Kennedy requests change in MA senate succession law

[Brittain33]

Exactly.  Kennedy just wants what he wants when he wants it.  Before it was insurance against a Republican colleague, now it's insurance for his pet project.  You can't have it both ways.  That is unless you're a Kennedy in Massachusetts, then you can have it any way you'd like.

First of all, it's not either/or. The original situation was an appointment for nearly two years. This was replaced by a special election with no appointment in the interim. The modification beyond that which Kennedy requested is a short-term appointment followed by a special election. This is refining an original idea. Is there partisanship? Sure. Is it rank hypocrisy? Overblown. He's not asking for Patrick to get an appointment until the next Congress convened. I sincerely believe that Kennedy's requested law is the best of all worlds, regardless that it is the most favorable to Democrats right now. I'd feel that way if we were talking about Strom Thurmond and Jim Hodges.

Secondly, the guy is dying of brain cancer and is concerned about his signature issue not dying with him. I think a little more empathy is called for. Besides, since the legislature isn't doing it AND since Kennedy wasn't the impetus behind the first change, I think that calling this a case of Kennedy entitlement is almost offensive. No more than any other senator of a dominant party, for sure.

[fezzyfestoon]

Exactly.  Kennedy just wants what he wants when he wants it.  Before it was insurance against a Republican colleague, now it's insurance for his pet project.  You can't have it both ways.  That is unless you're a Kennedy in Massachusetts, then you can have it any way you'd like.

First of all, it's not either/or. The original situation was an appointment for nearly two years. This was replaced by a special election with no appointment in the interim. The modification beyond that which Kennedy requested is a short-term appointment followed by a special election. This is refining an original idea. Is there partisanship? Sure. Is it rank hypocrisy? Overblown. He's not asking for Patrick to get an appointment until the next Congress convened. I sincerely believe that Kennedy's requested law is the best of all worlds, regardless that it is the most favorable to Democrats right now. I'd feel that way if we were talking about Strom Thurmond and Jim Hodges.

Secondly, the guy is dying of brain cancer and is concerned about his signature issue not dying with him. I think a little more empathy is called for. Besides, since the legislature isn't doing it AND since Kennedy wasn't the impetus behind the first change, I think that calling this a case of Kennedy entitlement is almost offensive. No more than any other senator of a dominant party, for sure.

There's nothing wrong with the proposition, it's the truly rank hypocrisy.  And you're right, it's not either or, it's whatever way the Democrats want it.  Whatever they can do to get what they want, they'll do it.  Even if that means changing a law they just changed to reverse their own partisanship.  If Kennedy and Massachusetts were so concerned with what was right they would have left the law alone when Romney was Governor and he would have spoken up against what was a blatant partisan stunt.  The new way is how it should be and they shouldn't have changed it in the first place.

Empathy?  Kennedy deserves empathy?  Like the kind he had for the woman that died because he was more concerned with his reputation than her life?  It's embarrassing to hear people defend Kennedy's right to have laws changed because of his name.

[Alexander Hamilton]

It's definitely a blatantly political effort to keep the 60 votes to break a united GOP filibuster in play.

Considering that his deteriorating condition has been evident for some time, if Kennedy was truly all that worried about Massachusetts having only a single Senator, he should have resigned his seat some months ago, maybe even soon enough for a special election for the seat to be held in conjunction with the 2008 general election.

I would imagine he didn't exactly plan on dying. Some people actually hold out hope of living to fulfill their dreams someday.

Should've thought of that in 2004. You can't pick and choose who laws apply to. It's just not right.

So, once a law is passed, it's not right to ever repeal or modify it, ever again?

Incidentally, I support a constitutional amendment making this approach (used in Texas, of all places) mandatory for senate vacancies nation-wide. No unelected Senators serving for years on end, and no seats sitting empty for months.

Not for reasons of being politically expedient to the Democratic agenda. If they wanted a fair law, they would've made it when they decided to change the law. I'm not sure if this will even pass the legislature anyways though, what with Patrick's approval ratings and all.

[Brittain33]

The new way is how it should be and they shouldn't have changed it in the first place.

I really don't want to get in a debate about Ted Kennedy's worth, but I want to go back to something I said earlier. I said that I thought having a temporary appointee followed by a special election is the best solution, much better than pure governmental appointment, and somewhat better than the current law. Do you agree? If not, is it because you want to have a five-month vacancy for your own partisan reasons, or what?

[fezzyfestoon]

The new way is how it should be and they shouldn't have changed it in the first place.

I really don't want to get in a debate about Ted Kennedy's worth, but I want to go back to something I said earlier. I said that I thought having a temporary appointee followed by a special election is the best solution, much better than pure governmental appointment, and somewhat better than the current law. Do you agree? If not, is it because you want to have a five-month vacancy for your own partisan reasons, or what?

No, I completely agree.  My only problem is the nauseating levels of partisanship and entitlement.

[cinyc]

The new way is how it should be and they shouldn't have changed it in the first place.

I really don't want to get in a debate about Ted Kennedy's worth, but I want to go back to something I said earlier. I said that I thought having a temporary appointee followed by a special election is the best solution, much better than pure governmental appointment, and somewhat better than the current law. Do you agree? If not, is it because you want to have a five-month vacancy for your own partisan reasons, or what?

What I want is consistency.  Why didn't the Democrats propose this when Romney was governor?  Because any nominee to fill a vacant seat, no matter how temporary the appointment, would have a leg up in the special election.  And because in the interim, there would be a Republican in the seat, even if she didn't run in the special election.  I'm willing to bet the Massachusetts Democrats will change the law back if Deval Patrick loses his reelection bid. 

Since I have very little nice to say about Ted Kennedy, I won't say anything at all.

[Brittain33]

What I want is consistency.  Why didn't the Democrats propose this when Romney was governor?  Because any nominee to fill a vacant seat, no matter how temporary the appointment, would have a leg up in the special election.  And because in the interim, there would be a Republican in the seat, even if she didn't run in the special election.

Of course. I've never pretended this wasn't a self-serving partisan move. I was just arguing that in spite of that, it was an actual improvement, and in spite of the self-serving partisan nature of Kennedy's requested change, that would have been a further improvement. I'd hope I'd say the same if we were talking about South Carolina's government making similar changes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, there is no sign they're even going to make the change Kennedy requested, so it's probably a moot point.

[Lunar]

The new way is how it should be and they shouldn't have changed it in the first place.

I really don't want to get in a debate about Ted Kennedy's worth, but I want to go back to something I said earlier. I said that I thought having a temporary appointee followed by a special election is the best solution, much better than pure governmental appointment, and somewhat better than the current law. Do you agree? If not, is it because you want to have a five-month vacancy for your own partisan reasons, or what?

What I want is consistency.  Why didn't the Democrats propose this when Romney was governor?  Because any nominee to fill a vacant seat, no matter how temporary the appointment, would have a leg up in the special election. 

Not if the law forbids the caretaker from running in the special

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

The new way is how it should be and they shouldn't have changed it in the first place.

I really don't want to get in a debate about Ted Kennedy's worth, but I want to go back to something I said earlier. I said that I thought having a temporary appointee followed by a special election is the best solution, much better than pure governmental appointment, and somewhat better than the current law. Do you agree? If not, is it because you want to have a five-month vacancy for your own partisan reasons, or what?

What I want is consistency.  Why didn't the Democrats propose this when Romney was governor?  Because any nominee to fill a vacant seat, no matter how temporary the appointment, would have a leg up in the special election. 

Not if the law forbids the caretaker from running in the special

]

That law would presumably be all sorts of unconstitutional.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not if the law forbids the caretaker from running in the special

That law would presumably be all sorts of unconstitutional.

Only if the provision prohibiting him from running were added after the caretaker were appointed.  After all, if someone intends to run, and there were such a provision, they'd only need decline the provision to run.

[Brittain33]

Only if the provision prohibiting him from running were added after the caretaker were appointed.  After all, if someone intends to run, and there were such a provision, they'd only need decline the provision to run.

It's all academic now, but I think Kennedy only asked that the caretaker promise not to run again.

[WalterMitty]

i dont know if the name has been mentioned, i havent read this whole thread...but the perfect caretaker would be mike dukakis.

[cinyc]

Only if the provision prohibiting him from running were added after the caretaker were appointed.  After all, if someone intends to run, and there were such a provision, they'd only need decline the provision to run.

Not necessarily.  Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a requirement that a Senator not be appointed interim Senator in a state where the governor may appoint someone before a vacant Senate seat is ultimately filled by a special election.   The only constitutional requirements are that the Senator be 30 years old, a US citizen for 9 years and an inhabitant of the state at the time of election.  If the temporary replacement nevertheless ran in the special election and won, there may be nothing the state could do about it.

[Dan the Roman]

The current idea passing around in the legislature and likely to be passed next week is for a temporary replacement who could only be appointed following the end of the filing period for the special election. This would be a constitutional way of prohibiting the appointment from running. There is a lot of Democratic distrust of Deval Patrick's intention and a determination to prevent him from interfering with Martha Coakley's ascension to the senate.

[Mr. Morden]

Has this already been posted?  There are so many Kennedy threads, that I might have missed it:

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Badger]

Has this already been posted?  There are so many Kennedy threads, that I might have missed it:

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hopefully they do. A minimum 145 days for a special election, plus however long afterwards for the winner to actually be sworn in, is too long to go without a senator.

Stupid Mass Gen Assembly. I understand why they changed the law back in '04 (to keep Romney from appointing a replacement for Kerry if he won the presidency), but why didn't they just allow the gov to appoint an interim senator from a list compiled by the replaced senator's party until the special election, like in Wyoming? (The way it should be in all states, IMHO).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Stupid Mass Gen Assembly. I understand why they changed the law back in '04 (to keep Romney from appointing a replacement for Kerry if he won the presidency), but why didn't they just allow the gov to appoint an interim senator from a list compiled by the replaced senator's party until the special election, like in Wyoming? (The way it should be in all states, IMHO).

Because the priority was to screw over Mitt Romney, and not to provide good government.  It was a short-sided quick hit—I don't think they ever went through the trouble of fleshing it out.

[Badger]

Stupid Mass Gen Assembly. I understand why they changed the law back in '04 (to keep Romney from appointing a replacement for Kerry if he won the presidency), but why didn't they just allow the gov to appoint an interim senator from a list compiled by the replaced senator's party until the special election, like in Wyoming? (The way it should be in all states, IMHO).

Because the priority was to screw over Mitt Romney, and not to provide good government.  It was a short-sided quick hit—I don't think they ever went through the trouble of fleshing it out.

Agree. But under the Wyoming plan they could've done both. :-)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Only if the provision prohibiting him from running were added after the caretaker were appointed.  After all, if someone intends to run, and there were such a provision, they'd only need decline the provision to run.

Not necessarily.  Nowhere in the US Constitution is there a requirement that a Senator not be appointed interim Senator in a state where the governor may appoint someone before a vacant Senate seat is ultimately filled by a special election.   The only constitutional requirements are that the Senator be 30 years old, a US citizen for 9 years and an inhabitant of the state at the time of election.  If the temporary replacement nevertheless ran in the special election and won, there may be nothing the state could do about it.

The State need not put his name on the ballot in the first place.  I can't see where such a requirement would be any different in constitutional effect or applicability than any of the other laws that limit ballot access.

[cinyc]

The State need not put his name on the ballot in the first place.  I can't see where such a requirement would be any different in constitutional effect or applicability than any of the other laws that limit ballot access.

Because it has nothing to do with ballot access, applicable to all candidates, but banning a specific candidate from running, even if they jump through the equally applicable ballot access hoops and the person is otherwise eligible.  To me, specifically banning a caretaker from running is like the laws against convicted felons running for federal office - likely unconstitutional.

The way some have proposed the law - allowing the governor to appoint an interim Senator from people not on the ballot after the ballot deadline has passed- would be constitutional and pretty much make sure the interim is not on the ballot (though it's still possible that the interim party's candidate pulls a Torricelli letting the interim run in his place).