Welcome to PatsFans.com

Mass. House approves Sen. Kennedy succession bill

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Sep 18, 2009.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    Hey, we got great museums, the cape, and really swell foliage in the fall. :rolleyes:


    Successor bill advances in House

    Dems, GOP battle over controversial measure
    B
    by Hillary Chabot
    Friday, September 18, 2009 - Updated 11h ago
    + Recent Articles + Email


    A controversial bill allowing Gov. Deval Patrick to name a temporary U.S. senator cleared its first major hurdle in the House last night after bitter debate and legislative hijinks - but the measure is not expected to become law until next week.

    “I want a second voice in the U.S. Senate as quickly as possible, and we seem to be getting there,” said Rep. Michael Moran (D-Boston), who helped craft the legislation as co-chairman of the election laws committee.

    The House gave initial approval to the bill by a lopsided 97-58 vote, but under threat of a Republican lawsuit, Democratic lawmakers stripped the legislation of a key measure that would require the governor to appoint someone from the same party as the senator who vacated the seat.



    Successor bill advances in House - BostonHerald.com
  2. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    That's weird, because I know they tried to block it when Romney was in office... I wonder what's changed since then?
  3. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    Um, Romney.
  4. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Well, yeah. Sarcasm.
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    Doh. Use Magenta next time so I know. I thought your being from NH might have made you unaware of the specifics. I guess it's common knowledge all around at this point.
  6. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Will do. I pay pretty close attention to MA politics, mostly to laugh. Although lately I have nothing to laugh about, not with Carol Shea-Porter as my rep...
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    As quickly as your state may be moving into the abyss, it has a long, long way to go before it reaches our depths.
  8. Fogbuster

    Fogbuster Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Messages:
    13,674
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0



    The Left-libbies migrated into NH from MA the way they did to Vermont from NY (Bernie "Castro" Sanders). The world is tres messed up right now. But it's gonna change.


    Stay tuned ....... (cue wistah :p )

    //
  9. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    And why should they not have done this? Last time I checked the Party in power is granted this privalige for a reason...

    A Dem is going to be elected regardless, this just expedites the process so that we don't have a vacant seat for that long.
  10. STFarmy

    STFarmy Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I actually agree, if parties were reversed the pubbies would have done the same thing. I just always laugh when they argue against something vehemently when it doesn't benefit them then change their tune when it does. It's the nature of politics.
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    No where is anyone saying that republicans wouldn't do the same if power were reveresed, as most think they probably would. The fact that they would, does nothing to justify the citizens of a state, being stripped of their right to elect their representation. That the dems/pubs can do something like this, doesn't make their actions acceptable. Furthermore, that a dem is going to be elected anyway, which we all generally agree will be the case, doesn't make the appointed person a choice of the people. The appointed individual will simply be a puppet of the feds, and capitol hill. The hypocracy of democrats here, who only a few years ago changed the rules in arguing for citizen selection, is a prime example of why this state sucks so bad, and why politics in general (namely one party rule of any kind) blows. This reinforces my belief in term limits for all levels of gubmit.
  12. kali3

    kali3 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It just shows what a bunch of hypocrites they are. They never should have changed the law back in 2004. They did it then just to play politics and they are doing it now for the same reason.

    Typical BS and is why everyone hates the people who run Mass so much.
  13. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    They don't have that right, because the Dems have the legal authority to do it. Massachusetts has vested this power in a Democratic body, the fact that you don't like it is completely irrelevant. If the voters of Massachusetts want to take that ability away, they are fully capable of doing so, but as of right now the only ones complaining are sour Republicans that are pissed they weren't able to sneak through their guy last time around.

    As long as they are in power, they can change the laws back and forth as they please. Of course, I'd prefer more honesty when making the arguments for doing it but there is absolutely nothing wrong with Dems saying flatly, "we are changing the law because we don't want the Republican Governor to appoint a Republican" followed by "we are changing it back because this governor will appoint a Democrat in a faster manner than it would take for a special election to do so."

    There is NOTHING hypocritical about that, and they are well within their power to do it.
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2009
  14. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    And so what? Why should they never have changed it? They don't want a Republican apopointed and they have the majority needed to stop that from happening. Sounds pretty democratic to me.
  15. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I don't think Republicans are pissed about not being able to appoint someone last time around, they couldn't do so both because of the law but more importantly because the Republican candidate for President won and sent the Junior Senator from MA back to his seat!!

    You are correct that they hold the authority, it just reflects poorly on our state government the way this has been handled. Same thing with the redistricting in Texas under DeLay, nothing unconstitutional about it, but it reeked nonetheless.
  16. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Just a thought experiment, and somewhat unrelated, but let's say the MA supreme court was loaded with right wing justices that struck down the change on a flimsy legal argument, what would we say then (and yes this is a silly scenario as there is no clear legal justification to overturn here, but just wondering)?
  17. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    I'm not really sure what the second sentence means.

    This is different though. Democrats aren't abusing their authority in order to rig elections, a Democrat would be elected 100% of the time if there was an election held in MA. They are solely doing this to expedite the process, not to ensure that they stay in power by subverting the will of the people.
  18. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,852
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    You alluded to to it yourself; you'd have to look at the legal argument being made before commenting on it. Obviously if it was "flimsy" and only made in support of a political agenda then it would be wrong, because it would be directly aimed at subverting democracy.
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,107
    Likes Received:
    218
    Ratings:
    +515 / 6 / -2

    That's BS Wildo. Last week the people had the right to vote in a successor, and next week they won't. The fact that the losers in gubmit can change laws, doesn't mean that right's aren't being taken away. Basically what you're saying, is that as citizens of this state, we have no rights that politicians don't give us. That's BS IMO.
  20. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    They are changing state law to fit their political need, in this case making sure there are 2 D votes from MA for health insurance reform. Neither case was an abuse of authority by your reasoning since neither case was the action unconstitutional. I stand by it as an apples to apples comparison, unethical behavior to serve political interests.

    I also would disagree that a D will be elected 100% of the time. The right R candidate can always be elected. Independents in the state outnumber both R's and D's combined, and the chances of a promising R candidate being selected are even greater in a short campaign. Appointing someone to fill the slot will give them a leg up in the election to follow, or ensure that someone is seated with the understanding that they won't run and instead shift support to the candidate of choice.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>