Well, it looks like the fine people of Massachusetts -- through their duly elected representatives -- have found an answer to the conundrum of how to replace the late Senator Kennedy (D-Chivas). They found themselves on the horns of a dilemma: should the governor appoint the successor, or should there be a special election?
In typical Massachusetts fashion, they settled on both.
The current bill, expected to be signed by Governor Patrick, gives the governor the power to appoint someone to the Senate -- until the special election in January. And while they couldn't codify the "seat-warmer" provision, both Houses and the Governor said that they would extract pledges from the appointee to not run in the election.
On the surface, a fine, elegant solution. Both concerns are addressed -- that Massachusetts not be deprived of a voice in the Senate, and that the people get to choose their representative.
On the practical side, though, it's typical Massachusetts logic: damn the expenses, full speed ahead!
The appointee (right now it seems a tossup between former governor and loser presidential nominee Michael Dukakis and Kennedy crony Paul Kirk) will take office with a guaranteed expiration date, the remnants of Ted Kennedy's staff, and a charge to vote the Democratic party line until January -- at which point they will be given the proverbial gold watch and a boot in the ass out the door. Forget "lame duck" -- Senator X will be, politically, "dead man walking."
Of course, there will still be all the expenses of being a Senator, picked up by the taxpayers. Stationery, the re-lettering of the office door, various and sundry other costs -- most of which will reoccur after the election in January.
The main upshoot of this will not be seen for some time. Should a Republican reclaim the governor's office in Massachusetts, I feel very comfortable predicting that the law will be rescinded and the current special election provisions will be brought back. On the other hand, should the Democrats keep the office, then the election will go away as "unnecessary and expensive, depriving the people of Massachusetts of representation" will once again be the winning argument.
It all depends on which better benefits the Massachusetts Democratic party, of course.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Mass. Insanity
Comments (9)
Why have laws if you are go... (Below threshold)1. Posted by TexBob | September 23, 2009 10:36 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Why have laws if you are going to change them every time you want to break them?
1. Posted by TexBob | September 23, 2009 10:36 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 23, 2009 10:36
2. Posted by GarandFan | September 23, 2009 10:46 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Where was the legislature's "concern" about a voice in the Senate while Splash took 15 months to die? He certainly wasn't in his office.
Suggestion: Stuff Teddy and prop him up in his Senate seat until his term expires.. It's not like people don't know how he'd vote on anything. It's always been the straight Democratic ticket. Only time Teddy 'crossed the isle' was to thank some dumb ass Republican for voting Teddy's way.
Now that's Democratic "bipartisanship"!
2. Posted by GarandFan | September 23, 2009 10:46 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on September 23, 2009 10:46
3. Posted by Flu-Bird | September 23, 2009 11:39 AM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
How soon will they have their new king of MASSACHUSES cornated after all CHAPAQUEDIC TED acted like he was a king at times
3. Posted by Flu-Bird | September 23, 2009 11:39 AM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 23, 2009 11:39
4. Posted by 914 | September 23, 2009 11:42 AM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Just prop Him up
" Only time Teddy 'crossed the isle' was to thank some dumb ass Republican"
Or to get another bottle.
4. Posted by 914 | September 23, 2009 11:42 AM |
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
Posted on September 23, 2009 11:42
5. Posted by iwogisdead | September 23, 2009 12:13 PM | Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Well, the 17th Amendment mandates the special election. It also allows for the legislature to authorize the governor to appoint a temporary Senator until the election takes place. I'm not sure this could have been constitutionally handled any other way.
5. Posted by iwogisdead | September 23, 2009 12:13 PM |
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on September 23, 2009 12:13
6. Posted by Gmac | September 23, 2009 5:40 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Screw MA. They are a prime example of why one party domination is a stupid idea. Then again, the morons that keep electing the same half wits back into office deserve every bit of the stupidity they get.
Personally, I hope they build an impenetrable wall around the rat hole and let it sink into the dystopia that it has become.
6. Posted by Gmac | September 23, 2009 5:40 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 23, 2009 17:40
7. Posted by Dave in W-S | September 23, 2009 8:00 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
So is this 4-month Senator entitled to a Senate retirement?
7. Posted by Dave in W-S | September 23, 2009 8:00 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on September 23, 2009 20:00
8. Posted by 914 | September 23, 2009 10:07 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
"So is this 4-month Senator entitled to a Senate retirement?"
They never retire... They dry up like rotten feces but never give up the ghost. (See Spectern).
You may cite the splashtime wino from the vineyard as a prime example of what not to become.
A.) Stuck on Yourself..Yes
B.) Intelligent.. No
c.) Concerned.. Never. Well, ( Ceptin once
when He blew a tie rod and went AWOL ), Snark ..
To be frank ( not the Barnyard type ), I should get into politics just for the freebies. And 4 month lifetime pension.
8. Posted by 914 | September 23, 2009 10:07 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on September 23, 2009 22:07
9. Posted by NewEnglandDevil | September 24, 2009 12:32 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
It gets even better. In their infinite wisdom, the MA general court passed the bill with less than 2/3 vote in each house, meaning that the "emergency" provision in the bill is void. Without the "emergency" provision in the bill, the law cannot take effect until 90 days after it is signed by the Governor. Which at this point, will occur after the scheduled election if I'm not mistaken. And there will be real controversy if the Gov. appoints someone anyway, as an illegitimate appointment could make any votes null and void.
Even better, they did all this to secure the 59th senate vote - since Sen. KKK Byrd is now out (again) and unlikely to return to DC in the near future. Retards.
9. Posted by NewEnglandDevil | September 24, 2009 12:32 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on September 24, 2009 00:32