Congratulation Massachusetts... for acting quickly to fill Senator Kennedy's seat

[scheming daemons]

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0909/patrick_makes_his_pick_78d9cfcd-2e90-4829-9059-8c6da57e6e5a.html


Now.... swear Senator Kirk in quickly, keep Senator Byrd healthy, and let's pass health care reform!

[appamado amata padam]

1. go go go

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. It's really been vacant for months

Kennedy has been too sick to show up to vote. If he had resigned months ago this would have been resolved and MA would have had two Senators representing them.

[Hippo_Tron]

3. And I'm sure the good people of Massachusetts share your concern

:eyes:

Stay classy Freddie, stay classy...

[karynnj]

5. Judging by the memorial service, I think MA competely felt that they had 2 Senators

representing them. Kennedy continued to work on the healthcare bill in HELP, which likely benefited from his work. In addition, the office was able to do all the things that a Senate office did for constituents. Kennedy did make the big votes where his vote was needed. The fact is that had he resigned, this gap would simply have occurred earlier.

[Kingofalldems]

17. Now that's no way for a great Democrat such as yourself

to respond.

[blondeatlast]

20. (facepalm) nt

[HughMoran]

33. How to make friends and influence people

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

4. Yay! Good thing politicians found a way to avoid all that messy voting and "we the people" stuff!

[scheming daemons]

6. Didn't avoid anything at all...

There will be an election on January 19th.

Mr. Kirk will not be running in that election.


The constitution says that states have a right to fill their Senate vacancies in any manner that they choose between scheduled elections.



Instead of being snarky and uninformed... perhaps you should try reading the constitution and understanding the law.

[Bill McBlueState]

24. "states have a right to fill their Senate vacancies in any manner that they choose"

Russ Feingold has proposed an amendment that would solve this problem:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/401612

[seaglass]

7. No kidding - right now I am disgusted with the MA Legislature and Deval Patrick.

The last poll that I saw, MA residents opposed the Governor choosing an interim Senator and preferred to vote one in.

I am not happy about this power play AT ALL.

[scheming daemons]

8. They *ARE* going to vote one in..... on January 19th....

Kirk is only serving until then.

[seaglass]

9. I'm from MA., I know that eventually we will be allowed to vote. n/t

[HughMoran]

32. Eventually my ass - you know the date

:eyes:

[Statistical]

10. Because the executive can only do what the legislative allows it to do.

That is how independent branches and separation of powers works?

[HughMoran]

31. He's only in to vote on OUR healthcare reform and he CAN'T run!!

Thanks for the nice Republican viewpoint - we need more of that here :eyes:

[dflprincess]

11. In many states, the governor gets to appoint an interim Senator

and that senate seat doesn't get voted on until the next general election.

When Walter Mondale was elected vice president in 1976 and resigned his senate seat, an interim senator was appointed and we didn't get to vote on that seat until November 1978. What happened here is, the governor, Wendell Anderson, resigned so the Lt. Gov (Rudy Perpich), once he was sworn in as governor, could appoint Anderson to the senate seat. This so disgusted the voters that in November 1978 Anderson was thrown out and Rudy Boschwitz (the guy Wellstone beat - twice) was elected.

Massachusetts' voters get to go to the polls in January and Kirk is not eligible to run. A much better deal than most of us get.

[seaglass]

12. He actually would be eligible to run but he stated today that he would not do so. n/t

[dflprincess]

15. Whoops - I misunderstood what I'd been hearing

I thought the interim candidate would not be eligible. Thanks for the info.

[seaglass]

18. They were trying to get that provision in at one point but I don't

think they could figure it out constitutionally. I'm a cynic, I think they didn't bother because this was a done deal.

[Statistical]

14. The larger issue is that....

in 2004 the legislature voted to REMOVE that power from the executive branch. The only method to replace a Senator was a special election.

They did that because if Kerry won they didn't want Romney to appoint an interim Senator.
MA Governors have had that power since the founding of this country and it was removed in 2004.
The legislature said it was so fundamentally important that the power rest with the people.
Well Kerry wasn't elected so the seat was never vacant. The first time the changed law would ever come into effect..... is today.

The legislature then changes it back and allows an interim Senator. Why? Because now the Governor is "on the right team".

