RIP Edward Kennedy

[Darth Wagtaros]

No.  Its being made specifically to fill it now.

They did, however, put in a clause that future governors could only fill the slot with someone from teh same party as the departing senator. .  That will prevent a Republican governor from appointing someone who doesn't have the People's best interests at heart.

[DGuller]

No.  Its being made specifically to fill it now.

They did, however, put in a clause that future governors could only fill the slot with someone from teh same party as the departing senator. .  That will prevent a Republican governor from appointing someone who doesn't have the People's best interests at heart.

I find it bizarre that there is no such clause normally.  Why should it ever be acceptable for a seat to change parties due to someone's death?

[Sheilbh]

Yes.  This is party politics at its worst.  Felon Finneren was on the radio this morning deriding it while also admitting that he was the one who got the last change passed.

I thought it was for the Governor to appoint an interim Senator who resigns after the special election.  Is that not the case?

I actually think that that system would be the best, the Governor appoints a Senator while an election's being set up and the campaign happening.  I think Governors appointing Senators as standard seems like a throwback to when state legislatures elected Senators.

[Eddie Teach]

I find it bizarre that there is no such clause normally.  Why should it ever be acceptable for a seat to change parties due to someone's death?

Party affiliation is no guarantee that the new guy will follow in the old guy's footsteps. Heck, it's not even a guarantee that the new guy doesn't like the other party better.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Yes.  This is party politics at its worst.  Felon Finneren was on the radio this morning deriding it while also admitting that he was the one who got the last change passed.

I thought it was for the Governor to appoint an interim Senator who resigns after the special election.  Is that not the case?

I actually think that that system would be the best, the Governor appoints a Senator while an election's being set up and the campaign happening.  I think Governors appointing Senators as standard seems like a throwback to when state legislatures elected Senators.

THe issue is that the legislature changed the law a few years back when we had a Republican governor so that he coulnd't appoint a temp. Now they want to change it back.

[DGuller]

I find it bizarre that there is no such clause normally.  Why should it ever be acceptable for a seat to change parties due to someone's death?

Party affiliation is no guarantee that the new guy will follow in the old guy's footsteps. Heck, it's not even a guarantee that the new guy doesn't like the other party better.

Obviously it has to go further than just "pick a Democrat".  You can always find one guy with a D who's a Republican in every way, or you can even have a spontaneous party switch of some Republican.  I just mean that there has to be some way to eliminate the possibility of a death causing a monumental shift in the balance of power.  That's just a dangerous and sometimes inhumane situation.

[KRonn]

Yes.  This is party politics at its worst.  Felon Finneren was on the radio this morning deriding it while also admitting that he was the one who got the last change passed.

I thought it was for the Governor to appoint an interim Senator who resigns after the special election.  Is that not the case?

I actually think that that system would be the best, the Governor appoints a Senator while an election's being set up and the campaign happening.  I think Governors appointing Senators as standard seems like a throwback to when state legislatures elected Senators.

THe issue is that the legislature changed the law a few years back when we had a Republican governor so that he coulnd't appoint a temp. Now they want to change it back.

Right, and it was Senator Kennedy both times who asked to change the law. Just a political party doing what is most expedient for it at the time, both of these times. Change the law to suit them, when ever the need arises? BS on that. The Mass Legistlators are lucky that there's almost no oppositiond to run against them, else they wouldn't try a stunt like this, twice.   

[Admiral Yi]

I don't get it.  Surely there's a Dem majority in legislature, no?

[Neil]

I don't get it.  Surely there's a Dem majority in legislature, no?

Democrats are also lazy and don't want to go to the trouble of choosing Senators through legislatures.

[Sheilbh]

THe issue is that the legislature changed the law a few years back when we had a Republican governor so that he coulnd't appoint a temp. Now they want to change it back.

I'm not clear that they do.

If they were to change the law so you have to have an election to avoid Romney from appointing Kerry's successor and they now wanted to change it back to just Governor's appointment then I'd think that they were acknowledging that the first law was just a partisan act and behaving in a rather silly way.

If, on the other hand, they changed the law to require an election and they now wanted to make the Governor appoint an interim Senator then partisanship certainly plays a part but I'd argue they were enhancing the first law (which is right) by ensuring that it doesn't mean you only have one Senator.

Edit:  I'd read that they wanted the Governor to be able to appoint an interim Senator which I think is a great idea but if not then yeah it's ridiculous.

[MadImmortalMan]

So how much longer is Teddy's vacant term? When was he elected last?