• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kennedy Seeks Change in Massachusetts Succession Rules

akyron

akyron

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
10,356
Reaction score
2,437
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Kennedy Seeks Change in Massachusetts Succession Rules


"Massachusetts Democrats have spent considerable time in recent years fiddling with how to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy. Now, ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy has asked Massachusetts state leaders to once again alter the procedure.

In a letter to Massachusetts leaders, Kennedy asked that Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick get the authority to quickly appoint a successor to his seat — presumably a Democrat –rather than waiting five months or so for a special election. To maintain the appearance of fairness, Kennedy requested that the governor pick someone who will commit to not run for the seat at the time of the special election. Kennedy’s request would require legislators to alter a 2004 succession law that requires a special election be held to fill a Senate vacancy.

The seemingly arcane matter has a lot to with what best suits Democrats’ interest. Right now, Democrats are worried that their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would slip to 59, at least temporarily. In 2004, they worried that a victory by home state Sen. John Kerry, who was running for president, would create a vacancy that then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney would fill with a Republican. "


Any thoughts on this? Is it cool we change the rules when things may not go our way?

At least our politicians BS is predictable and consistent. As long as we expect nothing but self serving BS we will not be dissappointed.
 
Last edited:
I think it should be up to the people to appoint a replacement.
 
It's what's being done in Florida right now only the players are Republicans.


Of course it is fair to "ask" for rule change in a Democracy. Because those that will or will not approve the rule change are elected representatives themselves. He's not dictating to the State what will happen.

The man is so sick he couldn't attend his own sister's funeral nor attend his award ceremony at the White House.
 
In Massachusetts do you really think it is going to matter?

What is the likelihood that the people are going to elect a Republican to replace Kennedy?

Let me give you a clue....ahhhh.....zero.
 
disneydude said:
In Massachusetts do you really think it is going to matter?

What is the likelihood that the people are going to elect a Republican to replace Kennedy?

Let me give you a clue....ahhhh.....zero.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you have a clue to give. I do not care where or what the result is. The process should be standard across the board. I do not expect everyone to understand the merits of a consistent working process.
Good luck on finding that clue. Cheating when things are not going your way is not cool period.
 
I think they should have an election, but not one that lasts a long time. The people of Mass deserve a Rep just as much as any of us do.
 
akyron said:
Kennedy Seeks Change in Massachusetts Succession Rules


"Massachusetts Democrats have spent considerable time in recent years fiddling with how to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy. Now, ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy has asked Massachusetts state leaders to once again alter the procedure.

In a letter to Massachusetts leaders, Kennedy asked that Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick get the authority to quickly appoint a successor to his seat — presumably a Democrat –rather than waiting five months or so for a special election. To maintain the appearance of fairness, Kennedy requested that the governor pick someone who will commit to not run for the seat at the time of the special election. Kennedy’s request would require legislators to alter a 2004 succession law that requires a special election be held to fill a Senate vacancy.

The seemingly arcane matter has a lot to with what best suits Democrats’ interest. Right now, Democrats are worried that their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would slip to 59, at least temporarily. In 2004, they worried that a victory by home state Sen. John Kerry, who was running for president, would create a vacancy that then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney would fill with a Republican. "


Any thoughts on this? Is it cool we change the rules when things may not go our way?

At least our politicians BS is predictable and consistent. As long as we expect nothing but self serving BS we will not be dissappointed.
Click to expand...
I think the Seventeenth Amendment should be repealed and the state legislatures should go back to appointing the senators.
 
disneydude said:
In Massachusetts do you really think it is going to matter?

What is the likelihood that the people are going to elect a Republican to replace Kennedy?

Let me give you a clue....ahhhh.....zero.
Click to expand...

Obviously, Kennedy is concerned that there won't be a Liberal Democrat to replace him.

The sooner he dies the better of we'll all be.
 
akyron said:
Kennedy Seeks Change in Massachusetts Succession Rules


"Massachusetts Democrats have spent considerable time in recent years fiddling with how to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy. Now, ailing Sen. Ted Kennedy has asked Massachusetts state leaders to once again alter the procedure.

In a letter to Massachusetts leaders, Kennedy asked that Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick get the authority to quickly appoint a successor to his seat — presumably a Democrat –rather than waiting five months or so for a special election. To maintain the appearance of fairness, Kennedy requested that the governor pick someone who will commit to not run for the seat at the time of the special election. Kennedy’s request would require legislators to alter a 2004 succession law that requires a special election be held to fill a Senate vacancy.

The seemingly arcane matter has a lot to with what best suits Democrats’ interest. Right now, Democrats are worried that their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would slip to 59, at least temporarily. In 2004, they worried that a victory by home state Sen. John Kerry, who was running for president, would create a vacancy that then-GOP Gov. Mitt Romney would fill with a Republican. "


Any thoughts on this? Is it cool we change the rules when things may not go our way?

At least our politicians BS is predictable and consistent. As long as we expect nothing but self serving BS we will not be dissappointed.
Click to expand...

Kennedy goes to his grave,,,as a Seccesionist.:lol: I LOVE IT!
 
Metternich said:
This is a suggestion coming from a man with a fairly healthy chunk of his brain missing...
Click to expand...

I hear this is a reversal of his position when he thought Kerry was going up the road. More self serving claptrap in the end.

The rules should be standardized period. Not changed when they dont suit your interests.
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
In Massachusetts do you really think it is going to matter?

What is the likelihood that the people are going to elect a Republican to replace Kennedy?

Let me give you a clue....ahhhh.....zero.
Click to expand...

I could care less if Massachusetts elects another democrat or republican. It does not change my view that it should be the people who elect a replacement. Besides a democrat in Oklahoma is probably way more conservative than any republican that can win in Massachusetts.
 
apdst said:
Obviously, Kennedy is concerned that there won't be a Liberal Democrat to replace him.

The sooner he dies, the better of we'll all be.
Click to expand...
I don't approve of Kennedy trying to game the system this way, but even with brain cancer he has a grasp of the subtleties of English grammar. That (plus the fact he's very likely dying, which is why he wrote the letter in the first place) is worthy of some measure of respect.

Just sayin'...:2wave:
 
Coronado said:
I had to double check the URL to make sure I hadn't somehow navigated on to Free Republic. :shock:
Click to expand...

Next time,,,check your Commom Sense.:lol: A Kennedy asking for Secession.:2razz:
 
Last edited:
The fun bit, is that Mass will lose both the Kennedy name, and the seniority he carries. The state's influence will sink to the level of its richly deserved mediocrity,
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Obviously, Kennedy is concerned that there won't be a Liberal Democrat to replace him.

The sooner he dies the better of we'll all be.
Click to expand...

Totally classless and out of line. I despise Kennedy and everything the man stands for, but I do not wish him ill, nor for him to die.
 
Coronado said:
I think the Seventeenth Amendment should be repealed and the state legislatures should go back to appointing the senators.
Click to expand...

Why the states ever gave that up, I have NO idea.
 
I am so glad to see some one else say this! There were very good reasons to have one House removed from the electorate's mood of the moment.
 
In 2004, Massachusetts Democrats devised a plan to keep John Kerry's Senate seat in their party's hands by blocking Republican Governor Mitt Romney from naming an interim replacement should Senator Kerry win the White House. They forced a change in the state's succession law from exactly what Senator Kennedy is asking for today to the new requirement of a special election.

In June of 2004, the State Senate voted, almost entirely on party lines, to change the nearly century-old electoral rules and was able to stave off a veto from Governor Romney thereby assuring there would be no Republican appointed to the seat should Senator Kerry win the White House. Robert E. Travaglini, the State Senate's president at the time said, "This is an elected position, not an appointed position, and there's been a process that's evolved over a period of time where I believe the people should vote and voice their opinions in situations of significance."

Evidently the opinions of the people and their right to voice them are no longer significant. At least not according to the Democrats of Massachusetts.

TalkingSides.com - The Democrats' Favorite Strategy: When You're Losing Change The Rules
 
Realist1 said:
Next time,,,check your Commom Sense.:lol: A Kennedy asking for Secession.:2razz:
Click to expand...
That string of words means something to somebody, I guess ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom