Posted on 08/26/2009 12:21:02 AM PDT by Chet 99
(CBS) Although Sen. Ted Kennedy had sought to expedite the process of choosing his replacement to the U.S. Senate, it appears the process will be at least three to four months away.
As CBS chief political correspondent Steve Chaggaris reports, Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick must set a date for a special election to occur between 145 and 160 days from now to fill the vacancy created by Kennedy's death. The two likely dates for a special election would be on the Tuesdays that fall within this range: January 19, 2010 and January 26, 2010.
Thanks to a law change in 2004, Gov. Patrick is not allowed to appoint a temporary replacement, meaning that seat will be vacant until the special election.
Last week, Sen. Kennedy sent a letter urging Patrick and the state legislature to amend that law change to allow for the governor to appoint someone for that interim period, someone who would not be allowed to run in the special election.
The Boston Globe reported over the weekend that the state Senate president, a Democrat, has changed her mind on opposing this idea and has been working to drum up support for that measure.
The state legislature is on recess until Labor Day, so no action is expected before then.
In his letter, Kennedy wrote: "it is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election."
While Democrats hold a potentially filibuster-proof margin in Congress, the outcome of a health care reform bill could hinge on a single vote.
In his letter, Kennedy suggested the governor ensure the fairness of any appointment to replace him by seeking an "explicit personal commitment" his appointee will not seek the position on a permanent basis.
He goes to a hot and evil place... Mary Joe smiles.
LLS
Only a newb lib would promote a liberal pos in a thread celebrating the passing of the king lib.
LLS
Damn straight!
LLS
I despise the liberal pos romney... I hold no ill will for any Mormon or the Mormon Church... none whatsoever.
LLS
*ping to 60*
Two Slick Willardtrollbots in one thread, have fun.
You don’t have to defend yourself on that one. It’s just the usual attack/talking point of the bots. This one, interestingly, claims to be a Catholic. Now given that Slick Willard comes from a family whose credentials in the abortionist movement are stellar, one would question how a so-called “Conservative Catholic” could support such a creature ? Could this one be so stupid as to buy into the “Myth” of his phony conversion ? Hmm...
For an almost exact replica you would be hard put to find a better match than Michael Moore except Moore hasn’t directly killed anyone that we know of.
Teddy got around to fixing his succession problem in just as timely a manner as he did Mary Jo’s problem.
Yup. Not mentioned was Slick Willard’s pressing engagement at Ruth’s Chris the day he appointed this leftist judge who released Tavares on the public. A steak lunch was more important than the “tedious” 15-minute vetting of an applicant whom had obvious pro-criminal leanings. The only “concern” Slick Willard showed was when the news that Tavares’s slaughter came during the height of his Presidential campaign... for which was completely preventable (and that was annoyance that it interrupted his campaign).
Curt Schilling
“A lot of it’s anti-Mormonism”
Nah. A virtually none is anti-Mormonism. It’s anti-rinoism.
Succession?
Is that not a term associated with a Monarchy?
In political office one is replaced with an appointment and/or special election.
If it would keep him from being the next "choice" by the RNC to run fo POTUS I am all for Mitt running for Senator in Mass.
I was just backing you up. These bots are a sick evil bunch... but then again... so is willard.
LLS
Possible Retread?
You disagree for one of three reasons:
1) You’re misinformed.
2) You’re just too obtuse to accept the reality that he is a liberal.
3) You’re a drooling idiot.
Which is it?
Will this be a jungle type election where all candidates run on the same ballot regardless of party affiliation with a majority needed to win? Does anyone know?
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.