• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Kennedy wants Gov. to appoint his successor

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
34,078
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Even the New York Times is against this.

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.
Click to expand...

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. :rolleyes:

Anyway, this particular seat is a Kennedy family heirloom, so what the people of Massachussets think is really beside the point.
 
Bad idea. Illegal too (right now). However, he can certainly pick his preference. I have a feeling that would carry some weight.
 
Tricky said:
Bad idea. Illegal too (right now). However, he can certainly pick his preference. I have a feeling that would carry some weight.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Puppycow said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Puppycow said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
SezMe said:
What's the problem?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
SezMe said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
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.
Click to expand...

But not so vital to have two votes right now, apparantly.
 
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.)
 
Tricky said:
Bad idea. Illegal too (right now).
Click to expand...

tyr_13 said:
While I see the concern, it's still illegal and a bad idea.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
hgc said:
That means that the appointment is short-term, and the state is not left waiting while no one holds the seat.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom