Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Neurologist: Johnson in for a long recovery
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2007/01/03/news/state/state04.txt ^ | 01/03/2006 | milwguy

Posted on 01/03/2007 8:45:52 AM PST by milwguy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last
To: Young Werther
No resignation required. Once determined that he cannt fulfill his duties a replacement can be named.

Wanna bet? Constitutionally there is no provision for removing a living, breathing, sitting senator except through impeachment or resignation.

41 posted on 01/03/2007 10:39:16 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
In fact it would violate the US Constitution to not allow a replacement to represent the state in the US Senate, because each state is guaranteed equal sufferage in the Senate.

But for a replacement to be named the seat has to be vacant. And unless Johnson resigns, is impeached and removed, or dies he will remain Senator even if he never opens his eyes again.

42 posted on 01/03/2007 10:42:03 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Williams
The real issue is whether the Senate will be reorganized with a clause allowing republicans to take control if the membership shifts.

The Republicans can take control the moment they become the majority party. If Johnson never sets foot on the floor of the senate for the remainder of his term there are still 50 Democrats and only 49 Republicans.

43 posted on 01/03/2007 10:44:03 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
This is very basic stuff. Medical students learn it by rote and every doctor attending this man actually knows what his chances to speak are. It is grotesque that this information is concealed from the public because it is "unsympathetic" to Senator Johnson.

Then we know what the answer is, don't we?

44 posted on 01/03/2007 10:44:10 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Just the point. If there is no way to remove him then only public opinion can influence this matter. Imagine, if you will, Senators refusing to change rules that obviously need changing.

The Senate is increasingly comprised of old people. Some are undoubtedly not competent to do their job. A change will come when citizens are first aware of the problem.

The declining health of FDR resulted in the two term rule for President. Things can and do change.

In the meantime we have never had an Admiral remain in charge of a ship who had right sided hemiparesis and expressive aphasia. Somehow the government is able to deal with Admirals whose health has failed. Perhaps we can now start to work on Senators and Representatives who are unable to fulfill their duties.
45 posted on 01/03/2007 10:47:13 AM PST by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
He said Senator Johnson was looking great right after surgery

Maybe he was telling the truth? Having seen pictures of Harry Reid a six day old corpse looks great by comparison.

46 posted on 01/03/2007 10:48:25 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

No we don't know the answer. The doctors do have an informed guess that they are not sharing. Actually, nothing but platitudes are being shared.


47 posted on 01/03/2007 10:48:40 AM PST by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

We know the answer because they aren't saying. If they say anything, guys like you would have an informed opinion that you'd share with the public. If the prognosis were good, we'd be inundated with information about Senator Johnson's courageous fight. So we may conclude that the prognosis is bad. Very bad.


48 posted on 01/03/2007 10:54:48 AM PST by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for. It matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I've been reading the Senate rules found here, and voting rules found here.

According to the definition of "simple majority" for rollcall votes:

All questions are to be decided on the Senate floor by simple majority vote unless some constitutional provision or Senate rule or precedent provides otherwise. A simple majority vote is defined as at least 50% plus one of the Senators voting, provided that a quorum is present.

So, assuming there are 49 Republicans, 48 present Democrats, and 2 Independents, this gives the Democrats 50 votes. However, in a Senate with 99 members present, a simple majority (50%+1) is 50.5 votes, or 51 if you round.

Does this mean that the Organizing Vote to be held tomorrow will NOT meet the rules for simple majority, so it fails? If it fails, does this mean that the current organization remains in force until a new Organizing resolution can garner 51 votes?

-PJ

49 posted on 01/03/2007 10:57:09 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Just the point. If there is no way to remove him then only public opinion can influence this matter. Imagine, if you will, Senators refusing to change rules that obviously need changing.

They won't because it works in both party's favor. Think Strom Thurmond.

