|
|
May 23, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Rumble Brews Over Kennedy’s ReplacementPosted on Aug 27, 2009
Filling Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat isn’t going to be easy, above and beyond his official status as a tough act to follow, because of the highly politicized (and fairly recently reconfigured) protocol for replacing U.S. senators from Massachusetts. —KA
Advertisement TAGS:
|
More Exposés, Less Action
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By ardee, August 29, 2009 at 10:03 am Link to this comment
Meanwhile replacement Senators should never be appointed by governors or any single other person for that matter. Senators represent the people of a state and not the state’s governor. To me the fairest system is:........
Law is what it is, and , if a state law says the governor appoints a replacement then that is what she does…Change the law, hell both parties do it frequently to suit themselves.
You do understand the states are represented by two Senators. Depriving one state of such representation is to be avoided (Minnesota anyone?) when possible.
I would ask, in all openness, if your opinion is pushed by numbers and impending votes?
Report thisBy dihey, August 28, 2009 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment
What good was/is a Senate with one Lion and ninety-nine asses? Abolish this regressive elitist institution of perpetual troglodytes; the sooner the better for our country in my opinion. When I hear the recent statements of some of these troglodytes I ask: “my Gosh, are these imbeciles the people that govern us?”
Meanwhile replacement Senators should never be appointed by governors or any single other person for that matter. Senators represent the people of a state and not the state’s governor. To me the fairest system is:
1. Set aside a period of, say five or six months after which a replacement is elected by popular vote. I am not sure what should be done if the regularly scheduled election falls within that period. Nominate the primary runner-up of the same party for the regular election as a replacement in the regular election? In many cases the runner-up will campaign for the primary winner and thereby be already somewhat known to the voting public of the state.
2. In the interim period, so that the state in question is not disadvantaged, the governor of the state submits the name of a “caretaker senator” to the state’s Senate for consent by the state’s senate or house. The “caretaker senator” is appointed when the chamber votes affirmatively preferably by a simple majority of members present. Once again: governors must not be allowed to appoint “caretaker senators”.
3. Although it may be reasonably expected that the “caretaker senator” will not run in the next election it seems to be unconstitutional to me to legally forbid him/her to run.
4. Considering Kennedy’s state of health during the past few days my hunch is that his letter to the Massachusetts governor was written for him perhaps by Rahm Emanuel and Teddy was asked to sign the document to “save” the health reform bill without perhaps knowing what exactly was in his letter. I am definitely not the greatest fan of Ted Kennedy but ardee’s characterization of him as “hypocritical” is therefore way over the top in my view.
Report thisBy Bob, August 28, 2009 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, that in a nutshell is THE problem. “this small stain of hypocrisy” is filtered by where you stand politically. Is a little lying ok? Is a little thievery ok? How about a little spousal abuse, ok? And how much is a little? How big is a stain? You should be embarrassed thinking this way, much less expressing your lack of moral compass. Ted Kennedy on lots of occasions behaved badly, spoke badly and served the public badly. No one is perfect but WE need to demand better from our politicians. Because if you haven’t noticed it isn’t getting better.
Report thisBy TheRealFish, August 28, 2009 at 4:43 am Link to this comment
Ooh! Hypocrisy. If there were a law against that right now, there would certainly be fewer Democrats left standing…
...and no current member of the Republican party.
Screw it. Since every single serving congressional Republican has shown he or she is dedicated to the single cause of obstruction and delay and the overthrow of a popularly elected change government (with most implicitly, and some explicitly, promoting violence), I think the republic can withstand a small bit of hypocrisy if the end goal is to finally, after 97 years of trying, to bring the US into alignment with every other major industrialized country, and make health care for all a right.
This small stain of hypocrisy will fade much more quickly than the massive stain on the political landscape that has become today’s Repulic Party.
Report thisBy ardee, August 28, 2009 at 4:41 am Link to this comment
Despie the pettiness of the comment preceeding mine, voice of truth, and despite the lack of knowledge on my part as to Senator Kennedy’s role in changing the law in 2004 one important fact remains.
Altering law to suit political expedience is a bad idea.
Report thisBy voice of truth, August 27, 2009 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment
Incredibly, this article leaves out the fact that it was Ted Kennedy who originally pushed for the law to be changed in 2004, and that he again was the prime instigator in wanting it changed now. And both times his argument was that it was better for the people, and he kept a straight face while saying it!
It is the most fitting ending to an extremely flawed and blatantly hypocritical man.
Report this