Here is the news via Blue Mass Group.
Not all are happy with the appointment.
Kirk will not run for the seat
What do you think? I think it doesn't matter much.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Paul Kirk appointed as interim US Senator
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
20 comments:
Thankfully several Massachusetts representatives - democrats included, feel this corrupt move stinks so much that they felt compelled to bring this issue before the courts for a decision. This will happen at 8:00 tomorrow morning.
Listening to Patrick's sanctimonious justification for this rank move today made me think he assumes the entire commonwealth is completely stupid. Yeah a real emergency Deval - 'we need 2 voices in the Senate' says Patrick. All of a sudden it's an emergency. What a crock and feeds the cynic's view of government.
I agree, Where was the "emergency" when the Democrats passed this law 5 years ago.
5 years ago the Legislature KNEW that passing the law would require an election and only 1 vote in the Senate for up to 6 months.
The SJC are not dummies. This appointment will be recinded immediately and they will tell Duval to wait until Dec 23rd to appoint a replacement.
Basically the Dems sold their souls to have a second voice in the Senate during RECESS.
Democrat leaders already said NO VOTE would take place on healthcare until after Jan 2010. Instead of waiting and doing it the right way, the leaders of Mass have PROVEN themselves to be hipocrites.
Why is it when 1 party has all the power they do everything possible to make sure people will not vote for them again?
2004 the GOP was just as hypocritical, they tried to pass a an amendment to appoint an interim until the special election...now they are opposed to the exact law they wanted because the Democratic party wants it. I am not saying Democrats are innocent,but the GOP is just as Hypocritical.
The long arm of the Kennedy's - - from the grave.
This was ok 4 yrs ago when Romney wanted it.
Says who?
Mitt Romney proposed this exact same bill when the state legislature took the power of appointment away from him in 2004. Now the Republican legislature is against the very same bill proposed by Romney, and we know they would voted in favor of it in 2004. It is public knowledge,look at the GOP's voting records on this.
The law before 2004 was the interim would serve for the entire remainder of the Senator's term. NOW it is only until a special election,which is exactely what Mitt Romney wanted. The Republican party in this town and across the state are being just as hypocritical as they claim the Democrats are being.
14(FOURTEEN) times Republican Governor Mitt Romney signed an "emergency letter" to make a law passed by the legislature effective immediately. 14 times he used his rightful and legal authority to immediately enact a law rather than wait the usual 90 days.
But even Romney's well-known history of signing emergency letters couldn't stop his own Party, the Massachusetts Republican Party, from trying to get a court injunction when Governor Patrick signed the critical one that ensured Massachusetts would have two voices in the US Senate.
No, instead the Republican Party once again chose politics over principles and brought forth a lawsuit. Fortunately, the Superior Court rejected their case, based on the law, not politics.
Ray
We all agree the Republicans proposed this. Why didn't it pass? That's the question... If it was a bad idea in 04, why is it okay today?
The democrats blocked the move in 04....remember
and the same question is posed to the Republican party,if it was ok in 2004 why isnt it ok now
Ray, you said and the same question is posed to the Republican party,if it was ok in 2004 why isnt it ok now
NOW is in the middle of an election cycle. The clock on the special election started the day Kennedy died. Changing the rules for appointments during an election cycle is against the law, not only State law but Federal law as well.
You know that, but you choose to ignore it.
What if a Republican is miles ahead in the polls in 1 month? Can/will the Dems change the law again and have the Governor appoint someone for the remainder of the current term? OF COURSE NOT.
That is why election laws are locked during an election cycle. This is bad legislating and against the law. That is why NOW is different than 2004.
That's not why the Republicans are against it now, they are aginst for the same reason you claim you claim the democrats were against it in 04...POLITICS. Mitt Romney used an emergency letter 14-16 times in his term...what was the emergency?
Ray...fine-I will play along. Do would I have your committment that this is now going to be the law...no matter who is governor, no matter what senator may be need to be appointed. If a republican becomes governor and a vacancy exists in the senate, we will have an INTERIM republican senator without any law changes. Would you agree here? When it happens, and it will again during your lifetime, I hope you speak out as such.
Yes, Massachusetts should never be left without two votes in the senate, but the replacement should only be seated until a special election,not the remainder of the vacant seats term.
How about in the house of representatives?
Honestly, Ray, you are a one-man debating team. Or a walking encyclopedia, I don't know which.
It's getting old and tiresome.
I don't know whether to accept that as a compliment or an insult, I just make sure I do my "homework"before I discuss my positions on a subject. I noticed alot of one sided arguements happening on this blog page, and I wanted to bring the other side to light. So I will accept your statement as a compliment,thank you
Post a Comment