In the meantime we have never had an Admiral remain in charge of a ship who had right sided hemiparesis and expressive aphasia. Somehow the government is able to deal with Admirals whose health has failed. Perhaps we can now start to work on Senators and Representatives who are unable to fulfill their duties.

The Constitution does not cover admirals. It does cover senators.

50 posted on 01/03/2007 10:59:26 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
It is grotesque that this information is concealed from the public because it is "unsympathetic" to Senator Johnson

I would contend that we are not being advised for purely political reasons. The democrats are fully aware of what his chances are and are purposefully concealing it because it would damage them politically.

They are putting their interests above all others.

51 posted on 01/03/2007 11:05:35 AM PST by Michael.SF. (It's time our lawmakers paid more attention to their responsibilities, and less to their privileges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: linn37
Show me the law that says Mrs. Johnson has to comply. I'm not being belligerent I'm just trying to find out how you can make them give over private medical info.

You can't "make" her, but if the MSM was actually doing the job it claimed to do, it could find out the info from any of dozens of people who know the facts. There are doctors, nurses, x-ray techs, orderlies, file clerks in the hospital with access to the medical records. There are Senate staffers in several offices with knowledge of what Reid has been told. If the MSM can get top secret Presidential briefings onto the NYT front page, they should be able to get this info.

52 posted on 01/03/2007 11:07:48 AM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
for the remainder of his term there are still 50 Democrats and only 49 Republicans.

No, there are 49 Reps, 48 Dems, 1 Ind, and 1 Socialist. The Reps are technically the majority party now, but the two odds are caucusing with the Dems.

53 posted on 01/03/2007 11:17:55 AM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

It is unlikely that there would be a successful suit in this matter since the Supreme Court has no power over Congressional rules wrt Congress's membership and/or rules.
Separation of Powers pretty much rules out any such suit.

Since these matters are explicitly given over in the Constitution to Congress my bet is no court would declare Congressional actions regarding membership to be "unconstitutional".


54 posted on 01/03/2007 11:20:51 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
Its against the law for medical personnel to release info to anyone other then Mrs. Johnson or anyone she designates. To do otherwise will cost you your job.
55 posted on 01/03/2007 11:21:13 AM PST by linn37 (Love your Phlebotomist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; justshutupandtakeit

Hey, here's an interesting thought exercise:

Johnson remains incapable of communication. His wife, with power of atty to make medical decisions, resigns the Senate on his behalf. Legal or not?


56 posted on 01/03/2007 11:21:55 AM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird

If the Senate accepted the resignation then it is valid. If it doesn't, it is not.


57 posted on 01/03/2007 11:25:52 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: milwguy
My late mother had brain swelling after brain surgery and remained in intensive care under sedation for a month. When she was finally weaned from the sedation she was unable to talk or even chew her food. She was unable to roll over in bed or speak clearly.

After YEARS of recovery, she finally was able to speak clearly, eat by herself, and write (although shakily). She never was able to walk.

She lived, however, many more years enjoying her family and was able to keep up with the news.

It sounds to me like this was a very serious surgery and that Johnson, indeed, will have a long recovery and will not be able to function as a senator for a very long time, if at all.

58 posted on 01/03/2007 11:26:53 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Since these matters are explicitly given over in the Constitution to Congress my bet is no court would declare Congressional actions regarding membership to be "unconstitutional".

But they are not exclusively given over to Congress. The 17th A. gives the power to fill vacancies to the State Executive. If the State brings the case that this constitutes a vacancy, then "[i]n all Cases ... in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

59 posted on 01/03/2007 11:27:42 AM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Young Werther
I wonder if the Dimbulbs can remember "Schiavo".

Can you imagine Johnsons' wife saying something to the effect of " I remember that my husband told me once when we were first married that he didn't wan't to be on a ventilator"!!! NOT on YOUR LIFE..."What comes around goes around"

60 posted on 01/03/2007 11:32:21 AM PST by pollywog (Joshua 1:9 Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-84 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson