Republicans are fighting to stop Kennedy's interim Senate seat!

[StoneScratcher]

“Not so fast,” say opponents of the bill. They are questioning the governor’s power to unilaterally declare the appointment an emergency when the Legislature has already rejected that notion. And many are asking, “What is the emergency?” They are mulling over some kind of challenge when Patrick declares the emergency.

Without the emergency preamble, the law would not take effect and a temporary senator could not be appointed until Dec. 22. The special final election to replace Kennedy is less than a month later on January 10 meaning that the replacement would serve less than a month in office.

Republican House Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) is leading the fight against the law taking effect immediately.

In a written statement, Jones said, “The House’s decision to remove the emergency preamble from the Senate Vacancy legislation makes it clear no emergency exists. This act demonstrates the intent of the House to ensure this piece of legislation shall not take effect immediately but rather become effective in 90 days like all general legislation. It is my hope the Governor will respect the vote of the House and not attempt to thwart its decision through a contorted interpretation of the Constitution.”

http://www.wickedlocal.com/burlington/news/x1073709382/Interim-bill-sent-to-Patrick-Murphy-Donnelly-vote-yes

Well, well...why isn't this being reported anywhere on the local news? National news, even?

I mean, it's supposed to be an emergency, isn't it?

[Jabbamagnus]

Interesting. This is at the state level right?

[55SFSDefender]

Not my state but changing the rules like they have certainly does smack of BS. I don't understand how people there can be ok with Democrats just deciding how things will be done regardless of the law.

Guess the moral of the story is if you don't like the law change it when it no longer suits your needs. :naughty:

[StoneScratcher]

Interesting. This is at the state level right?

Which part? The emergency part, or the fact that Obama's been thumping for a Kennedy clone to be appointed immediately so he can have health care passed much more easily?

[jasan22]

Not my state but changing the rules like they have certainly does smack of BS. I don't understand how people there can be ok with Democrats just deciding how things will be done regardless of the law.

Guess the moral of the story is if you don't like the law change it when it no longer suits your needs. :naughty:

Why not, the libs up in Jersey did the same thing to replace Toricelli's seat. Par for the lib course, change the rules in the middle of the game because they might not like the outcome. Bunch of whiny babies they are if you ask me.

[StoneScratcher]

Not my state but changing the rules like they have certainly does smack of BS. I don't understand how people there can be ok with Democrats just deciding how things will be done regardless of the law.

Guess the moral of the story is if you don't like the law change it when it no longer suits your needs. :naughty:

It may not be your state, but it affects the Senate vote tremendously. And also, what is the emergency that requires Kennedy's spot to be filled as annointed by the liberal gods themselves?

What is the emergency? Obama wants it done?

[Jabbamagnus]

Which part? The emergency part, or the fact that Obama's been thumping for a Kennedy clone to be appointed immediately so he can have health care passed much more easily?

The house part with the emergency stuff. I think I found the answer. It's at the state level, which is where it should be. :)

[StoneScratcher]

The house part with the emergency stuff. I think I found the answer. It's at the state level, which is where it should be. :)

I'm sorry...I didn't understand your question. I hope you can forgive me. I'm supposed to be getting ready for a state of emergency here in MA. What happens? Will sirens blow? Will the National Guard come marching down the street? Will the clouds billow and form themselves into a Ted Kennedy silhouette against the blue skies of Boston?

[Jabbamagnus]

I'm sorry...I didn't understand your question. I hope you can forgive me.

No problem. :D

[StoneScratcher]

No problem. :D

What happens when there's a REAL emergency?

Isn't this abusing "emergency powers" just for political gain?

I'm having a hard time grasping the fact that a state, any state, can be tweeked by those who benefit politically from it.

What if your state wanted to tweek a state of emergency on you because they wanted to gain politically from a pharmaceutical lobbyist or something?

[StoneScratcher]

Well, well?

Lookie here:

AP source: Former DNC head Kirk to replace Kennedy
By GLEN JOHNSON (AP) – 5 minutes ago

BOSTON — A Democratic aide says Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick will name former party chairman Paul Kirk to temporarily fill the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's seat.
The aide asked for anonymity to speak in advance of Patrick's formal announcement Thursday.

The appointment will let Kirk serve in the interim post until voters pick a replacement in a Jan. 19 special election. It also gives President Barack Obama a critical 60th U.S. Senate vote he needs to pass a health care overhaul.

Kirk served on Edward Kennedy's staff for eight years and is chairman of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation's board of directors. He also has been a registered lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivEDvT9bYPFIxmY4gvlBgeXDHUmwD9ATND3O0

[StoneScratcher]

I wonder what's going on? Did the emergency happen yet? Supposedly, Deval Patrick is going to announce the new interim Senator at 11:00 AM...

Did the Secretary of State say it was okay to declare an emergency?

I wonder if the Republicans are thoroughly defeated? Seems so.

Can We the People read Deval Patrick's letter?*

According to the state constitution, the governor can bypass the two-thirds requirement merely by sending a letter to the secretary of state declaring "the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety or convenience requires that such law should take effect forthwith."

Patrick has argued the state stands to suffer without full Senate representation before the special election campaign, but some fellow Democrats have joined Republicans in accusing him of a power grab.

"This is not an emergency," said Rep. Paul Frost, R-Auburn. *"So however the governor is going to write a letter to the secretary of state, saying the Legislature didn't agree it was an emergency, but I do, I can't wait to see it."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivEDvT9bYPFIxmY4gvlBgeXDHUmwD9ATND3O0

[StoneScratcher]

Nine minutes ago:

The Honorable William Francis Galvin
Secretary of the Commonwealth
One Ashburton Place, Room 1611
Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1512

Dear Secretary Galvin:

I am writing to urge you to reject Governor Deval Patrick's expected letter attempting to invoke article II of amendment 48, The Referendum, II, declaring an emergency to enact the law allowing for an interim senator to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat. The General Court rejected an emergency preamble; and, the Governor does not have the Constitutional authority to file with the Secretary of the Commonwealth a letter, in accordance with article 48, The referendum, II, declaring that the preservation of the public convenience requires that the law be immediately effective.


This is not a political opinion, this is a legal decision so issued by the Supreme Judicial Court in an Opinion of the Justices to the Governor (368 Mass 889, October 27, 1975). In following said SJC's 1975 opinion, Governor Patrick is not within his constitutional powers, and accordingly, this letter respectfully request that you do not accept said emergency declaration for filing with your office

The Supreme Judicial Court has set forth that the Governor's letter to the Secretary declaring an emergency law can only be used when a law is subject to a referendum; and further, only when the law could be subject to suspension of its operation under The Referendum, III, Section 3. In such an instance, the Governor's letter declaring an emergency law would have the effect of terminating that suspension. No such suspension of law threat is viable in this case. The law, as signed, cannot be subject to a referendum petition or a request for suspension. According to the Secretary of the Commonwealth's web site, submission of original petitions to Attorney General to originate an initiative petition for a constitutional amendment were due August 5, 2009. That date has passed, and with a special election slated for January 19, 2010 a referendum cannot be had.

In the SJC's opinion referenced herein, the Court explained that the Governor's declaration of emergency can only be used to close the threat of a referendum suspension of the law. As that is not the case in this instance, the people of the Commonwealth do not have The Referendum III, section 3 suspension as an option, as was intended by the authors of our constitutional protections and processes. So, no such threat exists.

According to the SJC: "The gubernatorial authority to forestall or undo the suspensive effect of a referendum petition was imported into article 48 as one of the means of providing some check on the power of a small minority of the voters to nullify adopted legislation until the next eligible Statewide election." As stated, there is no circumstance of such a referendum suspension threat regarding the current matter. As explained, this cannot even be in this case; therefore, the Governor is acting outside of his constitutional authority of protecting the citizen's from a "small minority of the voters." Moreover, the Governor is acting outside his authority to unilaterally overrule the will of the General Court, our Commonwealth's representatives.

Therefore, I respectfully implore you to exercise your Constitutional authority and to not accept the Governor's letter. Or, at the least, please seek an SJC advisory opinion regarding the Constitutionality of your accepting a patently unconstitutional letter from the Governor.

Mr. Secretary, you are our Commonwealth's final line of defense in upholding the Constitution on behalf of its citizens. We are grateful for your service to our state.

Respectfully submitted,

Jennifer A. Nassour
Chairman
Massachusetts Republican Party

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/gop_letter_urge.html

[Conservative16]

Abuse of power.... I wonder if goeagles will find a way to justify this

[toreyj01]

The Dems have a majority in the legislature.

The legislature decides upon laws.

If you don't like it, get some Republicans in there.

Otherwise, stop whinging, its just Democracy.

[StoneScratcher]

Maybe if your name ends in a K you matter in Massachusetts?

Kerry...Kennedy...Kirk...

“Paul Kirk cares enormously about our state, and that’s why he’s been such a trusted friend to the Kennedy family and to me,’’ Senator John F. Kerry said yesterday. “But this is the governor’s decision now, just as it’s the peoples’ choice in January, and I’m not engaging in the speculation game.’’

The late senator's widow, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, told the governor that she preferred Kirk, according to a Kennedy family associate. Kennedy’s two sons, US Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island and Edward M. Kennedy Jr., have also told Patrick that Kirk is their first choice.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/kirk_to_be_name.html

[ArmyMAJretired]

The people should get to vote. That's what Kennedy wanted when there was a REPUBLICAN Governor!

[StoneScratcher]

Abuse of power.... I wonder if goeagles will find a way to justify this

(shaking head)....no, please don't have the thread change to that show again...please...

LOL! :cool:

[StoneScratcher]

The people should get to vote. That's what Kennedy wanted when there was a REPUBLICAN Governor!

:clap: :flag:

[Jabbamagnus]

What happens when there's a REAL emergency?

Isn't this abusing "emergency powers" just for political gain?

I'm having a hard time grasping the fact that a state, any state, can be tweeked by those who benefit politically from it.

What if your state wanted to tweek a state of emergency on you because they wanted to gain politically from a pharmaceutical lobbyist or something?

I agree that the way they are doing this is underhanded and just plain wrong.

[StoneScratcher]

Today's announcement comes after a controversial process in which the Massachusetts legislature changed an existing law that called for a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat. That process would have left the position vacant for five months, including the time when the Senate will consider health care reform.

Although Massachusetts governors once had the power to appoint Senate replacements, the state's Democratic legislature moved to strip Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of the choice when it looked as though Sen. John Kerry could win the 2004 presidential election.

In another unusual twist, because the state constitution stipulates that new laws cannot become official for 90 days, Patrick will have to declare a state emergency today in order to make Kirk's nomination effective immediately.

Kirk's appointment today theoretically gives Senate Democrats a full slate of 60 voting members, counting the two Senate independents who caucus with them. However, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was rushed to a Washington-area hospital this week after a fall at his home, and is expected to remain in the hospital for several days. Byrd's fragile health has kept him away from most votes in the Senate, although he did make the trip to the Capitol to cast a vote in favor of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/24/kennedy-friend-will-take-late-senators-seat/

[mozalf]

Funny how the democrats just trounce on and disregard our laws and Constitution when it comes to them holding on to or grabbing more power. It's mind boggling as to what lengths they'll go to where corruption and crime is concerned and not feel any sense of responsibility, obligation or remorse. Don't do as they do, just do as they say. Pathetic!

[StoneScratcher]

UPDATE:

The Massachusetts Republican Party has filed an injunction in a Boston court seeking to block former Democratic Party chairman Paul Kirk from becoming the interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Lawmakers this week passed legislation giving Gov. Deval Patrick (http://news.bostonherald.com/search/?topic=Deval+Patrick&searchSite=pubdate) the power to appoint an interim replacement, but laws approved in Massachusetts usually take 90 days to go into effect. Patrick signed an emergency letter that he says allows the law to become effective immediately.

Republicans allege in their court filing that Patrick did not have the constitutional authority to do that.

http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1199781&pos=breaking

Kirk, if able, will be sworn in tomorrow.

Kirk also said that after he is sworn in he will begin working on over 800 items which need to get done immediately!!!

I wonder what they are?

[StoneScratcher]

Republicans challenged the validity of the appointment, arguing that Patrick had exceeded his powers in expediting the appointment after the House voted Wednesday against making the appointment bill an emergency law. Democrats rewrote a law they changed in 2004, when they stripped Republican Gov. Mitt Romney of the power to fill vacant U.S. Senate seats in favor of a special election process.

A Suffolk Superior Court judge is scheduled to hear the state party’s injunction request Friday morning in Boston.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/dover/news/x1699597766/Patrick-says-Kirk-shares-Kennedy-s-sense-of-service-as-GOP-heads-to-court
---
Found this posted on comments in The Fix article:

Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly has scheduled an 8 a.m. hearing tomorrow to consider the request for injunction filed today by the Massachusetts Republican Party. GOP Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour said: "I thank the court for taking the time tomorrow for what we consider to be an important legal question. From the beginning, the Republican Party of Massachusetts has been focused on ensuring the laws of our Commonwealth are properly followed. While we opposed the change in the election law, once changed, we believe Governor Patrick has an obligation to follow the law as written. By immediately making an appointment, we believe the governor has overstepped his authority."

Hearing Information:

Friday, September 25, 2009 at 8:00 a.m.

Superior Court, Suffolk County Courthouse

comments

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/ma-senate-patrick-to-name-kirk.html

---

The Massachusetts GOP will get its day in court in their attempt to stop the appointment (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/massachusetts-gop-seeking-injunction-to-stop-senate-appointment.php) of Paul Kirk to Ted Kennedy's Senate seat -- but the immediate signs don't point to a win for them.

A spokesperson for the Suffolk County District Superior Court, where the case was filed, has just told me that there will be a hearing tomorrow morning at 8 a.m., presided over by Judge Thomas Connolly.

I asked whether an ex parte temporary restraining order against the appointment had been issued -- which can often happen in time-sensitive election cases, in order to stop a legally questionable outcome before a hearing has been conducted. There has not been any such order at this time. Kirk is set to be sworn in tomorrow.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/massachusetts-gop-challenge-to-senate-appointment-to-get-hearing----but-no-ex-parte-restraining-orde.php?ref=mp

The Massachusetts Republican Party has gone to court (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60177-mass-gop-files-injunction-to-stop-appointment) in an attempt to stop the appointment of Paul Kirk to the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

The issue here, the GOP claims, is that Gov. Deval Patrick did not have the constitutional authority to declare the bill empowering him to make an appointment to be an emergency law, thus having it take effect immediately. (For more background on this issue, check out this interview (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/massachusetts-gop-legislator-constitutional-problems-remain-for-senate-appointment-bill.php) I did a few days ago with a GOP state Senator.)

It's not clear how much chance of success they have. As the Boston Herald (http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?articleid=1199781&pos=breaking) points out, Kirk is scheduled to be sworn in tomorrow. The state GOP's filing was made this morning, and so far the courts have not responded. But if the courts do end up taking the case, it could have the effect of delaying the appointment, or perhaps even stopping it altogether.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/massachusetts-gop-seeking-injunction-to-stop-senate-appointment.php

[Proud Mom and Teacher]

What happens when there's a REAL emergency?

Isn't this abusing "emergency powers" just for political gain?

I'm having a hard time grasping the fact that a state, any state, can be tweeked by those who benefit politically from it.

What if your state wanted to tweek a state of emergency on you because they wanted to gain politically from a pharmaceutical lobbyist or something?
The sirens are in the liberals' heads. They can't shake the piercing blare anymore.

