So this is my temporary senator. He seems alright. The oath has become almost meaningless now.
The democrat candiates running for the seat are
Mass Attorney General Martha Coakley
Alan Khazei CEO of Be the change INC
Rep Michael Capuano of Somerville
DINO Steve Pagliuca
Steve supported Bush for president and Romney for governor before switching from independent or republican to democrat. He is using the "D" as a label because he knows he can't win as a republican.
As a progressive, I'll probably agree almost all the time with this new Senator on police. Still, I cannot believe the audacity of Massachusetts Democrats in bypassing the democratic process that THEY set up just five years ago when Romney was governor!!!
This is embarrassing. Why didn't any Republicans object? They could've stalled even longer on health care reform.
Furthermore, the "lack" of regard for the democratic process is actually worse in other states. Take for example Florida, where the senator recently resigned and the governor's appointment gets to serve until after the next general election (that is, Jan 2011). In regards to that, having an appointment hold the seat for 5 months before having a special election, as is the case in MA, seems a much better appeal to the democratic wills of the people.
They haven't bypassed it. He is an interim appointment, not a permanent appointment. As soon as there is a result after the January special election, a new elected senator will be sworn in. That makes a big difference.
There is a mandatory 90 day waiting period if a supermajority of the massachusetts Legislature did not approve the bill. This is one extremely illegal senator. I do not recognize the legitimacy of this federal government. As of right now, I consider it a criminal enterprise no different from the mafia.
You are correct. This guty is as illegitimate as Buress. This is a blatent disregard for the laws of Mass. But who cares as long as the Dems maintain the "super majority". It is the same thing that happened in Minnesota with Al Franken.
2) This is not a blatant disregard for Massachusetts law; the state government may pass any law it wishes that is not unconstitutional which this is not
3) Minnesota was the result of an election which had accusations of fraud that were deemed a non-factor by that state's court; this is a case of allowing a governor to appoint a senator's replacement - these situations are not the same at all.
Please try to understand reality harder next time.
The legislature of Massachusetts changed the existing law to prevent Romney from being able to appoint a senator. Now they just change it back to give the governor the right to do so again. It does nothing but cheapen the legislative process in that state. It is gerimandering at best and blatent disregard for legislative process at worst. I ungerstand reality just fine thank you.
Oh shut up. The federal government had no hand in the choice and appointment of Senator Paul Kirk. It's a state issue, the federal government has nothing to do with it.
we need more prank calls to cspan.
blah23 2 years ago
So this is my temporary senator. He seems alright. The oath has become almost meaningless now.
The democrat candiates running for the seat are
Mass Attorney General Martha Coakley
Alan Khazei CEO of Be the change INC
Rep Michael Capuano of Somerville
DINO Steve Pagliuca
Steve supported Bush for president and Romney for governor before switching from independent or republican to democrat. He is using the "D" as a label because he knows he can't win as a republican.
imaginepeace63 2 years ago
wheres biden's hair?
kendjo 2 years ago
As a progressive, I'll probably agree almost all the time with this new Senator on police. Still, I cannot believe the audacity of Massachusetts Democrats in bypassing the democratic process that THEY set up just five years ago when Romney was governor!!!
This is embarrassing. Why didn't any Republicans object? They could've stalled even longer on health care reform.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago 2
*policy
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
Since when have the Dems in Mass had any regard for the democratic process. The only time they have regard for it is if it benifits them.
spanky061970 2 years ago
Furthermore, the "lack" of regard for the democratic process is actually worse in other states. Take for example Florida, where the senator recently resigned and the governor's appointment gets to serve until after the next general election (that is, Jan 2011). In regards to that, having an appointment hold the seat for 5 months before having a special election, as is the case in MA, seems a much better appeal to the democratic wills of the people.
S201676 2 years ago
They haven't bypassed it. He is an interim appointment, not a permanent appointment. As soon as there is a result after the January special election, a new elected senator will be sworn in. That makes a big difference.
holmbjerg 2 years ago
There is a mandatory 90 day waiting period if a supermajority of the massachusetts Legislature did not approve the bill. This is one extremely illegal senator. I do not recognize the legitimacy of this federal government. As of right now, I consider it a criminal enterprise no different from the mafia.
jakeway85 2 years ago
You are correct. This guty is as illegitimate as Buress. This is a blatent disregard for the laws of Mass. But who cares as long as the Dems maintain the "super majority". It is the same thing that happened in Minnesota with Al Franken.
spanky061970 2 years ago
1) not Buress, Roland Burris
2) This is not a blatant disregard for Massachusetts law; the state government may pass any law it wishes that is not unconstitutional which this is not
3) Minnesota was the result of an election which had accusations of fraud that were deemed a non-factor by that state's court; this is a case of allowing a governor to appoint a senator's replacement - these situations are not the same at all.
Please try to understand reality harder next time.
S201676 2 years ago
The legislature of Massachusetts changed the existing law to prevent Romney from being able to appoint a senator. Now they just change it back to give the governor the right to do so again. It does nothing but cheapen the legislative process in that state. It is gerimandering at best and blatent disregard for legislative process at worst. I ungerstand reality just fine thank you.
spanky061970 2 years ago
Oh shut up. The federal government had no hand in the choice and appointment of Senator Paul Kirk. It's a state issue, the federal government has nothing to do with it.
averyj 2 years ago
we are longer a nation of laws. The Poor has one law. The Rich have no laws.
iwillspyonyou 2 years ago