[PJ-Comix]

It isn't a matter of when the next senator's term begins. What counts is that Paul Kirk's term ENDS tomorrow. The senate parliamentarian needs to order his removal if he attempts to hang around after tomorrow's election.

[Petronski]

I hope you read this and, if need be, get word to the Senate GOP.

It seems they can delay seating the new Senator if they chose, but Kirk’s power expires upon “election and qualification.”

I hope you bring your expertise and influence to bear on this one. Big.

Huge.

[Sacajaweau]

Somehow, I think the Dems overlooked this...having gotten all wound up in thoughts of challenging etc...

Can someone tell me why they didn't run Kirk....whoever he is...

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

WOW! Just wow!

This is fantastic and don't know why we are only now learning this?

Now it remains to find one (JUST ONE) Republitard in the Senate who has a "pair" (a daunting task) to move that this law be enforced, or the entire R contingent will refuse to allow any further Senate business until they do

Next there needs to be a move for an immediate injunction (by someone, I don't know who) in some Fed Court if Kirk does not step down.

[Truth is a Weapon]

Yes. After tomorrow the Senator from Massachusetts will be either Brown, Coakley or Kennedy. So, no matter how close the election, Kirk ceases to be the Senator after the polls close because someone else will be the elected Senator. All three candidates are qualified.

Even if Coakley were to win (which I see as almost impossible at this point), Kirk cannot vote on any more bills. So any delay will not help the Dems. They need 60 votes. It is not that the Repubs need 41 to block. If a Senator is absent, dead or whatever he does not count toward 60.

[seowulf]

I’m sure the Mass legislature will change the law on Wednesday.

It’s not like they haven’t pulled that trick before.