Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mass. House gives initial OK to succession bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 04:58 PM
Original message
Mass. House gives initial OK to succession bill
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_kenn...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. As a Mass Dem I find this flipping of procedures a tad annoying.
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 05:04 PM by virgogal
What if the shoe was on the other foot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Then we'll be screwed and you'll see a thread...
with about 300+ posts decrying it. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
15. Bull puckey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robo50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #6
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robo50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. But the basic idea was a bad one in 2004? It's the flip-flopping
that bothers me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harmonicon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. The basic idea is to win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. I did not find the thread I wanted to find, and that is annoying, but I did find this.
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 06:03 AM by No Elephants
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #19
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
14. Special election in January, come hell or high water.
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 05:27 AM by No Elephants
Having a Senator chose his successor would violate the Constitution of the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robo50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
17. It should not have been in the original bill 5 years ago. It would have been a
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 05:47 AM by No Elephants
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robo50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. I know exactly why it was NOT done 5 years ago, and just told the previous poster so.
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 02:36 PM by robo50
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. We ARE playing fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #18
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. They would do the same and more. And?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steven johnson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."Emerson
Edited on Fri Sep-18-09 08:18 AM by steven johnson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fingers crossed here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czar One Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Excellent!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpartanDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
22. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vidar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
23. So far, so good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
25. OK, succession makes a lot more sense than the way I read it, secession.
lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robo50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 18th 2014, 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC