If Kennedy resigned, would the situation change?

Or is Massachusetts screwed regardless of how Teddy might leave office early?

damned cold.

"screwed regardless of how Teddy might leave office early.." Cold, callous, and disgusting....

The OP was reasonable, not at all snarky.

You're 'way off on this one, I think. And you didn't answer the question...................

I happen to care deeply for Ted Kennedy and his family.... I'm not ready to bury him just yet, thank you very much. And YES, the OP was snarky--not the subject line but the message itself. The question could have been asked with some minimal level of sensitivity--which would have deserved an answer.

that's why I didn't answer it.

Your dedication is duly noted, and I'm sure Senator Kennedy would have been as appalled as I was by the tone of your post.

The question was fine. Your response was not...............................

who cares about Senator Kennedy. There are other people who share your sentiments.

But, your affection for him is no excuse for rudeness. I'm sure Senator Kennedy would agree.......................

and I will not be responding to you again.

and I have addressed your tone, not you personally. You, however, have been neither.

That's unfortunate. Not worthy of what Senator Kennedy would consider good sportsmanship, I suspect, but we all deal with things our own way.

And, since I guess you didn't know the answer to the question posted in the OP, a good DUer had the answer below.

So, the OP got the answer s/he was seeking. That's good.

Take care..............

as others have pointed out as well.

I have been respectful, and I've also made room for your feelings, such as you are experiencing them.

It is hardly disrespectful to point out that you are not the only person who has great affection for the Kennedys.

I thought you weren't going to respond to me anymore.

I'm glad you're feeling so spunky...............

news mouth pieces are openly saying the d word, I cannot believe them, no respect, absolutely none, and like you, I fail to see how discussing someone's death before they are even gone is considered acceptable...somestimes I think people fail to realize that famous people and their families are in no way different from you or I, we don't wish to see our loved ones gone nor is it easy to accept even if that person has a serious illness.

when my father in law was told he had only six months, not once in those last five months did any of us mention in front of him what life would be like when he was gone or speculated when exactly the time would be...

there are many family members I am sure who don't wish to have to think about it regardless of how sick Sen Kennedy might be at the moment.hopefully they are not watching the media for the media has no ethics left.....like many of us, the family continue to live as best they can and always hopeful and thankful for each new day that everyone remains together without having to discuss constantly the what ifs and whens..

that Senator Kennedy himself is directly addressing the issue?

That's precisely why he wrote the letter that's the topic here. That's him speaking of his own death. That's a courageous man trying to take care of his party and his constituents and the matter he cares about so very much.

I think it's all right to be honest about reality, especially since Senator Kennedy is leading the way.

If someone, though, is unable to face the conclusion of this ongoing tragedy, it's best to be gentle with them. No need to get angry at anyone because they perceive something differently. No one is disrespecting Senator Kennedy by speaking openly and honestly.

After all, he wrote that letter..............................

was asked. Yes, we all know Ted Kennedy is doing the honorable thing addressing the issue. It is the cold, callous, disrespectful way the question was asked.

I wasn't addressing you in this sub-thread, so you just jumped in.

I should think you'd be the last person to be addressing someone's tone - which, incidentally, I found perfectly fine.

It's a matter of perception, I suppose, which is what makes us humans so interesting.

Now, I hope you can calm down and relax. The answer to the question was very interesting, by the way. I didn't know that that was how Massachusetts does it...............................

YOU just jumped in. Apparently you have a need to do so, which while inexplicable, is no longer welcome. Feel free to put me on your ignore list.

I began this sub-thread because of your snarkiness.

Fortunately, the question asked in the OP was answered, and the rest now, well, yeah, I'm just playing with my food.............

and you certainly fit the bill.

you just keep insulting me, or trying to. I'm sure you're really nicer than that.

It's unfortunate that you have to do that.

But, I hope you'll feel better soon, I really do.............................

one

He's a public figure, and we have leave to say whatever we want about him and his condition.

Deification is hardly a Democratic value, nor is it an American one.

And I am sure Senator Kennedy would agree with me...............................

for myself I never really idolized people in the limelight I of course highly admire a few, but admiring and idolizing are very very different, I see them as no different from myself and so in that respect, I would believe that as all humans do regardless of place of birth and or levels of familiarity and even class wise we do in essence share the same wants and needs in life not just bleeding red blood, so for me and mine, I would not like the way all this is being handles in the limelight.

lived in te spotlight.

So they understand and deal with it differently from how you do, since it's quite normal for them................

You sound like you know someone from the family personally.

If you don't, though, that's an interesting assumption to make. The people I know who live in the public eye just roll with it and don't especially give it a second thought, except when they want to exploit it for professional reasons.

And I'm not talking about paparazzi. Just being public figures..........................

jeezus....

you should get accused of being a troll.

So, quit making sense, dammit.

And welcome to DU........................

and that has nothing to do with this thread...

it's always entertaining, though, to watch the Mother Superiors trying to sniff around, rules in hand............................................

such needed handling differently

and I do hope all is well with yours.

It's just that the idea of censoring people from saying anything about the fact that Senator Kennedy is dying is ridiculous.

That's all.....................

In 2004, the MA Congress changed the way MA chooses its senators when one steps our of office early (either because he resigns or dies or is otherwise impeached).

Now, an special election must be held in the following FIVE MONTHS.

The news today was that Senator Kennedy asked the Governor and the head of the MA House and Senate to change the system so that somebody would be in place immediately until the special election is held. (a lot of noise from the GOP as you can imagine).

So, the answer is NO. As long as the system is not changed, it does not matter whether Kennedy resigns or not.

it seems that way under the text of the law:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/54-140.htm

Section 140. (a) Upon failure to choose a senator or representative in congress or upon creation of a vacancy in that office, the governor shall immediately cause precepts to be issued to the aldermen in every city and the selectmen in every town in the district, directing them to call an election on the day appointed in the precepts for the election of such senator or representative. The day so appointed shall not be more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created or a failure to choose occurs. Filing a letter of resignation creates a vacancy under this section, even if the resignation is not effective until some later time, but the date of the election to fill a vacancy under this section shall be after the resignation is effective.

When this was voted, everybody knew this is a problem with the law.

Now, we have an important vote in the Senate that may come in a couple of months (or a series of them), and it seems unlikely that he goes there and vote (consider he did not go to his sister's funeral that was may be 50 miles from his home). MA has had one vote in the Senate for nearly one year now, and even if he resigned tomorrow, it would still be with 1 senatorial vote for 5 more months, even if his staff continues to work for the state).

Unless I'm misinterpreting something, it seems guaranteed to leave MA short a senator for a long time. Where can I find some background on this?

Too clever.

---

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/07/31/romney_veto_overridden/

Romney veto overridden - Governor can no longer fill vacancies in the US Senate
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff | July 31, 2004

In a pair of votes that lacked suspense but not passion, Beacon Hill Democrats yesterday stripped Governor Mitt Romney of his power to choose a replacement for Senator John F. Kerry if the newly-minted Democratic presidential nominee wins the White House.

The vote on the bill, which would establish a special election to fill the Senate vacancy, ends more than six months of wrangling, arguing, and maneuvering over the issue. A number of ambitious Massachusetts Democrats are eager to run for the post if it becomes open, and national Democratic leaders believe that the seat could make a difference in their drive to reclaim the Senate.

As much as I despise Willard Romney, its not really rational to be changing laws every time there's a different governor in office, is it?

Another reason why sitting Senators shouldn't run for President in the first place, but that's a whole thread in and of itself, and not directly relevant to Teddy's situation.

But it would be somewhat lacking in principle.

Not that that would stop your average state legislature.

if someone doesn't live in Massachusetts, they are expected to know the minutiae of Senator selection?

Really?

Your subject line is oddly snarky, and strangely provincial. I live in Virginia, and I don't know what happens if a Senator dies or quits or is impeached. I doubt you do, either. So why land on the poster?

Something in the air here tonight.

So Senator Kennedy wants the system changed. I wish it could be, so as to protect it for the Democrats, but it's not going to happen, I suspect. Good of him to give it a try, though, bless his heart......................................

often with about as much sensitivity as the OP had.

But thanks for being the snark police.

here in the metropolitan DC area.

You do know that that's your local news, not national news.

So why be so snarky because someone isn't conversant with Massachusetts politics?

Man, there really must be something in the water, or something.

Full moon?

but I miss lots of things since I don't watch CNN, and only KO and Rachel for their programs on MSNBC.

I get my news from other sources.

Kind of strange that you're so aggressive in defending a rather provincial bit of political trivia.

So, really, yeah, it was your local news, not ours...................................

thanks for the laughs.........................

Probably not a bad idea, since it is very likely going to be the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Reform Act by the time it is voted on.

You just might have uttered something that some people are going to go ballistic over, so, if that happens, come over here and hide behind my big Southern hoop skirt.................

but judging by the thread, you may wish to take cover behind my dune.

By now we would have his replacement in place, and he could have had a lot of say in just who replaced him.

I'd actually like to see an amendment that universalized the process:

when senators retire/die in office, the ranking congressperson of their party should be the "designated place holder" until the next election cycle. They could then decide whether to re-run for their old congressional seat, or for the senate seat. That would give people lots of time to prepare, and would not cost the states extra, and would leave governors OUT OF IT.

They are already IN DC,. they have a staff in place, and they know the legislative details of bills before congress. there is no time wasted , getting them up to speed..

Ted is handling his own demise with dignity and responsibility. That is so cool and and such a fine example. Even in death, Ted will show us the way. What a way to go? How cool is that?

as a devout Roman Catholic, he honestly believes that his greater reward will come after death. That gifts him with a certain amount of fearlessness, and his honesty and dignity are a lesson for us all.

He's the Lion of the Senate, and a gentleman who has lived a remarkable, complicated, astonishing, and accomplished life.

I sometimes wonder if he ever really wanted any of this, or had it all thrust upon him. In any event, he's a wonderful man..........

No Republican appointee has a chance of retaining that seat, especially if there would have a special election in 120 days.