[Proud Mom and Teacher]

Abuse of power.... I wonder if goeagles will find a way to justify this
Yep.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1657451

[Proud Mom and Teacher]

The Dems have a majority in the legislature.

The legislature decides upon laws.

If you don't like it, get some Republicans in there.

Otherwise, stop whinging, its just Democracy.
So you approve of this behavior?

[Proud Mom and Teacher]

I haven't heard the right wing folks talking about this. Seems like they should be pointing out the hypocrisy at minimum.

[goeagles]

Yep.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1657451

Do you read your links before you post them?
I stated at least twice in that thread that it was a bad idea and a bad precedent.
Read. Think.

[StoneScratcher]

The sirens are in the liberals' heads. They can't shake the piercing blare anymore.

It's brainwashing. The piercing blare, when slowed down says:

Government is your mommy. Government is your daddy. Global warming is your fault. You are a victim of yourself. I'll get you and your little dog too.

[StoneScratcher]

I haven't heard the right wing folks talking about this. Seems like they should be pointing out the hypocrisy at minimum.

Maybe they have something up their sleeves? Or they just know they have their hands tied? I don't know.

There are some interesting coincidences with Kirk and Kennedy.

1.) Exactly THREE years ago to the day Kennedy died, Kennedy had made his will (with Kirk) and made Kirk the executor to his will.

2.) On EXACTLY the same day Kirk was announced he was chosen as the "interim" senator (today), Kennedy's will was filed disclosing Kirk was the executor (disclosed today).

Interesting.

[less right]

Yep.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1657451

goeagles can defend himself, but since you provided a link I think it should be pointed out that you have again misunderstood what was said. [And attacking posters that aren't even in the thread -- for shame.]

Predictable and understandable, given the affection for the late Sen. Kennedy.
But a bad idea.
It sets a very bad precedent.

[emphasis added]

goeagles did not defend this action by Massachusetts Democrats.

For the record, neither did I...I agree with the OP's outrage over such a blatant self-serving attempt to change the rules. [...] I don't think either party should be allowed to make continual changes just to suit their immediate partisan needs.

[StoneScratcher]

goeagles can defend himself, but since you provided a link I think it should be pointed out that you have again misunderstood what was said. [And attacking posters that aren't even in the thread -- for shame.]



goeagles did not defend this action by Massachusetts Democrats.

For the record, neither did I...

Hey, for the record, it wasn't ALL the democrats that agreed to this sleezy switch tactic. Some voted with the Republicans against it. I gave the list of NAYS.

Only the hard left radical extreme democrats wanted this to go through, because it's not about the D or the R, it's about not being a HYPOCRITE.

And some D's were not HYPOCRITES.

[goeagles]

Hey, for the record, it wasn't ALL the democrats that agreed to this sleezy switch tactic. Some voted with the Republicans against it. I gave the list of NAYS.

Only the hard left radical extreme democrats wanted this to go through, because it's not about the D or the R, it's about not being a HYPOCRITE.

No.
The mainstream Democratic majorities in both houses voted for this, by wide margins.
And the Governor signed it.
It was hardly "hard left radical extreme democrats."

[darknessesedge]

Not my state but changing the rules like they have certainly does smack of BS. I don't understand how people there can be ok with Democrats just deciding how things will be done regardless of the law.

Guess the moral of the story is if you don't like the law change it when it no longer suits your needs. :naughty:

people who live in mass but be either naive or something else..
they let the left steamroll right over them anytime it pleases them to do so.

[wayoverthehill]

The Dems have a majority in the legislature.

The legislature decides upon laws.

If you don't like it, get some Republicans in there.

Otherwise, stop whinging, its just Democracy.What is "whinging"? Some new kind of flying?

[wayoverthehill]

Funny how the democrats just trounce on and disregard our laws and Constitution when it comes to them holding on to or grabbing more power. It's mind boggling as to what lengths they'll go to where corruption and crime is concerned and not feel any sense of responsibility, obligation or remorse. Don't do as they do, just do as they say. Pathetic!Even funnier is how nobody ever opposes them, or if they do, they are simply ignored.

I guess bullying has its own reward.

[StoneScratcher]

No.
The mainstream Democratic majorities in both houses voted for this, by wide margins.
And the Governor signed it.
It was hardly "hard left radical extreme democrats."

Geeze. On that the thread below linked, I posted the NAYS. What is it with you?

Also on that thread, you were claiming......oh, why bother? This thread will turn into the one yesterday...you stating things off the top of your head, it seems.

FYI, here's what I posted yesterday so you can put it in context with the post you replied to which wasn't even a reply to you to begin with.

Roll call, 9/22/2009

NAYS:

Steven A. Baddour, D, Methuen
Stephen M. Brewer, D, Barre
Scott P. Brown, R, Wrentham
Jennifer L. Flanagan, D, Leominster
Jack Hart, D, South Boston
Robert L. Hedlund, R, Weymouth
Brian A. Joyce, D, Milton
Michael R. Knapik, R, Westfield
Michael O. Moore, D, Millbury
Richard T. Moore, D, Uxbridge
Michael W. Morrissey, D, Quincy
Steven C. Panagiotakos, D, Lowell
Bruce E. Tarr, R, Gloucester
James E. Timilty, D, Walpole
Richard R. Tisei, R, Wakefield
Susan C. Tucker, D, Andover

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1657451

[goeagles]

Geeze. On that the thread below linked, I posted the NAYS. What is it with you?

Also on that thread, you were claiming......oh, why bother? This thread will turn into the one yesterday...you stating things off the top of your head, it seems.

FYI, here's what I posted yesterday so you can put it in context with the post you replied to which wasn't even a reply to you to begin with.

Roll call, 9/22/2009

NAYS:

Steven A. Baddour, D, Methuen
Stephen M. Brewer, D, Barre
Scott P. Brown, R, Wrentham
Jennifer L. Flanagan, D, Leominster
Jack Hart, D, South Boston
Robert L. Hedlund, R, Weymouth
Brian A. Joyce, D, Milton
Michael R. Knapik, R, Westfield
Michael O. Moore, D, Millbury
Richard T. Moore, D, Uxbridge
Michael W. Morrissey, D, Quincy
Steven C. Panagiotakos, D, Lowell
Bruce E. Tarr, R, Gloucester
James E. Timilty, D, Walpole
Richard R. Tisei, R, Wakefield
Susan C. Tucker, D, Andover

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1657451
I have no idea what the soliloquy means.
But listing the minority of Democrats who voted nay does not support your statement that this was some kind of hard left extremist power grab.
It wasn't.
That's crazy. It wasn't close.
Your party got clobbered.
Suck it up.

[StoneScratcher]

I have no idea what some of that means.
But listing the minority of Democrats who voted nay does not support your statement that this was some kind of hard left extremist power grab.
It wasn't.
That's crazy.
Your party got clobbered.
Suck it up.

No, your party got ripped in two. The Republicans are united. The democrats are SPLIT. One side is extreme FunDEMentalist liberals. The other what democrats hope to hold onto--the democrat party as they imagine it to be (but isn't any longer).

The democrats are LOST. You don't see it, because you may not be able to. You seem (by your "suck it up" comment) to believe you have confetti still to throw over that long-ago election day win.

Silly you, and sad for you who see like this...because while you're still rolling around in what is a "democrat" victory, it is in D only. The winners are not you--the winners are the FunDEMentalist radicals which have infected your party.

There are THREE parties. Democrats who cling onto traditional true Democrat visions. FunDEMentalist Democrats who RUN the entire Democrats and set the vision. And Republicans who are UNITED.

[goeagles]

No, your party got ripped in two. The Republicans are united. The democrats are SPLIT. One side is extreme FunDEMentalist liberals. The other what democrats hope to hold onto--the democrat party as they imagine it to be (but isn't any longer).

