Mass. House gives initial OK to succession bill

[cal04]

Source: Associated Press

The Massachusetts House of Representatives has given initial approval to a bill allowing Gov. Deval Patrick to name an interim appointment to the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Edward Kennedy last month.

The House voted 97-58 in favor of the bill Thursday evening. It needs a second vote before it moves to the Massachusetts Senate.

The bill's outcome in the Senate remains unclear.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo, a Democrat, said the change is needed to ensure Massachusetts continues to be represented by two senators until voters can choose a replacement during a Jan. 19 special election.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_re_us/us_kennedy_successor_15

[virgogal]

1. As a Mass Dem I find this flipping of procedures a tad annoying.

What if the shoe was on the other foot?

[WriteDown]

3. Then we'll be screwed and you'll see a thread...

with about 300+ posts decrying it. :)

[No Elephants]

15. Bull puckey.

[harmonicon]

5. this wouldn't stop the special election, would it?

I thought this was just to have someone in there until the special election is held - if the shoe were on the other foot, it would still only mean having that senator there for a few months - I think the basic idea is a good one. What might be even better, as some have suggested, is having each senator select a person to take over the rest of their term if they should not be able to finish it for some reason.

[robo50]

6. The first part of what you post is exactly correct. This is just an interim

appointment, for 3-5 months until an election can be held.

In this case, a Democratic Governor, backed by an Democratic Legislature will probably appoint a Democrat, (perhaps Dukakis, or other prominent person who has no interest in the permanent job, - senior pols or even Harvard Law Professor, Obama friend Charles Ogletree).

For interim appointments, what if the Senator being replaced resigned in disgrace? Would you want her/him to name their successor?

[harmonicon]

8. as for naming a successor...

I was thinking something more like a "vice senator" where the successor would be named as soon as they were sworn in. Sure that person might be corrupt too, but people get what they vote for - likewise, if one of the results of voting for a republican governor is that in some cases they may be able to appoint a senator, that's just how things go. I would prefer a new election, but I think it's probably better to have someone in there than no one.

[robo50]

26. Well, that happened in Delaware, (no not corrupt) but Biden's replacement

was his right hand person for 20 years, who deserves the job for a year or two until the state elects someone else.

[virgogal]

9. But the basic idea was a bad one in 2004? It's the flip-flopping

that bothers me.

[harmonicon]

10. I think the basic idea is good

it's just that it leaves a hole of several months where people have 1/2 the representation they would normally had. I don't see this as a flip, but just as a way of changing laws when you (unfortunately) have to put them in place and find out what their ramifications really are in practice.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. The basic idea is to win.

[No Elephants]

16. I think 2004 and now are both exactly what the Constitution of the United States

intended.

We had another thread on this a while back and I went into detain on that thread, so I kind of doon't feel like repeating the exercise. It would be a couple of months at most anyway.

[No Elephants]

19. I did not find the thread I wanted to find, and that is annoying, but I did find this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4032982&mesg_id=4033516

See also my Reply 17.




Legislatures amend, repeal and replace laws all the time. When circumstances change, as they have since 2004, you adjust to them. That is not flip flopping.

Besides, what is wrong with flip flopping?


Sure, the Republicans made changing your mind a dirty thing when they used "flip flop" against Kerry in 2004, but that does not make it a bad thing in reality. Besides, it's not as though they ever hesitate to "flip flop" when it suits them, and usually for all the wrong reasons. bIn this case, the Legislature is reflecting the wishes of the people of Massachusetts, a very good reason.

It takes a while to set up a special election, but, if an election could be held today, is there any doubt that the people of Massachusetts would prefer a Democrat in office ASAP?

Is there any doubt the people of Massachusetts would have put a Democrat in the Senate to replace Kerry in 2004?

In both cases, the answer is no doubt whatever.

[virgogal]

28. Of course MA would elect a Democrat but we had a Rep governor

when Kerry was running and had he been elected Romney would have appointed a Republican so the rule was changed so we would have to wait for an election for another senator.

Now they want to change it back again so Patrick can choose an interim senator.

Politics is a dirty business.

[No Elephants]

14. Special election in January, come hell or high water.

Having a Senator chose his successor would violate the Constitution of the United States.

[robo50]

7. It's just an interim appointment, and should have been in the original

bill 5 years ago, but the truth is, no one trusted Romney not to appoint himself to fill Kerry's seat.

[No Elephants]

17. It should not have been in the original bill 5 years ago. It would have been a

travesty to allow Romney to appoint Kerry's successor.

Romney ran as a liberal Republican in 1994 and in 2000. Once elected, though, he changed every single position to neocon. Beyond that, he clearly ran only so he could run for President and spent most of his four years out of the state, making himself known nationally and dissing the state in his speeches. Further, almost everyone Massachusetts voters pick is Democratic.

I think the Legislature did the right thing for the people of Massachusets in 2004 and is doing the right thing (I hope) for the people of Massachusetts now.

The Constitution of the United States leaves these decisions to the Legislature then in office--and not the Governor--for very good reasons.

[robo50]

24. I know exactly why it was NOT done 5 years ago, and just told the previous poster so.

I know the history of this state in the last 50 years of elections.

Perhaps you misunderstood how I phrased my reply.

Actually, several states allow the Governor to appoint a replacement, (FOR THE REMAINDER OF A TERM) and I thought you would be aware of that, since that happened in Illinois and Delaware this year. There were NO ELECTIONS for those two Senatorial seats. Perhaps you can try to be more precise the next time you post in such a scolding way in response to my post.

I don't like to be lectured with misinformation. Thank you.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Then we would lose a seat in the senate until the next election.

Why is it that we are obsessed with playing fair against an opponent that does nothing of the sort, ever?

[No Elephants]

18. We ARE playing fair.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. The OP's concern is that we are not.

I don't think we should be concerned if we are or aren't. We should be concerned about keeping these loons out of power and making progress on changing our nation.

[No Elephants]

13. They would do the same and more. And?

[steven johnson]

21. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."Emerson

Republicans would and have changed the rules when it suited them. They are masters of the flip flop.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3489246

John McCain -- 61 Flip-Flops and Counting

President Bush: Flip-Flopper-In-Chief

50 George Bush Flip Flops

Top Ten Most Blatant Acts Of Recent Republicans Flip-Floppery

[lamp_shade]

2. Fingers crossed here.

[Czar One]

4. Excellent!

:kick:

[SpartanDem]

22. K&R

[Vidar]

23. So far, so good.

[high density]

25. OK, succession makes a lot more sense than the way I read it, secession.

lol

[robo50]

27. UPDATE, Mass Republicans are using stalling tactics to delay a final

vote on this issue.

Republicans are IN FAVOR OF Massachusetts having ONLY ONE SENATOR until an election. BOTTOM LINE.

You folks who feel being cautious with Romney was OKAY, but fear allowing the state to send a Senator to DC until an election, (as is HER RIGHT, as a STATE!).........

Get over it.........this is all about Republicans trying to stuff the Senate with NO!