Ed Kennedy wants Gov. to appoint his successor

Puppycow · 25th August 2009, 09:29 PM

Even the New York Times is against this.

Quote:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy has asked the Massachusetts Legislature to change state law to let the governor, currently a fellow Democrat, fill vacant Senate seats. Abandoning the current system, in which voters choose, would be undemocratic, even at the request of such a respected lawmaker.

. . .

Massachusetts governors used to fill Senate vacancies. But in 2004, the Democratic majority in the State Legislature changed the law to require a special election. The leaders were concerned that if Senator John Kerry was elected president, Gov. Mitt Romney would appoint a fellow Republican. To change back now would look like an unseemly amount of partisanship in setting the rules for who goes to Congress.

It would appear to be unseemly.

Yes, with Governers like Blago selling senate seats, now is the time for Massachussets to go back to that undemocratic system.

Anyway, this particular seat is a Kennedy family heirloom, so what the people of Massachussets think is really beside the point.

Tricky · 25th August 2009, 09:35 PM

Bad idea. Illegal too (right now). However, he can certainly pick his preference. I have a feeling that would carry some weight.

Puppycow · 25th August 2009, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Bad idea. Illegal too (right now). However, he can certainly pick his preference. I have a feeling that would carry some weight.

Indeed, which makes it all the more annoying that he wasn't even willing to leave anything to chance or the will of the people. Whoever the Kennedys endorse would be the instant front-runner, but why take any chance at all? Now if he endorses someone after arrogantly trying to bypass the people, it would seem to have less weight.

tyr_13 · 25th August 2009, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Indeed, which makes it all the more annoying that he wasn't even willing to leave anything to chance or the will of the people. Whoever the Kennedys endorse would be the instant front-runner, but why take any chance at all? Now if he endorses someone after arrogantly trying to bypass the people, it would seem to have less weight.

I believe the reasoning put forth is that it would take months for an election, and health care reform might be voted on in that time.

While I see the concern, it's still illegal and a bad idea. Poor form too seeing as it was the Democrats in the legislature who pushed this threw worried about the then Republican governor appointing another Republican.

SezMe · 25th August 2009, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Indeed, which makes it all the more annoying that he wasn't even willing to leave anything to chance or the will of the people. Whoever the Kennedys endorse would be the instant front-runner, but why take any chance at all? Now if he endorses someone after arrogantly trying to bypass the people, it would seem to have less weight.

The article I read said that the selectee would have to pledge not to run in the special election.

In my view this is mountain/molehill stuff. All Kennedy is suggesting is that the Governor be empowered to appoint in interim, caretaker Senator who would give the state its full two votes while the special election machinery did its thing.

What's the problem?

hgc · 25th August 2009, 10:08 PM

I favor a system where the governor appoints a senator just until a special election is held in a few months. That means that the appointment is short-term, and the state is not left waiting while no one holds the seat.

That's what they should do in Mass and every other state. It's unfortunate that this will look bad, considering that the legislature took appointment power away from a Republican gov just 5 years ago.

corplinx · 25th August 2009, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

What's the problem?

The problem is that it is the worst form of blatant and indefensible hypocrisy.

With all the Hannitys and Olbermanns of the world always stretching to point out hypocrisy in partisan ways, I think people have grown fatigued of the accusation.

This.. is wrong.

SezMe · 25th August 2009, 10:48 PM

I assume your assertion of hypocrisy arises from the action that hgc cited above. Ok, suppose I give you that.

Assuming it's hypocritical does not explain why it is "wrong" as a general procedure. Please explain.

Brainster · 25th August 2009, 10:53 PM

Of course, this is all on the assumption that Teddy the K's vote is going to be the crucial one on health insurance. Which it's not, so all the maneuvering is just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Puppycow · 25th August 2009, 11:11 PM

Ken Rudin of NPR's take on this

Boston Globe article suggests that the president of the Massachussets State Senate is "open to the idea."

I can't think of a more cynical and short-sighted idea. If democrats really want to commit an own-goal, they should do this. Yes, they may temporarily gain one senate vote a few months earlier than they probably would anyway, but at the cost of creating a lot of cynicism and ill-feelings in the long run.

Puppycow · 25th August 2009, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

The article I read said that the selectee would have to pledge not to run in the special election.

In my view this is mountain/molehill stuff. All Kennedy is suggesting is that the Governor be empowered to appoint in interim, caretaker Senator who would give the state its full two votes while the special election machinery did its thing.

What's the problem?

Why didn't they do that when they changed the law 5 years ago? Then it would have been very reasonable and defensible. Now it would be opportunism.

Puppycow · 25th August 2009, 11:35 PM

Another point made by swellman over at the skeptical community forum (paraphrasing):

If this is really about Mass. being without 2 votes in the senate, he should resign immediately, as he is already unable to make it to Washington. The longer he waits, the longer the Commonwealth will be without 2 votes.

From the Boston Globe article:

Quote:

In a letter to Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo last week, Kennedy - who is battling brain cancer - said that it was vital for Massachusetts to have two votes in the US Senate during an interim period. He asked them to approve a law swiftly giving the governor the power to appoint a temporary successor.

But not so vital to have two votes right now, apparantly.

LostAngeles · 25th August 2009, 11:41 PM

It's moot what he wants, really.

He just died this evening.

gtc · 26th August 2009, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

Why didn't they do that when they changed the law 5 years ago? Then it would have been very reasonable and defensible. Now it would be opportunism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_U...tates_Congress

The Republicans had 51 seats in the Senate then. A temporarily appointed Republican would have put it up to 52. I think that might have had something to do with it.

Puppycow · 26th August 2009, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by LostAngeles

It's moot what he wants, really.

He just died this evening.

Just saw the story. Not sure if his dying wish will be "moot" however. That remains to be seen.

Puppycow · 26th August 2009, 01:13 AM

Karmic justice?

The democrats didn't get any advantage out of their blatently partisan rule change in 2004 because Kerry wasn't elected so his seat didn't open up. Now that the rule change will actually have an effect, it will prevent a democratic governor from naming Kennedy's replacement. (FYI, I'm a democrat. But I can't miss the irony.)

linusrichard · 26th August 2009, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Bad idea. Illegal too (right now).

Originally Posted by tyr_13

While I see the concern, it's still illegal and a bad idea.

He's not asking the governor to appoint his successor, which would be illegal. He's asking the legislature to change the law, which is not illegal.

Constitutional originalists ought to be in favor of this, as this would be closer to what the Founders had in mind for the Senate in the first place.

I think SezMe makes the best point - how is it any more "undemocratic" to have an appointed interim senator than no interim senator?

TheJim · 26th August 2009, 10:58 AM

I am in agreement with those that favor the Governor or state legislator appointing an interim Senator. The idea of the 15th largest state, the 7th wealthiest state, with one of the most important cities in this country having only half the representation that it is entitled too for 6 months is silly especially when states like WY have 2. The state though did f up when they changed the law in 94 so it had it coming.

FlamingMoe · 26th August 2009, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by hgc

That means that the appointment is short-term, and the state is not left waiting while no one holds the seat.

Well, Minnesota had a single senator for several months after the last election. The world didn't come crumbling down. I think Massachusetts would fare similarly.

SezMe · 26th August 2009, 05:37 PM

No, Moe, the world did not come crumbling down. But that's a pretty low bar. The citizens of Mass (or any state for that matter) would most likely be better served with full representation in the Senate. Seems like that is the criterion to be used, not if the world might crumble.

Puppycow · 26th August 2009, 07:02 PM

The state legislature didn't seem to think it was a problem to be without a senator for a few months when they changed the law the last time. Surely the thought must have occurred to someone drafting the bill, and if it didn't that means that nobody thought it was a problem or could be a problem at the time. Now, suddenly it is vitally important. Puh-leeze.

gtc · 26th August 2009, 07:17 PM

The Globe article you linked to in post 10 says the Dems specifically rejected the proposal to allow for temporary replacements.

Quote:

Democrats had pushed through the 2004 law in order to deny Republican Mitt Romney, then the governor, the power of filling a vacancy if US Senator John F. Kerry won the presidential election that year. They also at the time rejected GOP attempts to provide for a temporary appointment.

I think the optimal situation would be to have a temporary appointment until an election can be held. However, by trying to change the rules to suit their own political purposes twice in 5 years, the Dems are giving the impression that they don't really care about the best solution for either the state or for ideals of democracy.

SezMe · 26th August 2009, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The state legislature didn't seem to think it was a problem to be without a senator for a few months when they changed the law the last time. Surely the thought must have occurred to someone drafting the bill, and if it didn't that means that nobody thought it was a problem or could be a problem at the time. Now, suddenly it is vitally important. Puh-leeze.

I've conceded the hypocrisy charge. My original (and continuing) point is that empowering the governor to make a caretaker appointment seems to be a good idea to me. Not just for Mass but in general.

IOW, so the Dems have been jerks. So how about getting it right this time? Especially now that the point is moot (unless the law is made retroactive, which I would be against).

gtc · 26th August 2009, 08:11 PM

Not appointing a temporary replacement now but changing the law for future cases would do a lot to overcome the charge of hypocrisy.

Cicero · 26th August 2009, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

The article I read said that the selectee would have to pledge not to run in the special election.

In my view this is mountain/molehill stuff. All Kennedy is suggesting is that the Governor be empowered to appoint in interim, caretaker Senator who would give the state its full two votes while the special election machinery did its thing.

What's the problem?

The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli.

BTW: still waiting for you to point out the black man you saw in the Contessa Brewer MSNBC video with the AR-15.

hgc · 26th August 2009, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by FlamingMoe

Well, Minnesota had a single senator for several months after the last election. The world didn't come crumbling down. I think Massachusetts would fare similarly.

I didn't offer any judgement of the right or wrong of leaving the seat vacant. Since each state sets its own rules for filling vacant seats, they can judge for themselves how bad it is and act accordingly (and within the law).

Puppycow · 26th August 2009, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

The Globe article you linked to in post 10 says the Dems specifically rejected the proposal to allow for temporary replacements.

I think the optimal situation would be to have a temporary appointment until an election can be held. However, by trying to change the rules to suit their own political purposes twice in 5 years, the Dems are giving the impression that they don't really care about the best solution for either the state or for ideals of democracy.

Wow. So there really is no defense. If only they had accepted that proposal at the time (it wouldn't have mattered anyway because Kerry lost and therefore retained his seat in any event) they wouldn't be paying a price for it now. And voting to change the rule now is a frank admission that what they did in 2004 was strictly partisan (which it obviously was, whether they want to admit it or not).

I agree that letting the governor appoint a temporary replacement is a reasonable idea (although I don't agree that it is "vital") but only if it takes effect after the interim election so nobody can know who will be the governor if/when such an event happens next time.

SezMe · 26th August 2009, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

BTW: still waiting for you to point out the black man you saw in the Contessa Brewer MSNBC video with the AR-15.

One and only one response to this derail: I quit posting in that thread because the level of vitriol and stupidity disgusted me. Wait all you want.

corplinx · 26th August 2009, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I agree that letting the governor appoint a temporary replacement is a reasonable idea (although I don't agree that it is "vital")

Remember how the senate was basically shutdown by not having a second senator from Minnesota? OF COURSE ITS VITAL. LET THE GOVERNOR PICK A PARTY CRONY OR ELSE!!!!

Edited to add: The senate has been running fine without Teddy all year. The vital argument from the partisans fails on so many levels.

SezMe · 26th August 2009, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by corplinx

Remember how the senate was basically shutdown by not having a second senator from Minnesota? OF COURSE ITS VITAL. LET THE GOVERNOR PICK A PARTY CRONY OR ELSE!!!!

Edited to add: The senate has been running fine without Teddy all year. The vital argument from the partisans fails on so many levels.

Strawman. Nobody is arguing it is "vital". Would you like to cite where that claim was made?

gtc · 26th August 2009, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Strawman. Nobody is arguing it is "vital". Would you like to cite where that claim was made?

In the letter that Kennedy sent.

The full text is here and it has been widely quoted in various other papers (including the Boston Globe article linked up this thread).

Quote:

In 2004, as you know, the law was changed to provide for a special election to choose a new Senator to serve for the remainder of an unexpired term. The law now mandates that the special election be held 145 to 160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their Senator; I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.

corplinx · 27th August 2009, 12:05 AM

Well, yeah. The most vocal proponent of the "vital" argument is dead. I am not sure if anyone is carrying that torch.

My bad.

Dr Adequate · 27th August 2009, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli.

There is nothing more vicious I can say about that sentence then simply quoting it.

You actually said that.

Let's quote it again.

Originally Posted by Cicero

The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

One more time for luck.

Originally Posted by Cicero

The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli.

Thanks.

Cicero · 27th August 2009, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

There is nothing more vicious I can say about that sentence then simply quoting it.

When you can't argue the point, that's all you can do.

applecorped · 27th August 2009, 01:00 PM

If Deval Patrick can appoint someone to fill the vacancy could he step down and have the newly elevated Lt. Gov. appoint Deval to the seat?

SezMe · 27th August 2009, 02:31 PM

Wouldn't it be easier for him to appoint himself?

dudalb · 27th August 2009, 03:43 PM

A caretaker appointment is a good idea, but I think that doing it in these circumstances is not. Change the law for future vacancies, but don't do a ex post facto with Kennedy's seat.

Dr Adequate · 28th August 2009, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

When you can't argue the point, that's all you can do.

Wait --- are you implying that you had a point?

25th August 2009, 09:29 PM	#1
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Ed Kennedy wants Gov. to appoint his successor Even the New York Times is against this. Quote: Senator Edward M. Kennedy has asked the Massachusetts Legislature to change state law to let the governor, currently a fellow Democrat, fill vacant Senate seats. Abandoning the current system, in which voters choose, would be undemocratic, even at the request of such a respected lawmaker. . . . Massachusetts governors used to fill Senate vacancies. But in 2004, the Democratic majority in the State Legislature changed the law to require a special election. The leaders were concerned that if Senator John Kerry was elected president, Gov. Mitt Romney would appoint a fellow Republican. To change back now would look like an unseemly amount of partisanship in setting the rules for who goes to Congress. It would appear to be unseemly. Yes, with Governers like Blago selling senate seats, now is the time for Massachussets to go back to that undemocratic system. Anyway, this particular seat is a Kennedy family heirloom, so what the people of Massachussets think is really beside the point.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

25th August 2009, 09:43 PM	#3
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by Tricky Bad idea. Illegal too (right now). However, he can certainly pick his preference. I have a feeling that would carry some weight. Indeed, which makes it all the more annoying that he wasn't even willing to leave anything to chance or the will of the people. Whoever the Kennedys endorse would be the instant front-runner, but why take any chance at all? Now if he endorses someone after arrogantly trying to bypass the people, it would seem to have less weight.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

25th August 2009, 09:49 PM	#4
tyr_13 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,019	Originally Posted by Puppycow Indeed, which makes it all the more annoying that he wasn't even willing to leave anything to chance or the will of the people. Whoever the Kennedys endorse would be the instant front-runner, but why take any chance at all? Now if he endorses someone after arrogantly trying to bypass the people, it would seem to have less weight. I believe the reasoning put forth is that it would take months for an election, and health care reform might be voted on in that time. While I see the concern, it's still illegal and a bad idea. Poor form too seeing as it was the Democrats in the legislature who pushed this threw worried about the then Republican governor appointing another Republican.
tyr_13 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,019	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Look at the puppy...the puppy is good.

25th August 2009, 10:08 PM	#6
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	I favor a system where the governor appoints a senator just until a special election is held in a few months. That means that the appointment is short-term, and the state is not left waiting while no one holds the seat. That's what they should do in Mass and every other state. It's unfortunate that this will look bad, considering that the legislature took appointment power away from a Republican gov just 5 years ago.
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	__________________ "Swine breath is an atmosphere stabilizer." - PA, The Village

25th August 2009, 10:19 PM	#7
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,839	Originally Posted by SezMe What's the problem? The problem is that it is the worst form of blatant and indefensible hypocrisy. With all the Hannitys and Olbermanns of the world always stretching to point out hypocrisy in partisan ways, I think people have grown fatigued of the accusation. This.. is wrong.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,839	__________________ Terribad Moderation Creates Stupibad Posting

25th August 2009, 09:35 PM	#2
Tricky Radical centrist Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 27,290	Bad idea. Illegal too (right now). However, he can certainly pick his preference. I have a feeling that would carry some weight.

