[Chrono]

Quote

BOSTON -- The Massachusetts Legislature has given final approval to a bill allowing the governor to appoint an interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, who has said he'll sign it.

Final passage of the bill came moments after the House refused to add a provision that would make the law go into effect immediately. That means Patrick will need to declare an emergency if he wants a replacement right away.

A family confidant says Kennedy's two sons, Edward Kennedy Jr. and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, want former Democratic National Committe chairman Paul Kirk to get the appointment.

http://www.msnbc.msn...nnedy_19322009/

[Dennis Von Bremen]

I don't like it, they should have a fair election to fill it within a year or something like that.

Although it doesn't sound that bad really,

"The interim senator would serve until the seat is filled permanently through a special election on Jan. 19. "

It's not like he would serve a very long time and it is better than not having anyone as senator there.

This post has been edited by Dennis Von Bremen: 23 September 2009 - 03:30 PM

[Foggers]

Dennis Von Bremen, on Sep 23 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

It's not like he would serve a very long time and it is better than not having anyone as senator there.

That's what they want you to think.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Foggers, on Sep 23 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

That's what they want you to think.

They )):

This post has been edited by Dennis Von Bremen: 23 September 2009 - 03:34 PM

[Foggers]

You know what happened on January 19th?

Quote

1949 – Cuba recognises Israel.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Foggers, on Sep 23 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

You know what happened on January 19th?

It's all just a huge Jewish Conspiracy!

Jews )):

[Chrono]

Dennis Von Bremen, on Sep 23 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

I don't like it, they should have a fair election to fill it within a year or something like that.

The hypocrisy here is that Governor Romney was going to appoint a replacement to Kerry with this exact system, and Democrats were crying foul, and changed the system.

Now, just a few years later, they change it back to meet their own needs.

[Chron]

Chrono, on Sep 23 2009, 11:20 PM, said:

The hypocrisy here is that Governor Romney was going to appoint a replacement to Kerry with this exact system, and Democrats were crying foul, and changed the system.

Now, just a few years later, they change it back to meet their own needs.

In all fairness, they didnt want Blagovich to have it either, so it's not so much hypocrisy as it is opposition to blatant douchebags having the authority to appoint proxies to congress.

And let's face it, Romney is a biiiiiiit of a douche.

This post has been edited by Chron: 23 September 2009 - 04:57 PM

[Chrono]

Chron, on Sep 23 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

In all fairness, they didnt want Blagovich to have it either

Democrat state Congress and Democrat governor. Different scenario.

Chron, on Sep 23 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

so it's not so much hypocrisy as it is opposition to an opposing party member having the authority to appoint proxies to congress.

Fixed.

[Chron]

Chrono, on Sep 24 2009, 12:05 AM, said:

Democrat state Congress and Democrat governor. Different scenario.



Fixed.

No, just douchebags, hence why I pointed out the Blagovich example. It's one point, not two.

[Chrono]

http://en.wikipedia....k#Controversies

Yes, I'm sure current Governor Patrick is just a perfect guy.

In any case, some arbitrary judging of a person's character who was democratically elected is not just reason to usurp an official's power, then return said power because your own party took control of the office again.

[Chron]

Chrono, on Sep 23 2009, 11:13 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....k#Controversies

Yes, I'm sure current Governor Patrick is just a perfect guy.

In any case, some arbitrary judging of a person's character who was democratically elected is not just reason to usurp an official's power, then return said power because your own party took control of the office again.

Clearly you know nothing of American politics.

[Dennis Von Bremen]

Chrono, on Sep 23 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

The hypocrisy here is that Governor Romney was going to appoint a replacement to Kerry with this exact system, and Democrats were crying foul, and changed the system.

Now, just a few years later, they change it back to meet their own needs.

Yes I know about this, to be honest i think it should always be that the governor puts a person in charge as interim until a special election is held, simply because someone should be in charge of it and special elections can't be held immediately (though this would be the best option if it was possible, not enough campaign time and all that jazz though).

[KainIIIC]

Chrono, on Sep 23 2009, 05:20 PM, said:

The hypocrisy here is that Governor Romney was going to appoint a replacement to Kerry with this exact system, and Democrats were crying foul, and changed the system.

Now, just a few years later, they change it back to meet their own needs.

This is not exactly true. The system pre-Romney was an appointment to fill the remainder of the Senate seat's term, whereas this system, let's call it the "Texas System" (as this is what they do in TX), is they appoint for 4-5 months until a special election can take place to fill the remainder of the term.

Personally, I would say the "Texas System" of filling vacancies is probably the best, as it allows for full representation as well as the democratic process to decide your elected official. It's just unfortunate that the Democrats did not do this initially in '04 when they were changing the original law (and yes, Romney may have had something to do with it).

[Dennis Von Bremen]

KainIIIC, on Sep 23 2009, 06:50 PM, said:

This is not exactly true. The system pre-Romney was an appointment to fill the remainder of the Senate seat's term, whereas this system, let's call it the "Texas System" (as this is what they do in TX), is they appoint for 4-5 months until a special election can take place to fill the remainder of the term.

Personally, I would say the "Texas System" of filling vacancies is probably the best, as it allows for full representation as well as the democratic process to decide your elected official. It's just unfortunate that the Democrats did not do this initially in '04 when they were changing the original law (and yes, Romney may have had something to do with it).

WOOT! Texas System!

Apparently my liking of this system then has a logical reason for it, I am a Texan after all.

[Mongol Federation]

Dennis Von Bremen, on Sep 23 2009, 10:58 PM, said:

WOOT! Texas System!

Apparently my liking of this system then has a logical reason for it, I am a Texan after all.

A Texan-German-Turk... I can think of no greater example of ethnic ness.

[Chrono]

KainIIIC, on Sep 24 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

This is not exactly true. The system pre-Romney was an appointment to fill the remainder of the Senate seat's term, whereas this system, let's call it the "Texas System" (as this is what they do in TX), is they appoint for 4-5 months until a special election can take place to fill the remainder of the term.

Thanks for clearing that up, Kain.

As it is, the current series of events makes it look quite political.

[SoxNation]

Chrono, on Sep 24 2009, 12:42 AM, said:

Thanks for clearing that up, Kain.

As it is, the current series of events makes it look quite political.

It's a different system yes, and I actually agree it's probably the best system.



But!

Just because the end result is good does not mean their process was good.

They changed it away from government appointment in 04 not because they wanted the governor to not appoint for remainder of the term, but because they didn't want the governor to appoint at all, the Governor being Romney and Kerry's seat (in their mind) likely to be open.

Now while the system they finally chose was a good one, the reason for changing it back was not to create a good system but because they have a democrat governor and Ted Kennedy died and they want their vote on healthcare.

Frankly I say you already changed it for a political reason, you can change the law back, but it should have a year enactment period, that way it will be done for the right reasons, because its a good law, not to just get someone in a seat.

[KainIIIC]

No doubt that it's highly political, but as far as representation goes, what isn't political? I'm glad they finally settled on the best system, but hey, we also got our 60th senator from that. And, with Deval Patrick and the state legislature overwhelmingly Democratic, they sure as hell can do it.

At the end of the day, these senate vacancies are about two main issues: representation and democracy. Appointments are better for the reason that they keep full representation of a state at nearly all times; democracy since we actually want to have a choice in who is represented, albeit with a 4-5 month vacancy. Again, if you were to enact it years away, you would still be robbed of 1/2 your representation, and why would you want to go all Loser-esque Norm Coleman on everyone?

[Kenadian_2006]

Atleast you guys actually elect your senators.