The democrats are LOST. You don't see it, because you may not be able to. You seem (by your "suck it up" comment) to believe you have confetti still to throw over that long-ago election day win.

Silly you, and sad for you who see like this...because while you're still rolling around in what is a "democrat" victory, it is in D only. The winners are not you--the winners are the FunDEMentalist radicals which have infected your party.

There are THREE parties. Democrats who cling onto traditional true Democrat visions. FunDEMentalist Democrats who RUN the entire Democrats and set the vision. And Republicans who are UNITED.
:)):)):))
That is really a hoot.

[StoneScratcher]

Experts were divided on the merits of the GOP’s case.

Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, said Republicans could have a point.

“It’s not going to be an impossible case to make [for Democrats], but it could be difficult,” McGehee said. “For the governor to say this is an emergency — an emergency in the legislative process?

“They’ve presented the court with some interesting choices.”

Brenda Wright, the director of the Democracy Program at the Demos public policy research group, said the case doesn’t seem to hold much water, because the precedent cited isn’t clear.

“The opinion didn’t really address the precise question that they’re raising,” Wright said. “Generally, if you don’t have clear authority for your lawsuit, and the question could go either way, that makes it more difficult to get an injunction.”

University of Buffalo law Professor Jim Gardner said the courts are usually hesitant to override governors when it comes to emergency declarations, for fear of unnecessarily mixing branches of government.

But he said the amount of legal precedent in this case could give Republicans a chance.

“I would expect deference, but this is a situation where, if a court was not going to be deferential, this would be a good occasion for it,” Gardner said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/60295-dems-reach-60-gop-cries-

[StoneScratcher]

:)):)):))
That is really a hoot.

There are so many articles on the divided democrats over this "interim" seat...it's almost beyond belief......but here you go. Which face (above) is going to read it? :rolleyes: Or are they going to debate it amongst themselves and give you a headline?

Boston, Mass. - Heading into a 10 a.m. caucus Tuesday, senators expect to join the House in granting Gov. Deval Patrick authority to appoint an interim successor to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

But Senate President Therese Murray’s highest-ranking deputies are divided in their stances, an unusually sharp fracture that senators called unseen since the tense 2007 vote on gay marriage. Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei said the opposition to the bill had mustered “maybe 16, 17” votes, while another estimate put the tally at 21-19, if Murray casts a vote in favor.

Murray has not pushed senators in either direction, Senate sources said.

Senate budget chief Steven Panagiotakos said he would vote “no.” Sen. Stephen Brewer, the second-ranking senator on Ways and Means, is also opposed, according to his colleague Sen. Steven Baddour.

Sen. Jennifer Flanagan, beset by laryngitis that she said will have her drinking hot water and refraining from floor speeches, said she will vote against the bill because she thinks each senator ought to be elected and that Massachusetts can fare without two senators until the January special election.

“I don’t think it’s been this divided since the issue of same-sex marriage,” Flanagan said of leadership.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/arlington/news/x1692319742/Senate-leadership-team-split-on-interim-bill

[BostonPatriot]

people who live in mass but be either naive or something else..
they let the left steamroll right over them anytime it pleases them to do so.Most people here suffer from Bush derangement syndrome and will vote for anybody with a D before their name. I'm EMBARRASSED to be from this state! :redface:

[StoneScratcher]

Most people here suffer from Bush derangement syndrome and will vote for anybody with a D before their name. I'm EMBARRASSED to be from this state! :redface:

Heck, don't be embarrassed. I'm looking forward to Scott Brown winning the Senate seat in January.

Hey, did you know that the "interim" agreement is ONLY based on liberals shaking hands on this? A gentleman's agreement? Kirk may run in the January election if he so chooses or if Obama or Deval (twins) say: "He's doing such a good job, we want him to throw his hat in!" And he does! Or maybe the Kennedy's can chime in again and tell us what Massachusetts really wants, like they did this week!

[goeagles]

There are so many articles on the divided democrats over this "interim" seat...it's almost beyond belief......but here you go. Which face (above) is going to read it? :rolleyes: Or are they going to debate it amongst themselves and give you a headline?

Boston, Mass. - Heading into a 10 a.m. caucus Tuesday, senators expect to join the House in granting Gov. Deval Patrick authority to appoint an interim successor to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

But Senate President Therese Murray’s highest-ranking deputies are divided in their stances, an unusually sharp fracture that senators called unseen since the tense 2007 vote on gay marriage. Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei said the opposition to the bill had mustered “maybe 16, 17” votes, while another estimate put the tally at 21-19, if Murray casts a vote in favor.

Murray has not pushed senators in either direction, Senate sources said.

Senate budget chief Steven Panagiotakos said he would vote “no.” Sen. Stephen Brewer, the second-ranking senator on Ways and Means, is also opposed, according to his colleague Sen. Steven Baddour.

Sen. Jennifer Flanagan, beset by laryngitis that she said will have her drinking hot water and refraining from floor speeches, said she will vote against the bill because she thinks each senator ought to be elected and that Massachusetts can fare without two senators until the January special election.

“I don’t think it’s been this divided since the issue of same-sex marriage,” Flanagan said of leadership.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/arlington/news/x1692319742/Senate-leadership-team-split-on-interim-bill
The Democrats were divided on the bill, and with good reason.
But in the end, the measure passed easily, 24-16.

[StoneScratcher]

The Democrats were divided on the bill, and with good reason.
But in the end, the measure passed easily, 24-16.

Duh, well, no kidding.

Who do you think has been posting about it for two days?

Or are you scooping up old soiled confetti again and throwing it over your head?

Democrats are TORN in two. Get over it and smell the sulphur filling the room around the shreds of what Democrats used to be. When Democrats win anything now, it has little (if anything at all) to do with what they USED to stand for.

[StoneScratcher]

GOP lawyers in court today seeking to block Senate pick

Lawyers for the state Republican Party will be in Suffolk Superior Court this morning to seek an emergency injuction to block the appointment of Kennedy family confidant Paul G. Kirk Jr. as interim U.S. senator.

The state GOP contends Gov. Deval Patrick (http://news.bostonherald.com/search/?topic=Deval+Patrick&searchSite=pubdate) overstepped his authority by attaching an emergency preamble to the Senate vacancy law signed yesterday so the legislation would be enacted immediately. The usual waiting period for enactment is 90 days.

Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly is scheduled to hear arguments on the matter at 8:30 a.m. Patrick and Secretary of State William F. Galvin have defended the emergency preamble move, saying Gov. Mitt Romney (http://www.bostonherald.com/search/?topic=Mitt+Romney) used it.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20090925gop_lawyers_in_court_today_seeking_to_bloc k_senate_pick/srvc=home&position=also


Lawrence M. Friedman, “a professor at New England Law in Boston who studies Massachusetts constitutional issues, predicted that the GOP challenge was unlikely to succeed.”
“The court will treat it seriously and I expect given the gravity of the issue, it might even work its way to the Supreme Judicial Court,” Friedman said in an interview. “But in my opinion it’s unlikely that the judiciary is going to second guess the governor’s reasons for an emergency.”

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/massachusetts-senate-state-republicans-take-interim-appointment-to-court/

BOSTON -- A Massachusetts assistant attorney general has moved to dismiss a case in which the state Republican Party is trying to block the swearing-in of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy's interim replacement.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks said in a court filing Friday that Gov. Deval Patrick was within his authority to appoint Paul Kirk and make the appointment effective immediately.

He says the judge hearing the case cannot delay Patrick because of the separation of powers principle in government.

Lawmakers passed a bill this week giving Patrick the power to appoint an interim replacement. Laws usually take 90 days to go into effect, but Patrick signed an emergency letter.

Republicans allege he exceeded his constitutional authority.