25th August 2009, 09:59 PM	#5
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	Originally Posted by Puppycow Indeed, which makes it all the more annoying that he wasn't even willing to leave anything to chance or the will of the people. Whoever the Kennedys endorse would be the instant front-runner, but why take any chance at all? Now if he endorses someone after arrogantly trying to bypass the people, it would seem to have less weight. The article I read said that the selectee would have to pledge not to run in the special election. In my view this is mountain/molehill stuff. All Kennedy is suggesting is that the Governor be empowered to appoint in interim, caretaker Senator who would give the state its full two votes while the special election machinery did its thing. What's the problem?

25th August 2009, 10:48 PM	#8
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	I assume your assertion of hypocrisy arises from the action that hgc cited above. Ok, suppose I give you that. Assuming it's hypocritical does not explain why it is "wrong" as a general procedure. Please explain.

25th August 2009, 10:53 PM	#9
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,063	Of course, this is all on the assumption that Teddy the K's vote is going to be the crucial one on health insurance. Which it's not, so all the maneuvering is just shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Brainster Philosopher Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,063	__________________ 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Check out my (Republican-oriented) Political Blog. Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

25th August 2009, 11:11 PM	#10
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Ken Rudin of NPR's take on this Boston Globe article suggests that the president of the Massachussets State Senate is "open to the idea." I can't think of a more cynical and short-sighted idea. If democrats really want to commit an own-goal, they should do this. Yes, they may temporarily gain one senate vote a few months earlier than they probably would anyway, but at the cost of creating a lot of cynicism and ill-feelings in the long run.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

25th August 2009, 11:14 PM	#11
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by SezMe The article I read said that the selectee would have to pledge not to run in the special election. In my view this is mountain/molehill stuff. All Kennedy is suggesting is that the Governor be empowered to appoint in interim, caretaker Senator who would give the state its full two votes while the special election machinery did its thing. What's the problem? Why didn't they do that when they changed the law 5 years ago? Then it would have been very reasonable and defensible. Now it would be opportunism.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

25th August 2009, 11:35 PM	#12
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Another point made by swellman over at the skeptical community forum (paraphrasing): If this is really about Mass. being without 2 votes in the senate, he should resign immediately, as he is already unable to make it to Washington. The longer he waits, the longer the Commonwealth will be without 2 votes. From the Boston Globe article: Quote: In a letter to Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo last week, Kennedy - who is battling brain cancer - said that it was vital for Massachusetts to have two votes in the US Senate during an interim period. He asked them to approve a law swiftly giving the governor the power to appoint a temporary successor. But not so vital to have two votes right now, apparantly.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

25th August 2009, 11:41 PM	#13
LostAngeles Anti-WM Jihadist Join Date: May 2004 Location: Having a cup of tea. Posts: 10,025	It's moot what he wants, really. He just died this evening.
	__________________ "There is also a likelihood that the settlement will fall between two biomes, potentially hazardous if the player expects a peaceful oceanside meadow, without realizing the ocean is full of amphibious zombie whales." - Dwarf Fortress Wik

26th August 2009, 12:21 AM	#14
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,109	Originally Posted by Puppycow Why didn't they do that when they changed the law 5 years ago? Then it would have been very reasonable and defensible. Now it would be opportunism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_U...tates_Congress The Republicans had 51 seats in the Senate then. A temporarily appointed Republican would have put it up to 52. I think that might have had something to do with it.

26th August 2009, 12:24 AM	#15
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by LostAngeles It's moot what he wants, really. He just died this evening. Just saw the story. Not sure if his dying wish will be "moot" however. That remains to be seen.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

26th August 2009, 01:13 AM	#16
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Karmic justice? The democrats didn't get any advantage out of their blatently partisan rule change in 2004 because Kerry wasn't elected so his seat didn't open up. Now that the rule change will actually have an effect, it will prevent a democratic governor from naming Kennedy's replacement. (FYI, I'm a democrat. But I can't miss the irony.)
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

26th August 2009, 05:50 AM	#17
linusrichard Master Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Lansing, Mich. Posts: 2,355	Originally Posted by Tricky Bad idea. Illegal too (right now). Originally Posted by tyr_13 While I see the concern, it's still illegal and a bad idea. He's not asking the governor to appoint his successor, which would be illegal. He's asking the legislature to change the law, which is not illegal. Constitutional originalists ought to be in favor of this, as this would be closer to what the Founders had in mind for the Senate in the first place. I think SezMe makes the best point - how is it any more "undemocratic" to have an appointed interim senator than no interim senator?
	__________________ "We are talking about an old ladies genitals after all." - ponderingturtle

26th August 2009, 10:58 AM	#18
TheJim Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 321	I am in agreement with those that favor the Governor or state legislator appointing an interim Senator. The idea of the 15th largest state, the 7th wealthiest state, with one of the most important cities in this country having only half the representation that it is entitled too for 6 months is silly especially when states like WY have 2. The state though did f up when they changed the law in 94 so it had it coming.
TheJim Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 321

26th August 2009, 04:57 PM	#19
FlamingMoe Muse Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Your mom's house. Posts: 721	Originally Posted by hgc That means that the appointment is short-term, and the state is not left waiting while no one holds the seat. Well, Minnesota had a single senator for several months after the last election. The world didn't come crumbling down. I think Massachusetts would fare similarly.

26th August 2009, 05:37 PM	#20
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	No, Moe, the world did not come crumbling down. But that's a pretty low bar. The citizens of Mass (or any state for that matter) would most likely be better served with full representation in the Senate. Seems like that is the criterion to be used, not if the world might crumble.

26th August 2009, 07:02 PM	#21
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	The state legislature didn't seem to think it was a problem to be without a senator for a few months when they changed the law the last time. Surely the thought must have occurred to someone drafting the bill, and if it didn't that means that nobody thought it was a problem or could be a problem at the time. Now, suddenly it is vitally important. Puh-leeze.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

26th August 2009, 07:17 PM	#22
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,109	The Globe article you linked to in post 10 says the Dems specifically rejected the proposal to allow for temporary replacements. Quote: Democrats had pushed through the 2004 law in order to deny Republican Mitt Romney, then the governor, the power of filling a vacancy if US Senator John F. Kerry won the presidential election that year. They also at the time rejected GOP attempts to provide for a temporary appointment. I think the optimal situation would be to have a temporary appointment until an election can be held. However, by trying to change the rules to suit their own political purposes twice in 5 years, the Dems are giving the impression that they don't really care about the best solution for either the state or for ideals of democracy.

26th August 2009, 07:41 PM	#23
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	Originally Posted by Puppycow The state legislature didn't seem to think it was a problem to be without a senator for a few months when they changed the law the last time. Surely the thought must have occurred to someone drafting the bill, and if it didn't that means that nobody thought it was a problem or could be a problem at the time. Now, suddenly it is vitally important. Puh-leeze. I've conceded the hypocrisy charge. My original (and continuing) point is that empowering the governor to make a caretaker appointment seems to be a good idea to me. Not just for Mass but in general. IOW, so the Dems have been jerks. So how about getting it right this time? Especially now that the point is moot (unless the law is made retroactive, which I would be against).

26th August 2009, 08:11 PM	#24
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,109	Not appointing a temporary replacement now but changing the law for future cases would do a lot to overcome the charge of hypocrisy.

26th August 2009, 08:26 PM	#25
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by SezMe The article I read said that the selectee would have to pledge not to run in the special election. In my view this is mountain/molehill stuff. All Kennedy is suggesting is that the Governor be empowered to appoint in interim, caretaker Senator who would give the state its full two votes while the special election machinery did its thing. What's the problem? The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli. BTW: still waiting for you to point out the black man you saw in the Contessa Brewer MSNBC video with the AR-15.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins Last edited by Cicero; 26th August 2009 at 08:27 PM.

