NBC Reporting Sen. Kennedy trying to get MA law changed so Gov appoints

Motown_Johnny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 06:08 AM
Original message

NBC Reporting Sen. Kennedy trying to get MA law changed so Gov appoints

someone to hold Senate seat until special election can be held.

not many details except he seems to want that there are 60 Dem senators able to vote on health care instead of having his seat not have a vote

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Motown_Johnny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 06:15 AM
Response to Original message

1. story about to be covered on MSNBC now.. after the break

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 06:15 AM
Response to Original message

2. The details are the law was passed when Romney was Governor

so he could not appoint a Senator if Kerry won the 2004 election.

Love Ted, but totally against this idea.

Local news said he wrote the letter a month ago and sent it privately this week to Deval Patrick and a few other leaders.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Motown_Johnny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 06:21 AM
Response to Reply #2

4. thanks for that... this is just for an interim senator until the special election can be held

why against that idea?

Why should MA only have one vote for 5 months?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #4

8. Because I was pleased that the Dem legislature passed the law

when a Repub Gov was in office and it would be hypocritical to want the law changed because now the Governor is a Dem.

I would prefer to vote for my Senator rather than have him/her selected by a politician.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #8

12. But if the will of the people is that in one case they want no gap in representation

because so much is at stake, and in the other case the people accept a gap because nothng is lost, then isn't that democracy at work?

Either way, it is Mass voters' reps -- the legislature--who are making the decision, and that is democracy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #12

16. I did not say that it was not democracy to change the law yet again,

but it would not go over well with the MA voters. It is too transparently partisan and right now MA voters are not too happy with either the leg or the gov.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #16

19. I'm not saying that you said it was undemocratic

I'm saying that if it's the result of the legislative process (and if the leg will pay if they make a bad choice) then it is a redult of a democratic process.

Also, if the goal of this is to wrest power from corporations, it's really democratic!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #8

13. You still would vote for your Senator

You would just have a placeholder for 5 months.

I do see that there is hypocrisy, as, of course, that could have been done in the original bill - but wasn't because the legislature didn't want a Republican appointed - even for 5 months.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #13

14. Yes eventually I would vote for who would be my Senator but

for 5 months there would be someone in place who I did not vote for that had a leg up over anyone else who wanted the seat.

I am not in favor of that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #14

18. Good point, unless they can legally require the caretaker to

renounce in a legally binding way running in the special election. This would mean selecting someone who either is retired, self employed, or who could get a 5 month leave of absence from their current job. It is hard to think of people fitting that description.

Given the issues we face now, maybe a health care policy specialist, who would be useful as the junior most member of the HELP committee?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 11:10 AM
Response to Reply #18

25. It would be interesting, there have been some names floated

but none that I know of who are interested in a 5 month stint.

I think we are losing a congressional seat so that ups the interest level too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #25

26. What names were floated? Are they ones unlikely to run in the special election?

It will be interesting to see how many people run in the special election.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Motown_Johnny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #25

27. I think Caroline would be a great choice for the 5 month stint and Ted's son to run for the seat

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #27

28. Hmmm, the seat isn't owned by the Kennedy's. Caroline is in NY anyway

and Patrick RI, Edward Jr - CT, I think

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

BolivarianHero

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #8

22. heh...

But here's the difference. Mitt the Mor(m)on would have appointed a Republican Senator to an overwhelmingly Denmocratic state. The Democratic legislature was just using their law-making powers to prevnt Mittens from using his executive powers to subvert the will of the people. Think MA will elect a GOP senator any time soon?

That said, I do believe states ought to have interim senators so as to ensure that they are fairly represented at the federal table.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

karynnj

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #2

11. Why are you against it - under what he is asking, there would still be a special election

The difference is that the seat would be filled for the 5 months or so needed to have the special election. Especially if they constrain the appointee from running in the special election, it simply keeps MA represented.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

malaise

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 06:19 AM
Response to Original message

3. I love Teddy Kennedy n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Obamanaut

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 06:22 AM
Response to Original message

5. What was his position when it was changed FROM this procedure?

Is this one of those "I was for it before I was against it" stances?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

eShirl

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #5

6. why would he ever have been for it?

doesn't make sense

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #6

9. Because Romney was the Governor and it was passed when Kerrry

ran for President so that Romney could not fill Kerry's seat if he won.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

angstlessk

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #9

15. hey, if power is not wielded when you have it you WILL lose it!

sorry if it appears hypocritical to you, to me it makes sense that those in power have control of the levers of power. We did not like the way tom delay worked the house, but we sure to HELL wish Nancy Pelosi would work more like he did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #15

17. Sure, if Obama can continue Bush/Cheney policies by claiming

state secrets, executive privilege, signing statements etc., why not do it? After all it's all about the power - not about what is right or wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

WeDidIt

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #5

7. This law probably dates back to the late 19th century n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 07:16 AM
Response to Reply #7

10. Nope 2004. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Statistical

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 08:38 AM
Response to Original message

20. Against it. The people of MA obviously didn't like that the gov would apoint senator in 2004.

They passed a law that limited the power of a GOP govenor.

Now the Governor plays for the right team and Kennedy wants to undo it.

So short sighted. What if the GOP wins back the gov in 2010/2012?

Will they pass another law undoing the undo?

When is passes back into Dem control will the undo the undoing of the undo?

Why not cut to the chase and say "Only Governors who are a part of the Democratic party" can appoint a replacement"?

So blatantly partisan. The law has only been on the books 5 years and the first time it would limit the power of Democrats they want to scrap it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Motown_Johnny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #20

21. what if the interim senator was not able to run for the seat? just a placeholder

so that in the special election there was no incumbent

would that seem more fair

not that I don't see your point about passing a law just because there was a puke as gov.. and then changing your mind when you get a dem in office

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Statistical

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #21

24. I still think it looks a little hypocritical but with that safeguard I think it would be ok.

The implications of being without representation couldn't come at a worse time.
If Kennedy were to leave office it might even result in a delay of a vote for 6 months until replacement is sworn in.
That wouldn't be to anyone benefit and ultimately wouldn't change the vote just delay it.

Hopefully that will be the last time that law is changed.

Then again I don't live in MA so it doesn't really matter what I think. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Motown_Johnny

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 09:25 AM
Response to Original message

23. why would anyone unrec this? it was just a heads up about some news

I wouldn't rec it either... but why unrec it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

seaglass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #23

29. some people are just grumpy.

:-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

SoCalDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Aug-20-09 03:12 PM
Response to Original message

30. It's too bad there cannot be a universal approach to this inevitability

that removes crass politics from the mix. I don't like the idea of ANY governor appointing a senator.

I would actually prefer that there be an election held within 60 days (It could be done), and during the 60 days, the "measuring point" of the senate would just drop to the actual number.. 99 instead of 100..with 50 being the majority number, instead of 51.

OR

why not elevate the highest ranking house-member of the "leaving" senator's party & state, as a "filler", until a regular election?

That actually makes some sense, since they would already be up to speed on the pending legislation, have a staff at the ready and their own political base.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:37 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.