56. Does not alter what has already been said, but confirms it. The

Constitutional Amendment empowers the Legislature to make those kinds of political decisions at will.

Bear in mind too, that the Wisconsin lagislature that made that law can, of course, repeal or amend it at any time.

Another issue: I wonder if the Wisconsin law could be challenged under the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution gives Legislatures certain options, but that is not one of them. Of course, the Constitution does not prohibitt that option, either. So, if, say, the Governor of Wisconsin or the U.S. Senate were to challenge the law, it would be a very interesting case.

[Yupster]

72. That sounds like how Ted got the seat in the first place

It worked out fine that time I guess.

[One_Life_To_Give]

35. As predicted when the Law was last changed

For all the talk about supporting the "Will of the People" when it was changed before. As the political pundits in MA predicted. It was complete BS then. This is about sacrificing any principal just to maintain power. Suppose there is any connection with our string of Indicted Speakers?

[No Elephants]

43. Please see Reply ##s 37 and 40.

Pundits with whom we agree on an issue tend to do brilliant analysis on every issue. Pundits with whom we disagree on an issue are assholes, at least as to that issue, So, pundits don't impress me much. They are not oracles, just people lucky enough to ge paid to bloviate. DUers do that for free. In fact, they donate for the privilege.

And no this is not about sacrificing principal to maintain power. It's about giving Massachusetts two Senators until a special election, rather than having the seat remain vacant until a special election.

I have no clue where people are getting stuff like maintaining power, when Kennedy is a Democrat, the Governor is a Democcrat, the Legislature is almost 100% Democrat and has been for as long as I can remember. No matter what happens, power would not shift.

Meanwhile, the Republican is trying o make political hay on Kennedy's cancer. He knows he cannot affect anything within the state. He can only make a dying Kennedy feel bad that he needs to resign while the "cause of his life" is pending, yet the turd's going for that full bore.

No problem with that?

Even if this turd won his point, which is impossible, the only thing that would happen is that the seat would remain vacant until a special election, leaving Massachusetts with only one Senator during the most important legislation for the nation and its people since 1984.

No problem with that?

I also no connecction between Kennedy's heartbreaking request, made due to his cancer and his concern for health care reform, and Speakers of the Massachusetts State Legislature taking bribes. Jeebus!

[intheflow]

36. I think the law needs to be changed apart from Kennedy's medical condition.

Because, really, what's to stop any of these wackos from gunning down both Mass Dem senators to delay for 5 months or otherwise impede any given vote on state or national issues? I don't get the lag time to begin with.

[hack89]

51. What stops them from gunning down the senators

so a Republican governor can appoint Republican replacements?

Since every state has similar laws, can you show any historical precendent to show that this is nothing more than mindless hyperbole?

[No Elephants]

57. Point is, the climate is changing. What precedent was there a month ago

for people showing up to a Presidential event prominently displaying firearms and displaying signs about its being time to water the tree of liberty with blood? A few years ago, when showing up with an anti Bush T shirt got people arrested, that may have seemed like mindless hyperbole too.

But assassinations for political reasons are not mindless hypberbole. They've happened. See also The Pelican brief. The possibility of a terrorist attack on the capitol building in D. C. is not mindless hyperbole, either. What difference does it make how people might die? Point is, two Senators could die at or near the same time, leaving a state with none. Or is the issue that caused you to insult the poster the fact that she spoke of Republican assassins, as opposed to simply assassins? Or maybe that the post referred to a shooting, rather than, say, a stabbing?

And you have made about four total misstatements about Kennedy's request, including that it would deprive the people of a say, yet no one called you mindless or, so far, attributed any evil motive to your misstatements.

Bottom line: It's better, for all kinds of reasons, to have a procedure to fill a U.S. Senare seat rapidly and hold a speedy special election, as Kennedy is requesting, than either to allow the Governor to fill the seat until the next regular election, which could be a full six years away (pre-Romney Mass. law) or to have the seat vacant for 145 to 160 days (current Mass. law).

Kennedy is asking for the best and most democratic (with a small d) alternative allowed by the U.S. Constitution, yet you are adamantly opposing it.

Interesting posts of yours on this thread, Hack89. A tad one-sided, but interesting. Also interesting to which posts you haven't chosen to respond.

[hack89]

63. Fortunately the Democratic leadership in Mass seems to agree with me

so I guess it is a moot point.

Was the rule change preventing Romney from appointing Kerry's successor the "best and most democratic (with a small d) alternative" or was it partisan politics? Does "best and most democratic (with a small d) alternative" change based on how it benefit those in power?