Kirk is scheduled to be sworn Friday.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/AP/story/1251120.html

[StoneScratcher]

Judge will rule by noon on GOP appeal to block Senate pick

A Suffolk Superior Court judge will decide by noon on a Republican Party appeal for an emergency injunction to block the appointment of Kennedy family confidant Paul G. Kirk Jr. as interim U.S. senator.

~~~
Meanwhile, Kirk and his wife, Gail, are expected to arrive on Capitol Hill today at 11:15 a.m. to meet with the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s staff at the Russell Senate Office Building. Kirk has asked Kennedy staffers to remain aboard during his interim appointment.

He will then meet with U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) before his swearing in as a U.S. senator begins at 3:30 p.m. on the U.S. Senate floor.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1199989&pos=breaking

[StoneScratcher]

Judge considers delaying Kennedy successor

M.L.

Boston (AP) -- A Massachusetts judge is considering whether to delay the swearing in of Sen. Edward Kennedy's replacement.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly promised a decision by noon Friday.

The Massachusetts Republican Party argues that Gov. Deval Patrick exceeded his constitutional authority by appointing Paul Kirk on Thursday.

Lawmakers passed a bill this week giving Patrick the power to appoint an interim replacement. Laws usually take 90 days to go into effect, but Patrick signed an emergency letter.

Republicans allege he exceeded his constitutional authority.

http://www.wbz.com/Judge-considers-delaying-Kennedy-successor/5299916

[toreyj01]

So you approve of this behavior?

Not at all, but its certainly legal.

[toreyj01]

What is "whinging"? Some new kind of flying?



Main Entry: whinge
Pronunciation: \ˈhwinj, ˈwinj\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): whinged; whing·ing or whinge·ing
Etymology: Middle English *whingen, from Old English hwinsian; akin to Old High German winsōn

to moan

[toreyj01]

Funny how the democrats just trounce on and disregard our laws and Constitution when it comes to them holding on to or grabbing more power. It's mind boggling as to what lengths they'll go to where corruption and crime is concerned and not feel any sense of responsibility, obligation or remorse. Don't do as they do, just do as they say. Pathetic!

They are not disregarding the laws, they are rewriting them.

And they are perfectly within their rights to do it.

Don't like it? Get some Cons in office.

[StoneScratcher]

A little history on Judge Thomas Connolly as reported by Fox News in 2006:

BOSTON — A judge in Boston has ruled that gay couples (javascript:siteSearch('gay couples');) from Rhode Island can marry in Massachusetts, because gay marriage (javascript:siteSearch('marriage');) is not explicitly prohibited by law in Rhode Island.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly came in the case of Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence. They argued that a 1913 law that prohibits nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be allowed in their home state should not apply to Rhode Island (http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:W_K00SMgD6gJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216602,00.html+%22Judge+Thomas+Connolly%22+ massachusetts&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#).

In his ruling, Connolly said no evidence was introduced — in the form of a constitutional amendment, (javascript:siteSearch('constitutional amendment,');) statute or court decision — that (quote) "explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage."

The Massachusetts attorney general's office argued that Rhode Island statutes use gender-specific terms, including both "bride" and "groom," making it clear the intention was to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

There was no immediate word on whether the attorney general would appeal.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:W_K00SMgD6gJ:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216602,00.html+%22Judge+Thomas+Connolly%22+ massachusetts&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[StoneScratcher]

Not at all, but its certainly legal.

Constitutional? That kind of legal? Or is this the newly defined liberal form of legal?

[StoneScratcher]

More history on Judge Connolly, from 2002:

http://graphics.boston.com/globe/images/rules/1x1.gif
http://graphics.boston.com/globe/images/rules/1x1.gifhttp://graphics.boston.com/globe/images/dropcaps/S.gifeeking to stem the tide of public disclosure of church documents in the clergy sex abuse scandal, a Suffolk Superior Court judge (Connolly) yesterday imposed a confidentiality order on Archdiocese of Boston documents in a negligence case brought by a victim of convicted pedophile Christopher Reardon.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/042702_gag_order.htm

http://graphics.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/images/judge_0427.jpg

Judge Thomas Connolly criticized an initial ruling to release papers. (Globe Pool File Photo)
---

I think it's pretty clear which way this judge is going to decide (with the liberals who wanted this to happen).

And I'm sure Obama has made the call in already, to make certain of it, I suppose.

[VC5]

'American Thinker' recently had an article "Massachusettes Politics and the John Jay Standard". It has never been about doing what is best for the people of Mass. It is about doing what is best for the Dem. Party (remember Kennedy began this 'rigging' of the rules when he had them changed during the Bush/Kerry election so the Mass Rep governor could not appoint a Rep. replacement if Kerry had won the election). This is not rewriting laws. This is hastily trying to 'rig' the rules for choice of an interim senator which will help the Dems to hastily pass a health care bill which will actually hurt senior citizens in Mass. Humana was correct with telling its policy holders they would lose coverage. Does the governor of Mass have enough integrity to be honest will his constituents and tell them that he does not care if seniors lose coverage-the bill has to be passed at any cost because honoring Kennedy is more important than protecting their healthcare?

[hap]

Massachuetts Politics: What's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

[StoneScratcher]

'American Thinker' recently had an article "Massachusettes Politics and the John Jay Standard". It has never been about doing what is best for the people of Mass. It is about doing what is best for the Dem. Party (remember Kennedy began this 'rigging' of the rules when he had them changed during the Bush/Kerry election so the Mass Rep governor could not appoint a Rep. replacement if Kerry had won the election). This is not rewriting laws. This is hastily trying to 'rig' the rules for choice of an interim senator which will help the Dems to hastily pass a health care bill which will actually hurt senior citizens in Mass. Humana was correct with telling its policy holders they would lose coverage. Does the governor of Mass have enough integrity to be honest will his constituents and tell them that he does not care if seniors lose coverage-the bill has to be passed at any cost because honoring Kennedy is more important than protecting their healthcare?

Obama has had his hands all over this "interim" seat (which by the way isn't OFFICIALLY interim, it was done with liberals shaking hands on making it interim--Kirk may just be getting FREE CAMPAIGNING for the January special election if he runs).

The left dems want the 60 votes for health care, cap & trade, and the entire works of crap they are shoving down American's throats.

So this isn't just about Massachusetts.

As for Deval Patrick and what he wants? He's Obama's best friend (that "just words" speech Obama gave were the "just words" by Patrick).

Here's a picture of Deval Patrick and Obama.

http://www.moonbattery.com/barack-obama-deval-patrick.jpg

They make the rules we suffer by.

[goeagles]

More history on Judge Connolly, from 2002:

http://graphics.boston.com/globe/images/rules/1x1.gif
http://graphics.boston.com/globe/images/rules/1x1.gifhttp://graphics.boston.com/globe/images/dropcaps/S.gifeeking to stem the tide of public disclosure of church documents in the clergy sex abuse scandal, a Suffolk Superior Court judge (Connolly) yesterday imposed a confidentiality order on Archdiocese of Boston documents in a negligence case brought by a victim of convicted pedophile Christopher Reardon.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories/042702_gag_order.htm

http://graphics.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/images/judge_0427.jpg

Judge Thomas Connolly criticized an initial ruling to release papers. (Globe Pool File Photo)
---

I think it's pretty clear which way this judge is going to decide (with the liberals who wanted this to happen).

And I'm sure Obama has made the call in already, to make certain of it, I suppose.

Everybody's out to get you, aren't they?
Even the judge.

[StoneScratcher]

Massachuetts Politics: What's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

Funny you should say that! LOL! Canada Geese are being targeted to be culled.

For some reason, this is looked at as an "intellectual choice"...all while someone's standing in front of a tree to make certain no one infringes on the tree's rights.

