Posted on 01/03/2007 8:45:52 AM PST by milwguy
SIOUX FALLS (AP) - U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson may be in for a long recovery from brain surgery, according to a Sioux Falls neurologist.
Dr. William Rossing said he bases his belief on the length of time that Johnson has been sedated.
Doctors used prolonged sedation to minimize swelling after Johnson's emergency surgery for bleeding in the brain.
Recovery for someone who has been sedated as long as Johnson, 60, is likely to be "significant and lengthy," Rossing said.
It usually takes only a few days to wean a patient from sedation, Rossing said. Johnson has been sedated since Dec. 13 and is being weaned gradually
It's illegal to release top secret documents to the NYT as well. It doesn't stop the info from being published, does it? Any third rate private investigator could get your medical records today, if he tried to. If you don't believe that hospitals leak info like a sieve, you're mistaken. And that doesn't even touch the usual Senatorial Staff sources available.
Doubtful.
The majority party is the one with the most caucus members. That's the Democrats.
That doesn't get around the fact that only the Senate has the power to declare a vacancy.
Why don't we ask after a comparable length of time what Mrs. Johnson might do? This is apples and oranges and has nothing to do with Schiavo. Some things don't hard to believe as it may be.
Nor is there any evidence WHAT, if anything, Mrs. Johnson said or thought of Schiavo not that this matters at all to zealots.
Not to nitpick, but that makes them the Majority Coalition, not the Majority Party. No difference in the end, but more indicative of how close the balance really is.
Sorry, no. The rule is 50% plus one of the Senators voting. If Johnson cannot come to the floor then he doesn't vote. That means 99 Senators will vote. 50% plus one is still 50 senators. They don't round, and they don't count partial senators.
If he is unable to vote on the floor of the Senate, then the state of South Dakota is not equally represented as required by Article V.
No, that would make them the plurality party.
Cite? The Constitution is silent on this. It gives the Senate the power to expel a member, but the clause is ambiguous as to whether this is a universal power, or only for punishing misconduct. If universal, then it follows that any Party which gains 67 seats could arbitrarily expel the opposition. It gives the Senate the power to refuse to seat a replacement.
The only references to a vacancy are "if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise,..." that the State gets to appoint a new Senator, and then the language in the 17th A. All S.D. needs to do is file suit saying that this is a case of vacancy by "otherwise" than resignation: i.e. incapacity.
The Constitution states that South Dakota will have two senators. They have two. The fact that one is incapacitated doesn't change that.
Actually in that case the Republicans would be the plurality party, not the majority. And since Searchlight will get the support of the I and the S, he'll be the Majority Leader.
Actually in that case the Republicans would be the plurality party, not the majority. And since Searchlight will get the support of the I and the S, he'll be the Majority Leader.
Let me restate my comment a bit. Other than in the case of a death Congress decides who will be seated. And, yes, it theoretically could refuse to seat a winner. We may see this in a Florida race with the RATS refusing to seat a Republican House seat winner. There is NO vacancy without a resignation or death. Rather the Senate would have to decide that Johnson is "qualified" to be a Senator.
So it could decide that a comatose Johnson is qualified.
I see no constitutional power to force the Senate to do anything wrt a member. And it could expel the opposition with 67 votes however, it would have to keep doing this as the States affected would immediately re-appoint the same or another Senator.
Adam Clayton Powell was thrown out of the House and was quickly re-elected by his Harlem district. Eventually the House knuckled under and seated him.
I have seen people lose their jobs over what you are suggesting. Anyone releasing medical info unauthorized are fired on the spot.
If I'm at work and I want to see whether or not a patient has had any other recent blood work done that I can add tests to the hospital can tell that I was in there looking.
We are not even allowed to access our own records without permission.
We were also one of the hospitals that had the victims of teh Amish school shooting. Nothing was leaked.
This sounds a lot like what happened to Ariel Sharon. He still has not recovered.
That's one interpretation. But the Constitution doesn't say "resignation or death". It says "resignation or otherwise" constitutes a vacancy. In any case involving a State AND the interpretation of the Constitution, the USSC has jurisdiction. If it were to interpret "otherwise" to include incapacity, then the seat would be vacant, Johnson would cease instantly being a Senator, and the Senate would have no jurisdiction regarding who was next appointed. They could, however, refuse to seat whomever that was.
I see no constitutional power to force the Senate to do anything wrt a member. And it could expel the opposition with 67 votes however, it would have to keep doing this as the States affected would immediately re-appoint the same or another Senator.
Exactly. IOW, you would have to argue that the Founders intended there to be a stalemate situation inherent in the clause that would allow a 2/3rds majority to seize the legislature and enforce their coup. A more reasonable interpretation is that the expelling clause is directly related to the preceding clause: "Each House may ... punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." [emphasis added]. Especially when you add that the Constitution guarantees equal suffrage to the States, which the above scenario would violate.
If that many know the truth, you can bet the Washington Media know it as well. They are sitting on the info and spiking the story for partisan reasons.
Yes, plurality, not majority. I stand corrected: there is no current majority party in the Senate.
With all due respect, your hospital isn't GWU, located in the Heart of the Beast of partisan politics.
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.