I will ignore your personal attacks - don't feel like jumping in the mud pit at the moment.

[No Elephants]

71. The leadership of Mass will do whatever it thinks is best for Sen. Kennedy, whether it

agrees with the Jones turd or not.

As to the 2004 change in law being democratic, we've been over this. Special election in both cases.

As to it being the best, ask the 17th Amendment to the Constitution of the US which is best and it will give this answer: "Whichever of the two the State Legislature thinks is best at any given moment." I may prefer what Kennedy wants, as may current scholars. However, that is not what the Constitution says.

As to partisanhip on the part of the Legislature in filling Senate seats, that is exactly what the Constitution contemplates ad always has. Please see Reply 65.

As for personal attacks on you, I never made any. I never called you fat, or ugly or evil or anything of the kind. I commented on, and asked questions about, the content of your posts, period. That's what happens when you post on messaage board. People comment on the content of your posts.

And, my comments and questions all boil down to my finding your posts one-sided. Not close to personal. Calling your posts mindless, as you did to another poster, would still have been a comment on your posts, but would have been a lot closer to personal. However, I did not post anything like that. Only you did.

[steven johnson]

44. We all know the republican philosophy

[No Elephants]

50. All your images are belong to us.

I especially love the elephant of no. I'm stealing it. Don't try to stop me.

[Vidar]

52. To hell with them!

[GodlyDemocrat]

53. Changing succession law just to fit political conveniences is wrong, I don't care which party

In 2004, the Democratic legislature voted to strip the governor (then Mitt Romney) of his appointment powers because John Kerry would have vacated his seat if he became President. Now, Mitt Romney is no longer Governor, so why not give the appointment power back to the Governor? I'm not saying this is not legal, but this is politics at its worst and we'd be pissed if a heavily Republican state engaged in the same behavior (see Tom DeLay and Texas).

[No Elephants]

58. Strongly disagree. To review. Pre-Romney, the law was

Strongly disagree. MAYBE what was done re: Romney was wrong, but what Kennedy is asking
Message:
is not only right, but critically necessary.

that the Governor would appoint the replacement until the next regular election, ala Blago and Burris--the most undemocratic possibility of the several allowed by the U.S. Constitution.

During Romeny's term, the rule was changed to leave the seat empty until a special election, which must be held within 145 to 160 days. Much more Democratic, but perhaps not the very best thing for the state to have only one Senator for up to 160 days, or about 5 months.

Kennedy is asking that the Governor fill the seat during the approx. 5 months until the next special election can be held, the only option allowed by the U.S. Constitution that gives the people the power, but also gives them two Senators at all times.

IF what was done during the days of Romney was wrong, it's unfixable. We cannot turn back the clock to the days of Romney. That is not a reason to forego doing what is right and critical today, which is what Kennedy is asking. If anyone is wrong today, it's the Republican turd.

Please see also replies 37, 40 43 and 47.


I'd love to hear an explanation from ANYone of why leaving a Senate seat empty for about 5 months is better than giving the state two Senators during that 5 month period. Or why giving the Governor the power to appoint a replacement for up to six years is better than giving that power to the people within about 5 months.

[GodlyDemocrat]

61. How's this as a solution

1. Issue some sort of mea culpa about the way the law was changed in 2004. Maybe not an actual apology, but maybe say that the Republican leader's proposal in 2004 was right. I believe this is necessary not to burn bridges between the two state parties, even if the Democrats currently have a veto proof majority in Massachusetts. One reason that the Republicans in Texas used to justify what they did in regards to redistricting in 2003 was that Democrats did the same thing in 1991. Were they grasping at straws? I don't know, but I do know that if state parties feel they cannot trust each other (on a personal level), the parties tend to play games against each other that eventually just hurt the state.

2. Then pass a law on succession calling for a temporary appointment by the governor with an election in 160 days with some sort of assurance, and I don't know how you do this, that this is the final change to the succession law.

[No Elephants]

65. How is what a solution to what?

Also no clue what you mean by a Republican leader's proposal in 2004.

Also have no idea why an apology for would be in order. The idea that state legislatures are not supposed to make political decisions about Senate seats--only the Governor should--is quite contrary to our history and the history of what the Constitution has said about this issue between 1789 and today.

Originally, State Legislatures chose Senators, period. The people did not. You can bet that the original intent of the Founders was that Legislatures choose the guy they wanted in the job, not the one the Governor or even the people wanted.

The COTUS was changed on this pointt in 1913, only because seats were staying vacant too long, often because legislators were fighting among themselves AND this problem had persisted for about 60 years. Hence, the Amendment gave the State Legislature, and only the State Legislature, the power to decide leave the seat vacant until a special election was held, or to give the Governor the power to fill it until the special election was held.

People who adopted the Constitution in 1789 and people who adopted the 1913 amendment were all very well aware that State Legislatures would make politically motivated decisons about filling a Senate seat--as would a Governor, for that matter. But, the Amendment to the COTUS still left it up to the State Legislature to decide. And, everyone knows decisons of State legislatures are not cast in stone. They get amended, repealed and replaced at the whim of the Legislature.

Yet, the Amendment to he COTUS did not say "Once you make your first politically motivated choice, State Legislaure, you cannot change it whenever you have another political motivation." Neither does the Massachusettts State Consitution. No clue why, under those circumstances, an apology is required. The Legislature did what it has the power to do and what the people of the US and of Massachusetts all wanted it to have the power to do from 1789 until now--make politically motivated decisions about filling vacant Senate seats.

Should it be different? Maybe. Feingold has filed a bill for a Constitutional Amendment to amend Amendment XXVII. Not adopted yet, though (and probably will never make it out of Congress alive).

Democrats don't only have a veto proof majority in Massachusetts now. They have almost 100% of the state legislature and have had it for as long as I can remember. That's a pretty strong indication of the will of the people of Massachusetts.

The law you suggest is exactly what Kennedy has asked for.

If and when Republicans ever get a majority, I fully expect Republicans to do the same and more, no matter what Democrats do or don't do. Your post suggests that the risk is greater unless Democrats act like apolitical saints. I've never known that to be true and therefore don't believe it.

For example, I don't know of a Democrat in Massachusetts or anyone else who would pick on this impeccable suggestion of a dying Kennedy for no practical reason whatever, beyond perhaps making Kennedy feel even worse about his incapacity than he already does, yet this Massachusetts Repblican turd did not hesitate.

Is that because someone did something similar to him in the past? No? Is it because Kennedy's suggestion is not better for the nation and for the state than seat that stays vacant for about 5 months? No. Is this turd's comments anything but inhumane and poalitically motivated? No? Where are the calls from DU for HIS apology?

[GodlyDemocrat]

69. A solution to the current situation in Massachusetts

I was referring to the House Republican minority leader's proposal.

Your other points are well-taken and valid. I would disagree that blatant partisan moves (FDR's court packing for example, the nuclear option, Texas redistricting) don't have future political consequences, but your point specifically "Your post suggests that the risk is greater unless Democrats act like apolitical saints. I've never known that to be true and therefore don't believe it." has logical merit, I'll concede.

[No Elephants]

77. Sorry, you are not being specific enough for me. I am still not understanding your point.

BTW, I don't think I said that partisan moves don't have future political consequences. However, (A) Republicans are not likely to get control of the Masschusetts state legislaure for a good while; and (B) as I said, these days, they do bad no matter how good anyone has been.

And not only these days. We have yet to see a Democrat engineer a break in to someone's physician's office to get evidence on an enemy, as Nixon's crew did, or jam phones at Republican headquarters on election day, or send emails showing the head of their party eating watermelon, etc. Yet, the dirty tricks and other crap from their side never seems to end.

If you expect crap from them, no matter what you do or don't do, that kind of takes the fear out of things. "Freedom's just another word for nuthin' left to lose."

Besides, what Kennedy is suggesting now is not blindly partisan. It is something good for the state and the nation, not something that is blindly partisan. Again, if 2004 was blindly partisan, that is no reason not to do a good thing for the people of Massachusetts and the country now.

While the Constitution permits both current law and what Kennedy wants, my opinion and that of scholars, is that a seat should not remain vacant for five months. The State and the nation both deserve a full complement of Senators, which was the reason for the 17th Amendment to the COTUS to begin with. (Without the 17th Amendment, the Legislature would just pick the replacemet, but they were taking too long and therefore seats were remaining vacant too long). And you can bet your bottom dollar that the picks of the Legislature before the 17h amendment were mostly, if not all, "blindly partisan."

[Gormy Cuss]

64. The law enacted to prevent Romney from appointing Kerry's successor was wrong.

That the senate seat would be left empty for months was a known consequence of the revision under Romney. It's biting the Democrat in the backside now with Kennedy so ill.

Changing the law under Romney and trying to change it back now because it's safe for Democrats is SOP for Massachusetts party politics.

As for why one version is better than the other, when a governor is allowed to appoint a successor for the remainder of the term the people get immediate representation in Congress and the party holding the governnor's seat gets the chance to create an incumbent for the next election. That appointee may not have stood a chance in an open election but once ensconced in the Senate is much more likely to be elected to the next term. There's also the matter of cost: special elections are enormously inefficient because the entire voting mechanism must be put in place for one race. Special elections also tend to have lower voter turnouts and that means that a disproportionate number of voters are seniors or staunch supporters of one candidate.

When the seat remains vacant for a few months the people have the opportunity for direct democracy in determining the holder of the seat for the rest of the term and in all likelihood for several terms if it's a Dem. The trade off is a few months and perhaps a few key votes where the state has only half the normal representation.

Me, if I still lived in the Bay State I'd want the gap for a few months and an open election.

[No Elephants]

66. How is legislating as the Constituion of the United States specifies wrong, Gromy?

Please see Reply 65.

If those who adopted the Constitution of the United States did not want the legislature to have the option to leave the seat vacant--and also to change its mind from to time, it would not read the way it does.

Besides, what you think is the preferable choice is exactly what Kennedy is asking for.

So, what do you see as the action item about 2004? We can't go back in time, even if that were desirable. Since we can't go back in time, what is there to do besides adopt what Kennedy is asking for?

BTW, if you think Massachusetts state politics is bad, stay out of a lot of other states. They make Massachusetts look like kindergarten.

A lot of Rethugs like to bash Massachusetts because it is so consistently and overwhelmingly Democratic. Didn't expect it at DU, though.

[Gormy Cuss]

67. It's sleazy and slimy which is different from being legally "wrong."

I'm not advocating anything since I no longer vote in the Bay State, but if I were there I'd go with the current law because it strikes me as better for the people to allow direct democracy in the case of selection of a new senator.


eta: In my long tenure in MA I voted against Democrats only a handful of times and in each case it was because the Democratic candidate struck me as an egotist, sleazy, or ill equipped to do the job but connected to the party machinery. I lived in the 8th CD when Tip stepped down and remember clearly that the discussion on replacement was pretty much limited to which Kennedy would get the job. Ted Jr. didn't want to run and that's how we ended up with Joe II -- and IIRC he had to buy a house in the district in order to run.

[No Elephants]

68. Sorry, something is not sleazy because you think it is. This is the Constitution of the United

States we are talking about, not some local zoning law some developer rammed through with a bribe.

You are also mistaken about the current law vs. what Kennedy is requesting. In both cases, there is a special election within about 5 months. So, its not about the people choosing.

The only difference between current law and what Senator Kennedy is asking is whether the seat stays vacant during that five months or is filled during that five months. Kennedy is saying, don't leave it vacant for five months.

Maybe you should just read the thread?

[Gormy Cuss]

70. That's utterly laughable. If I think it's sleazy, then it is.

I made the point of differentiating my opinion from a legal wrong.

When describing the difference between governor appointments and elections I wasn't quoting Massachusetts law --- I was answering your seemingly generic question about tradeoffs. However, some of my point about incumbency is directly relevant. Appointing an interim senator extols the incumbent benefit. That would work well for someone like his wife who has no elected experience.

And by the way, I have read all of your posts on the thread. I just don't share the same POV.


eta: Do you live in MA?

[No Elephants]

74. No, if you think something is sleazy, that's your opinion, not a fact. Nothing laughable

about that.

If you think the Constitution is sleazy on this point, then it is--but only in your own mind.

[Gormy Cuss]

80. Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said. It's sleazy IMO.

Contrary to your obtuse interpretation I never commented on its constitutional merit.

[ItNerd4life]

59. Don't be silly. It's only wrong if Republicans do it.

Sadley, many Democrats think Democrats can do whatever they want.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[excess_3]

73. how do we know these proposed changes, are really EMK's wishes? nt

[No Elephants]

75. He sent a letter to Governor Patrick. It's online somewhere, if your're interested.

[excess_3]

76. you know this how?

can he still talk?
or he made his wishes know when he could?

[No Elephants]

78. Don't know about talking, but you don't have to be able to talk to write a letter.

IIRC, the letter is handwritten, but I can't swear to it. It's certainly signed.

Did you try to find it online? That's where I read it.

[excess_3]

79. agree, sort of

I am rather $u$piciou$ of deathbed change$ to ...
will$,
and everything el$e.

I under$tand why Gov. Blagojevich
want$ thi$, BTW.