26th August 2009, 08:39 PM	#26
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	Originally Posted by FlamingMoe Well, Minnesota had a single senator for several months after the last election. The world didn't come crumbling down. I think Massachusetts would fare similarly. I didn't offer any judgement of the right or wrong of leaving the seat vacant. Since each state sets its own rules for filling vacant seats, they can judge for themselves how bad it is and act accordingly (and within the law).
hgc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 9,013	__________________ "Swine breath is an atmosphere stabilizer." - PA, The Village

26th August 2009, 08:40 PM	#27
Puppycow Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 6,323	Originally Posted by gtc The Globe article you linked to in post 10 says the Dems specifically rejected the proposal to allow for temporary replacements. I think the optimal situation would be to have a temporary appointment until an election can be held. However, by trying to change the rules to suit their own political purposes twice in 5 years, the Dems are giving the impression that they don't really care about the best solution for either the state or for ideals of democracy. Wow. So there really is no defense. If only they had accepted that proposal at the time (it wouldn't have mattered anyway because Kerry lost and therefore retained his seat in any event) they wouldn't be paying a price for it now. And voting to change the rule now is a frank admission that what they did in 2004 was strictly partisan (which it obviously was, whether they want to admit it or not). I agree that letting the governor appoint a temporary replacement is a reasonable idea (although I don't agree that it is "vital") but only if it takes effect after the interim election so nobody can know who will be the governor if/when such an event happens next time.
	__________________ I can't come to bed yet, honey. Someone on the Internet is wrong. -XKCD Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous Religions are God's way of telling us that He doesn't exist. -Pat Condell

26th August 2009, 09:30 PM	#28
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	Originally Posted by Cicero BTW: still waiting for you to point out the black man you saw in the Contessa Brewer MSNBC video with the AR-15. One and only one response to this derail: I quit posting in that thread because the level of vitriol and stupidity disgusted me. Wait all you want.

26th August 2009, 11:13 PM	#29
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,839	Originally Posted by Puppycow I agree that letting the governor appoint a temporary replacement is a reasonable idea (although I don't agree that it is "vital") Remember how the senate was basically shutdown by not having a second senator from Minnesota? OF COURSE ITS VITAL. LET THE GOVERNOR PICK A PARTY CRONY OR ELSE!!!! Edited to add: The senate has been running fine without Teddy all year. The vital argument from the partisans fails on so many levels.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,839	__________________ Terribad Moderation Creates Stupibad Posting Last edited by corplinx; 26th August 2009 at 11:15 PM.

26th August 2009, 11:47 PM	#30
SezMe Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 9,129	Originally Posted by corplinx Remember how the senate was basically shutdown by not having a second senator from Minnesota? OF COURSE ITS VITAL. LET THE GOVERNOR PICK A PARTY CRONY OR ELSE!!!! Edited to add: The senate has been running fine without Teddy all year. The vital argument from the partisans fails on so many levels. Strawman. Nobody is arguing it is "vital". Would you like to cite where that claim was made?

26th August 2009, 11:55 PM	#31
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,109	Originally Posted by SezMe Strawman. Nobody is arguing it is "vital". Would you like to cite where that claim was made? In the letter that Kennedy sent. The full text is here and it has been widely quoted in various other papers (including the Boston Globe article linked up this thread). Quote: In 2004, as you know, the law was changed to provide for a special election to choose a new Senator to serve for the remainder of an unexpired term. The law now mandates that the special election be held 145 to 160 days after a Senate seat becomes vacant. I strongly support that law and the principle that the people should elect their Senator; I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.
	Last edited by gtc; 27th August 2009 at 12:00 AM. Reason: Show different article.

27th August 2009, 12:05 AM	#32
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,839	Well, yeah. The most vocal proponent of the "vital" argument is dead. I am not sure if anyone is carrying that torch. My bad.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,839	__________________ Terribad Moderation Creates Stupibad Posting

27th August 2009, 02:09 AM	#33
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,902	Originally Posted by Cicero The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli. There is nothing more vicious I can say about that sentence then simply quoting it. You actually said that. Let's quote it again. Originally Posted by Cicero The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! One more time for luck. Originally Posted by Cicero The last time a Kennedy was involved in deciding who should fill a Senate seat the disaster of a Senator Camelot Caroline was almost a fait accompli. Thanks.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 27th August 2009 at 02:10 AM.

27th August 2009, 11:09 AM	#34
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate There is nothing more vicious I can say about that sentence then simply quoting it. When you can't argue the point, that's all you can do.
Cicero Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 5,750	__________________ Qui audet superat - Who Dares Wins

27th August 2009, 01:00 PM	#35
applecorped Rotten to the core Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 5,683	If Deval Patrick can appoint someone to fill the vacancy could he step down and have the newly elevated Lt. Gov. appoint Deval to the seat?
	__________________ It's all in the mind.