[chip]

The Dems have a majority in the legislature.

The legislature decides upon laws.

If you don't like it, get some Republicans in there.

Otherwise, stop whinging, its just Democracy.

Then have them change the Constitution which requires a 2/3 majority of both houses for legislation to be deemed an emergency.

Pretty simple. Why cant Dems either follow the laws in place or amend the laws.

[StoneScratcher]

Everybody's out to get you, aren't they?
Even the judge.

Conditioned? Yes, I think so. You are not a jedi yet, though, are you? Making the topic of this thread CHANGE into YOU by personalizing it about me, only makes you seem--well? Not quite Olbermann, more like...

Oh...wait! That's why you are here playing "tough" with a lady on a thread she started...

Please quit trying to derail this thread. :naughty: Thank you.

[StoneScratcher]

But first, before Mr. Kirk goes to Washington, there’s this little hurdle, in the form of a lawsuit.

“It’s a rogue governor trying to skirt the will of the Legislature and the will of the people,” said Jennifer A. Nassour, chairwoman of the state GOP, at a press conference after the hearing. Nassour added: “The governor has over stepped his constitutional boundaries, and we’re hoping that the judge rules in our favor.”

Click here (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/0925kirkinj.pdf)for the GOP’s filing challenging the appointment.

In a separate filing, Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks argued that the Supreme Judicial Court in a 1975 ruling had made it clear that a governor does not need legislative approval to invoke an emergency. He also said that the Republican effort should be tossed out because Patrick has made the appointment under the new law, making their challenge moot.

Click here (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/judge_to_rule_b.html) for the Boston Globe story.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/09/25/patrick-taps-paul-gop-files-suit/

[JudasGoat]

how does this make sense?
my limited understanding of it is this;
Kennedy fought to have a rule that the position can't be filled in the event of a death.
He dies.
To 'honor' him, the Dems are overturning it and trying to fill the position with another Dem.

[VC5]

These Dem politicians have their heads buried in the sand. There is anger at the way this healthcare bill is being 'rammed' down our throats but.......there will be a rage and backlash like no other if the healthcare bill is passed and seniors, as well as others, realize what they have lost. Gov. Patrick will be blamed and people will remember how he 'rigged' and manipulated the laws for the Dem party. Elections have consequences but bad decisions/laws will have consequences also. The people in Mass as well as all around the country deserve better. 2010 and 2012 will be interesting as the people are tired of politics as usual. Patrick has chosen to be a puppet for the Dem party instead of a leader for the citizens of Mass and he has abandoned the seniors of Mass in favor of helping Obama pass this fictional healthcare bill.

[StoneScratcher]

how does this make sense?
my limited understanding of it is this;
Kennedy fought to have a rule that the position can't be filled in the event of a death.
He dies.
To 'honor' him, the Dems are overturning it and trying to fill the position with another Dem.

It doesn't make sense. An "interim" (based on hand-shake between liberals) Senate Seat was all due to Kennedy's letter to the Governor and others. The Dems did not allow Romney to appoint an interim Senate seat position, and they "fixed" the law in 2004 so that IF Kerry won, Republican Romney would not be able to put in who Romney wanted. BUT...because Kennedy was certain to die, he managed to write a letter to request an interim seat be ESTABLISHED again so that the DEMOCRAT Governor (and Obama's pal) Deval Patrick could CHOOSE who LIBERALS wanted to sit in that seat.

Well, that happened--an interim seat passed.

But NOW! Because the Democrats did not get a 2/3 vote on this to fill this spot immediately, Deval Patrick decides to write a letter to the Secretary of the Commonwealth to declare a state of emergency in Massachusetts--you know, flipping the switch on "emergency" while the citizens have to figure out what the hell's going on!

And the Secretary of the Commonwealth agreed to this fipping of the switch on emergency status--

SO now, the Republicans are arguing that what they did VIOLATES Massachusetts' Constitution...and questioning how "this" is an emergency, and requesting the 90 day WAIT occur to allow the PEOPLE to FREELY ELECT who they want in January 2010 (the "special election").

The above is a quick, short version, with alot of things left out...but I hope you get the idea.

This link, below, really sums up the tiny details and expands on what I said (more clearly):

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jzO_Ki9dF9tOlEmbHGiBPp0hgzzAD9AUD8TG1

[JudasGoat]

It doesn't make sense. An "interim" (based on hand-shake between liberals) Senate Seat was all due to Kennedy's letter to the Governor and others. The Dems did not allow Romney to appoint an interim Senate seat position, and they "fixed" the law in 2004 so that IF Kerry won, Republican Romney would not be able to put in who Romney wanted. BUT...because Kennedy was certain to die, he managed to write a letter to request an interim seat be ESTABLISHED again so that the DEMOCRAT Governor (and Obama's pal) Deval Patrick could CHOOSE who LIBERALS wanted to sit in that seat.

Well, that happened--an interim seat passed.

But NOW! Because the Democrats did not get a 2/3 vote on this to fill this spot immediately, Deval Patrick decides to write a letter to the Secretary of the Commonwealth to declare a state of emergency in Massachusetts--you know, flipping the switch on "emergency" while the citizens have to figure out what the hell's going on!

And the Secretary of the Commonwealth agreed to this fipping of the switch on emergency status--

SO now, the Republicans are arguing that what they did VIOLATES Massachusetts' Constitution...and questioning how "this" is an emergency, and requesting the 90 day WAIT occur to allow the PEOPLE to FREELY ELECT who they want in January 2010 (the "special election").

The above is a quick, short version, with alot of things left out...but I hope you get the idea.

This link, below, really sums up the tiny details and expands on what I said (more clearly):

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jzO_Ki9dF9tOlEmbHGiBPp0hgzzAD9AUD8TG1

are people really so bankrupt in intellectual honesty that they don't have a problem with this sort of poltical opportunism and dishonest manipulation?

[Czhorat]

I think this is legal and will probably stand.

Even from the left, though, I find it hard to defend changing the rule with the change in the governor's mansion. Will they change it again if a Republican is ever elected governor?

This is the kind of behaviour that gives politicians a bad name.

[StoneScratcher]

are people really so bankrupt in intellectual honesty that they don't have a problem with this sort of poltical opportunism and dishonest manipulation?

I swear some people are just living a shell of their lives, not realizing how their lives are going to collapse because they refuse to see, or are so filled up with Kennedy Kool Aid or have turned into Obamabots...

One day, it will all fall on all of us, except for the "chosen" few who rule.

[StoneScratcher]

I think this is legal and will probably stand.

Even from the left, though, I find it hard to defend changing the rule with the change in the governor's mansion. Will they change it again if a Republican is ever elected governor?

This is the kind of behaviour that gives politicians a bad name.

There are Democrats who voted against this. They are not extreme liberal lefts. They wanted the people to vote.

I'm not affiliated with any party, but I am conservative.

There are extreme lefts who will trample, imo, on the Constitution, will block out the peoples' voices--all for political gain.

This is tearing the Democrats into TWO distinct pieces. One is radical. The other stands by what, traditionally, Democrats believed in.

I admire the "traditional" thinking Democrats and wonder--why are you letting this happen to your Party? Why?

[JudasGoat]

I think this is legal and will probably stand.

Even from the left, though, I find it hard to defend changing the rule with the change in the governor's mansion. Will they change it again if a Republican is ever elected governor?

This is the kind of behaviour that gives politicians a bad name.

yeah.
and I'd be just as or even more upset if it were the republicans. I wish these 'leaders' would actually start serving the people instead of always jockying for secured power.

[JudasGoat]

There are Democrats who voted against this. They are not extreme liberal lefts. They wanted the people to vote.

I'm not affiliated with any party, but I am conservative.

There are extreme lefts who will trample, imo, on the Constitution, will block out the peoples' voices--all for political gain.

This is tearing the Democrats into TWO distinct pieces. One is radical. The other stands by what, traditionally, Democrats believed in.

I admire the "traditional" thinking Democrats and wonder--why are you letting this happen to your Party? Why?

fear? intimidation? NOw that some of the kooks are in charge, I think the more centerist dems are worried about being excommunicated if they go against the radical grain.

[Czhorat]

There are Democrats who voted against this. They are not extreme liberal lefts. They wanted the people to vote.

Let me interject one point of information:

The people still will get to vote, at the same time as they would have. Kirk has pledged NOT to run in the special election.

All this does is fill the seat between now and when the vote takes place. It's still a sleazy tactic, even if it is technically legal.

[StoneScratcher]

http://igossip.com/photos/small_bossip_ted_kennedy_57400_obama_kennedy_laugh ing2.jpg

---------------------------------

Still waiting on word...it's almost noon...

[StoneScratcher]

Let me interject one point of information:

The people still will get to vote, at the same time as they would have. Kirk has pledged NOT to run in the special election.

All this does is fill the seat between now and when the vote takes place. It's still a sleazy tactic, even if it is technically legal.

There is no pledge, just a "hand shake". It is illegal to say someone cannot run.

I'll get you the link later on, I'm getting info I want to post.

[StoneScratcher]

fear? intimidation? NOw that some of the kooks are in charge, I think the more centerist dems are worried about being excommunicated if they go against the radical grain.

I don't know. Fear, might be it. It is their careers. Or maybe they just want to feel the rush of power, not realizing it could be tyranny they're playing around with.

[StoneScratcher]

Let me interject one point of information:

The people still will get to vote, at the same time as they would have. Kirk has pledged NOT to run in the special election.

All this does is fill the seat between now and when the vote takes place. It's still a sleazy tactic, even if it is technically legal.

Still no word yet from Suffolk Superior Court, but I found my post from a few days ago:

Senate seat may not be INTERIM:

Donato said the House also passed a resolution Sept. 16 that encourages the governor not to appoint someone who intends on running in January, or who intends on supporting a candidate.

“From everything I have heard, I am confident that the governor would not appoint someone who plans on running in the election in January,” Sciortino said.

Despite the resolution, keeping a temporary appointee away from the special election would be done by more of a gentleman’s agreement than a law, due to the unconstitutionality of restricting anyone from running in an open and public election.

“We have nothing to go off of except their word, and that’s not a guarantee,” McNulty said in regard to a temporary appointee not running in January. “We’ve seen that type of thing happen before in Boston, even with the city’s own mayor.”

Current Boston mayor Thomas Menino once vowed in public to serve no more than two terms in office, only to run for a third term in 2001 and a fourth in 2005. Menino is currently running for a fifth term as mayor.

http://www.wickedlocal.com/medford/n...te-appointment

Kirk has been annointed to fill in for Ted Kennedy. BUT nothing but a gentleman's agreement holds that seat as "interim".

SO?

We ALL know he's going to RUN in the special election--And when he does, what does this supposed "interim" seat really MEAN?

It means he's been able to CAMPAIGN from today, 9/24/09, until the special election in January 2010 using TAXPAYERS' MONEY!!

True? Do you see it?

NOTHING holds Kirk back from RUNNING in the Special Election except a bunch of liberals' WORDS! And all this "interim" business--is FREE ADVERTISING in essence, a campaign FOR the special election he will more than likely throw his name into!

Interim is not interim...LIBERALS don't use George Stephanopoulos' dictionary!!!

[StoneScratcher]

Judge Connolly better rule soon or he'll get stuck in all that Cape traffic...

[mozalf]

The democrats have no integrity and with Massachusetts already polluted with democrat corruption especially where the Kennedys are concerned, they will twist and manipulate the rules and laws to benefit themselves.

[StoneScratcher]

No word yet, but this report about some things that were said, and a video link with the same:

"The job of the Governor is to protect our Constitution and not to circumvent it," plaintiff attorney James O'Brien said.

In court, Attorney Jim O'Brien argued that because the legislature did not pass an emergency preamble. The bill authorizing an interim senator should take effect like most laws, after ninety days.

"We believe the Governor is acting outside his authority by unilaterally overruling the will of our elected representatives who failed to enact the legislation as an emergency," O'Brien said.

"There is really no question that the Governor had the authority to do this," Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks said.

Sacks said the law is clear -- the governor can write a letter to the Secretary of the Commonwealth requesting a law take effect immediately.

"I think the Governor's declaration amply laid out the basis for the emergency and strong public interest that the Commonwealth have full representation in the U.S. Senate," Sacks said.

During the hearing, Judge Thomas Connolly pointed out that requests for an injunction must typically show irreparable harm.

"The irreparable harm would be the Commonwealth would have a senator sitting?" Judge Connolly questioned.


"There is irreparable harm because it means the Governor could at any time say goodbye to the Constitution and goodbye to the laws," Jennifer Nassour, head of the Massachusetts Republican Party said outside the court house.

Nassour said the process is happening so fast, there is little time to make their case.

"It is a rogue Governor trying to skirt the will and intention of the legislature and voters of Massachusetts," Nassour said.

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/09/25/GOP-claims-Patrick/1253896267.html

What if this happens to the Constitution of the United States of America (what is in red)?

Massachusetts is the test-tube for the Nation, you know. What happens here, goes everywhere...

[Czhorat]

There is no pledge, just a "hand shake". It is illegal to say someone cannot run.

I'll get you the link later on, I'm getting info I want to post.

If he goes back on his word to not run, it would be easy enough to vote against him.

I'll make a deal with you: if Kirk goes back on his word and runs in the special election, I will apologize to you for my naivety. If he does not do so, you'll apologize for your cynicism.

I find this statement of yourse somewhat troubling:


NOTHING holds Kirk back from RUNNING in the Special Election except a bunch of liberals' WORDS! And all this "interim" business--is FREE ADVERTISING in essence, a campaign FOR the special election he will more than likely throw his name into!


The implication is that if someone disagrees with you politically they are therefore untrustworthy. This kind of attitute is neither logical nor productive.

[StoneScratcher]

If he goes back on his word to not run, it would be easy enough to vote against him.

I'll make a deal with you: if Kirk goes back on his word and runs in the special election, I will apologize to you for my naivety. If he does not do so, you'll apologize for your cynicism.

I find this statement of yourse somewhat troubling:



The implication is that if someone disagrees with you politically they are therefore untrustworthy. This kind of attitute is neither logical nor productive.

Apologize for giving my opinion? Never. I am offending no one, I am speaking my opinions freely.

As for Kirk running in the special election? He will be encouraged to run because of "his A+++ clone-manship of Kennedy".

All the Kennedy's will say they want him to run.
Deval Patrick will say he wants him to run.
Obama will thump around here again (with calls and noise as he's been doing about this "interim" seat)--and will say he wants him to run.

So? What do you think will happen? He'll run.

As for my comments on free CAMPAIGNING and getting his relatively unknown name out there--well guess what? EVERYONE knows his name--and it all started with the KENNEDY brothers (one from RI, not even from MA), bleeting out:

"WE WANT KIRK!"

[timjy]

this is just another example of the corrupt chicago politics.How is that change working so far?

[StoneScratcher]

Mass. judge rejects bid to delay Kennedy successor

By GLEN JOHNSON AP Political Writer

A Massachusetts judge has rejected a Republican request to delay the swearing in of Sen. Edward Kennedy's temporary replacement.

The Massachusetts Republican Party argued that Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick exceeded his constitutional authority by appointing Paul Kirk on Thursday. Lawmakers passed a bill this week giving Patrick the power to choose an interim senator.

Laws usually take effect in 90 days, but Patrick signed a letter declaring the bill an emergency.

Republicans said law permitting such a declaration does not apply in this case. The state attorney general's office disagreed.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly denied the request and dismissed the case after hearing arguments Friday morning.

Kirk is to be sworn in Friday afternoon in Washington.

http://www.ksro.com/news/article.aspx?id=1408805

[StoneScratcher]

this is just another example of the corrupt chicago politics.How is that change working so far?

CHANGE sucks. http://forums.hannity.com/images/icons/icon13.gifhttp://forums.hannity.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

[Czhorat]

Apologize for giving my opinion? Never. I am offending no one, I am speaking my opinions freely.

When he doesn't run, will you at least admit that you were wrong?

[StoneScratcher]

When he doesn't run, will you at least admit that you were wrong?

What? Are you kidding me? If my opinion of what I think will happen does not happen, of course I'd say my opinion was wrong!

Didn't your mother and father teach you how to be civil?

Geeze. Grow up, imo, GROW UP.

And if he DOES run--do you suppose I'll be like some child who just successfully pooped in the potty, and run around saying: "LOOK WHAT I DID! LOOK WHAT I DID!"

NO! Only babies who want nannies 24/7 to run their lives NEED to show how NEEDY they are--even if it is for attention.

[harumph]

When he doesn't run, will you at least admit that you were wrong?
When he does, I'll admit you were wrong.

[timjy]

Wonder if where this affects all americans if this appointment could be looked at by the supreme court.This is blatantly partisan and should be criminal.

[goeagles]

Wonder if where this affects all americans if this appointment could be looked at by the supreme court.This is blatantly partisan and should be criminal.

Republicans are all for states' rights--until a state does something they disapprove of.
:cool:

[Czhorat]

Wonder if where this affects all americans if this appointment could be looked at by the supreme court.This is blatantly partisan and should be criminal.

It is blatantly partisan, but I don't see how it is criminal.

Wrong, yes. Criminal, no.

[Sun]

But they wouldn’t allow a REPUBLICAN governor pick a temporary senator. Hypocrits.

[StoneScratcher]

Wonder if where this affects all americans if this appointment could be looked at by the supreme court.This is blatantly partisan and should be criminal.

That's an interesting question.

What they did was declare an emergency because Massachusetts doesn't have two Senators until the election January 2010?

Where's the emergency in that?

Oh! The health care DEFORM they want to put all Americans under.

Everything is backwards. The Government DOES NOT represent the people. The people are being SHAPED into what the Government wants us to be.

[StoneScratcher]

But they wouldn’t allow a REPUBLICAN governor pick a temporary senator. Hypocrits.

Not all Democrats wanted this. The SANE ones voted against this with the Republicans who are united.

I have to say this, because I do believe alot of true Democrats realize there is something radical going on in their midst and want no part of it (or so it seems, I hope).

The Democrats are SPLIT, probably everywhere, wondering what happened to "traditional" Democrat beliefs, finding themselves surrounded by power-hungry foaming-mouthed extreme liberals.

But you are right--those who voted for it are NOTHING but hypocrites!

[toreyj01]

But they wouldn’t allow a REPUBLICAN governor pick a temporary senator. Hypocrits.

Thats because they are Democrats.

I would expect the same if the situation was reversed.

Being in the majority means something.

[chico53]

“Not so fast,” say opponents of the bill. They are questioning the governor’s power to unilaterally declare the appointment an emergency when the Legislature has already rejected that notion. And many are asking, “What is the emergency?” They are mulling over some kind of challenge when Patrick declares the emergency.

Without the emergency preamble, the law would not take effect and a temporary senator could not be appointed until Dec. 22. The special final election to replace Kennedy is less than a month later on January 10 meaning that the replacement would serve less than a month in office.

Republican House Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) is leading the fight against the law taking effect immediately.

In a written statement, Jones said, “The House’s decision to remove the emergency preamble from the Senate Vacancy legislation makes it clear no emergency exists. This act demonstrates the intent of the House to ensure this piece of legislation shall not take effect immediately but rather become effective in 90 days like all general legislation. It is my hope the Governor will respect the vote of the House and not attempt to thwart its decision through a contorted interpretation of the Constitution.”

http://www.wickedlocal.com/burlington/news/x1073709382/Interim-bill-sent-to-Patrick-Murphy-Donnelly-vote-yes

Well, well...why isn't this being reported anywhere on the local news? National news, even?

I mean, it's supposed to be an emergency, isn't it?

The only contortions are by the righties who aren't satisfied that Kennedy is dead but want more vengeance. Until there is a federal law in place that dictates how states replace senators and reps, the governor's actions may be tacky but legal. Deal with it.

Unless the Republicans really think it is in the best interest of the state of Massachusetts to have one senator for three more months. If that is the case, then stand up and proudly say so.

[chip]

Republicans are all for states' rights--until a state does something they disapprove of.
:cool:

Horse****.

They arent following the state constitution.

[chip]

Unless the Republicans really think it is in the best interest of the state of Massachusetts to have one senator for three more months. If that is the case, then stand up and proudly say so.

Im perfectly fine with that.

Teddy apparently didnt have a problem with it. He voted once since February of 2009 and not once since April 2 of 2009.

[AHA]

“Not so fast,” say opponents of the bill. They are questioning the governor’s power to unilaterally declare the appointment an emergency when the Legislature has already rejected that notion. And many are asking, “What is the emergency?” They are mulling over some kind of challenge when Patrick declares the emergency.

Without the emergency preamble, the law would not take effect and a temporary senator could not be appointed until Dec. 22. The special final election to replace Kennedy is less than a month later on January 10 meaning that the replacement would serve less than a month in office.

Republican House Minority Leader Bradley Jones (R-North Reading) is leading the fight against the law taking effect immediately.

In a written statement, Jones said, “The House’s decision to remove the emergency preamble from the Senate Vacancy legislation makes it clear no emergency exists. This act demonstrates the intent of the House to ensure this piece of legislation shall not take effect immediately but rather become effective in 90 days like all general legislation. It is my hope the Governor will respect the vote of the House and not attempt to thwart its decision through a contorted interpretation of the Constitution.”

http://www.wickedlocal.com/burlington/news/x1073709382/Interim-bill-sent-to-Patrick-Murphy-Donnelly-vote-yes

Well, well...why isn't this being reported anywhere on the local news? National news, even?

I mean, it's supposed to be an emergency, isn't it?


Just love the way the democrats change the rules to fit their political situations. Voter fraud, always winning recounts, biased judges allowing state constitutions to be breached in order to allow illegal Senatorial appointments, (remember NJ when Corzine stepped down)? Nobody blinks an eye when the democrats break laws.

In any event this is all entering the uneasy, corrupt realm of the unparalleled. In any event, people deserve the goverment they foolishly, unthinkingly vote into office.

[goeagles]

Horse****.

They arent following the state constitution.


The Massachusetts courts don't agree.
And theirs is the opinion that counts.

[AHA]

The Massachusetts courts don't agree.
And theirs is the opinion that counts.


The ultimate partisan. ^ One day you may make sense, today certainly isn't that day.

[dad49er]

Not my state but changing the rules like they have certainly does smack of BS. I don't understand how people there can be ok with Democrats just deciding how things will be done regardless of the law.

Guess the moral of the story is if you don't like the law change it when it no longer suits your needs. :naughty:

Probably because next to California they have one of the largest percentage of Democratic registration levels in the United States.

[dad49er]

I just noticed on the news he has already been sworn in.
Makes this thread moot I guess.

[dad49er]

I just noticed on the news he has already been sworn in.
Makes this thread moot I guess.

Yep.
Thread killer.

[chico53]

I just noticed on the news he has already been sworn in.
Makes this thread moot I guess.

Not at all. There is nothing the talkies and their slavishly loyal fans love more than to beat a dead horse. Expect to see this become part of the talkies' routine when they do their daily complaints. The fact that they can do nothing about less means ... well ... nothing.

[dad49er]

Not at all. There is nothing the talkies and their slavishly loyal fans love more than to beat a dead horse. Expect to see this become part of the talkies' routine when they do their daily complaints. The fact that they can do nothing about less means ... well ... nothing.

It's a contradiction.
All for states rights unless it is Florida, Terri Schiavo, and now Massachusetts.