Patterico's Pontifications


Obama and Massachusetts’ Next Senator

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 5:20 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

When Ted Kennedy died, President Obama’s spokesman said replacing him was a State matter. Today Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick acknowledged Obama and the White House have repeatedly pushed to speed up Kennedy’s replacement:

“A month after a White House spokesman labeled the issue a state matter, Patrick said he and Obama spoke about changing the law as they both attended Kennedy’s funeral in Boston last month. He also said White House aides have been in contact frequently ever since and pushing for the change so they can regain their filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate.
Democrats changed the succession law in 2004 to create a five-month special election campaign and block then-Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, from naming a temporary replacement if Sen. John Kerry had won his presidential bid.”

The special election primary is scheduled for Dec. 8 and the general election is set for Jan. 19. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts House passed a bill yesterday that would allow Patrick to appoint a temporary replacement. Senate debate on the bill has been postponed until Monday because of a procedural delay by Republicans.

Who knew a vote for “Hope and Change” was really a vote to change the Senate succession laws of Massachusetts?


19 Responses to “Obama and Massachusetts’ Next Senator”

  1. Dems prefer that election laws be written in pencil, only because crayons are more difficult to erase.

    JD (9019c8)

  2. If they change it SPECIFICALLY to prevent a Republican from naming a Senator, and then again SPECIFICALLY to allow a Democrat to name a Senator, is there NO 14th Amendment due process right being violated? I mean, they aren’t even pretending this is Kosher.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  3. Oh no, JD. Dems prefer election laws be written in stone – it’s the wording that’s the problem:
    Democrats get elected by any means necessary or it’s racism!

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  4. They changed the law once for political reasons, so they change it again for political reasons. Yeah, it’s petty partisan politics, and if the Repubs did it everyone would be screaming impeach, but I dare, dare, anyone to say they are surprised.

    There is too much flagrant malfeasance and ineptitude to spend time on mere petty politics.

    MD in Philly (d4f9fa)

  5. Kevin – They could not give a flying f*ck about something as quaint as the Constitution.

    JD (9019c8)

  6. The left finds the messy realities of democracy too inhibiting for really efficient government. They solved that problem quite well in the 1930s but then there was all that unpleasantness and they may to do it all over again. Obama has has plans for talk radio, for example. I mean, you need diversity czars to keep the little people in line.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  7. By now, it’s an established pattern. He has a story for public consumption. The truth lies elsewhere. Are we supposed to hope he’ll change and start being truthful?

    Terry Gain (f3f8a5)

  8. Funny you should mention penciling the laws in, in my small town in MA that is exactly what has been done in several instances. We only elect republicans for one purpose in this state, a scapegoat for when the dems screw up….which is a daily experience. Us ignorant servants await our orders from the overlords of the dem party.

    J (0f2b1a)

  9. FWIW – Mike K has been on a roll recently, with a wealth of excellent comments and links. Thank you. That in no way means that the rest of you are not, I just wanted to give some positive reinforcement since he goes silent from time to time.

    JD (9019c8)

  10. This is same almost as how that corrupt mafia punk-ass drooling codger Lautenberg got in office.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  11. happyfeet – Wasn’t that the one where the Dems realized really late in the game that their overtly corrupt candidate just might lose, and pulled the old switcheroo thanks to a Supreme Court that bent over and grabbed their ankles?

    JD (9019c8)

  12. Yes. It’s exactly these same kinds of dirty socialists maneuvers what got the Hugo Chavez puppet kicked out of Honduras. It’s just how they are.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  13. When they do not have to worry about the MSM calling them out on it, why wouldn’t they?

    JD (9019c8)

  14. I think this is a little overblown. It is up to the states to pick a replacement Senator. This particular state has left it up to their legislature. It is well within their rights to change the rules if they want. It’s the old “to the victor go the spoils” meme. If they are willing to put up with the repercussions of the move, let them make it.

    TimothyJ (8fb937)

  15. This is more like re-writing the rules after the game has already started, and to do so in such a way as to hamstring your opponent. It may be legal, but it sure as hell ain’t right.

    JD (9019c8)

  16. JD (#5): They might not care, but an appeals court might.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

  17. I don’t think any court would overturn the proposed law. The court ruling has to be based on the law itself and not the reasons for flip-flopping the law.

    That being said, it is very undemocratic of the Democratic party to make this maneuver. But, is there anything unusual in their actions here? I cannot think of a single instance of capital-D Democrat ever being used to signify anything approaching democracy.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  18. Greetings:

    I’m trying to find an educated legal opinion about this. If the current law was in effect when the Senate seat became vacant, wouldn’t it be unconstitutional to change the controlling law after the fact? It seems somewhat analogous to them ol’ Bills of Attainder where something was made illegal after it was done.

    11B40 (d3f775)

  19. John, courts routinely look to the debates in the legislature to understand a law. WHy would they not look to those debates if the purpose was blatant?

    If a legislature was passing a “race-neutral” law on, say, state college admissions, but the debate made it clear that the certain result was going to disadvantage blacks, and that the inherent bias was the reason FOR the law, do you think they’d let it go?

    In this case, they are not even trying to put a fig-leaf on the discrimination. Even (some) Democrats are embarrassed.

    No, I think you could get a court to at least delay the law’s effect.

    Kevin Murphy (3c3db0)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2951 secs.