Sorry in my book that is weak. The law isn't suppose to be something trivial you flip on and on when it suits you. It smacks of partisan politics and cronyism.

The executive branch needs to be independent of the legislature. If it isn't why not simply get rid of it and allow the legislature to rule as a house of lords?

[Hippo_Tron]

19. What exactly is wrong with the law being partisan?

Interim senatorial appointments and the laws surrounding them are almost always partisan. In Wyoming they have a law that says the Governor must appoint a Senator of the same party as the person vacating the seat. Now I don't know the history of said law but I would venture a guess that since Wyoming hasn't sent a Democrat to the US Senate since god knows when, the intent of the law was to make sure that the seat always remained in Republican hands.

If Massachusetts doesn't want overtly partisan laws on this subject then they can start electing more Republicans to the legislature. But since they don't and they seem to vote 7 to 3 for pretty much any Democrat on the ballot, there is no reason the Democrats should not take advantage of this to make sure that the seat stays in Democratic hands unless a Republican is actually elected.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

22. It wasn't the law that was partisan......

....it was changing the law back and forth on a political whim that was.

I have no issue with making the law to state (as Wyoming does) that the Senator appointed must be from the departing Senator's party. But don't decide a law suddenly does or doesn't work based on the party of the Governor.

[Statistical]

23. Exactly.

If the law is changed on every whim is makes the legislative less effective.

Even more troublesome is that is the legislature so controls the actions of the governor by changing statutes is the executive branch really independent?

Our system works the best when we have very strong checks & balances.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. Much of executive authority is derived from legislative delegation

States have constitutions that define what the executive's authority is and appointing Senators to vacant seats is apparently not one of them in Massachusetts. Beyond that the legislature can delegate authority to the Governor but they can also take away that authority that they have delegated. Again, I don't see a problem with a legislature taking power from a Governor because they don't like the governor so long as it doesn't violate the constitution. The reality is that we have political parties and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.

[JackRiddler]

16. Your headline is right. And that's wrong.

As you know, in New York recently we were saddled with someone we didn't get to vote for. And that sucked, especially since she will be running as the incumbent in the special election of 2010 and, if she wins, again in the "regular election" of 2012. (Who made up the insane New York law?)

We'll see if Kirk uses his seat to make any endorsements, or otherwise takes advantage of his short stint.

MA had a special elections law. They should have stuck to its letter, rather than inventing a further provision on the fly.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Getting health care passed is more important than consistency in Massachusetts' laws, IMO

[Obamanaut]

13. Mark the calendar so we'll know when to expect the procedure to

change again. The old one only lasted since 2004.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

21. That's like praising an arsonist for putting out the fire he started

They never should have changed the law the first time. Then this would have never been an issue.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Why not?

When you have a 2/3rds Democratic Majority in the legislature and the state votes 7 to 3 Democratic why the hell would you want to risk your Republican Governor potentially appointing a Republican Senator?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

28. Would you feel the same way if it were a GOP legislature......

.....turning on a dime against a Democratic Governor? And back again for a Republican?

The "7 to 3" argument doesn't fly when the Governor is in fact, a member of the other party. Checks and balances......

I'm glad your comfortable with lawmakers playing partisan games with the law as long as it's "your side". I'm not. They almost screwed the people of the Commonwealth this time.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Wyoming has a law that says...

That the senator being appointed must be of the same party as the senator vacating the seat. Given the fact that Wyoming hasn't sent a Democrat to the Senate since god knows when I would imagine such a law was created to make sure that their Senate seats stay in Republican hands.

So yes, quite frankly Republicans do this shit all of the time and we're naive if we don't do it too.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

30. ....and I already stated previously......

....I have no problem with a law written that way, as long as it isn't suddenly tossed out the window and changed the second party demographics in a state shift. If Massachusetts had drafted a law doing the same thing in 2004, stating that Romney, Patrick or ANY governor would HAVE to select someone from the same party as the person vacating, we wouldn't have had to go through this shit now. Because I can tell you, I'm willing to bet quite a bit it will be a long, long time before Massachusetts ever sends another Republican to the US Senate.

It's amazing you can't see the difference between a partisan law that is on the books and adhered to, and a law that is simply discarded or implemented based on whether partisans like or dislike who's in control at the time.