Posted on 09/23/2009 1:39:12 PM PDT by Clinton's a liar
Hey, I hear ya, but I think between the “pubs file suit” and “MA Sup Ct rules in favor of Dems” there will likely be a “Senate Swears in Interim Mass. Senator” for the health care vote.
It’s up to Harry Reid whether or not he seats the appointee. He’ll have an excuse to seat if the Sec. of State says “okie dokie”
We shall see...
Is anyone going to challenge this unlawful procedure? Is the GOP in MA doing anything? Totally absurd situation.
The Republican party and/or other interested parties need to bring an immediate lawsuit to delay this law. The Democrats have no shame or even adherance to the rule of law.
I don’t expect the dems to feel even the slightest amount of shame over this. They are admitting to the entire world that they are shameless hypocrites.
The GOP in MA is speaking out but they are outnumbered.
anybody even going to try taking them to court over this?
I hope the lying scumbags choke on it.
Apparently the 1937 case the governor's depending on (in which the court found that the governor could sign a bill and have it take effect without the 90-day period normally only waived by an emergency preamble passed by the legislature) dealt with a referendum question, not a bill passed by the legislature. Here, the legislature explicity did not pass the emergency preamble.
Sounds to me as if they have a good case. Unfortunately, the rep on the show sounded waaaay too deferential -- more "we just want to say slow down; let's see if it will pass judicial muster first." Maybe it's a tactic in case the gov's listening (to Howie Carr? not bloody likely IMO!), but he didn't sound at all like the typical lawyer, chargin ahead with blood in his eye (even when he has no case).
All the MA GOP did was cast their votes and say “oh, well!” They did nothing to bring national attention to the issue, and the leader of the GOP in this very quote indicates he's not interested in fighting it in any way whatsoever other than the single vote he cast:
-—”......The interim appointee proposal was enacted this afternoon by the House, 95-59, and by the Senate, 24-16, after only brief speeches by lawmakers. Lawmakers did not pass, however, an emergency preamble to the law, meaning that the governor will have to send a letter to the secretary of state requesting early implementation of the law.
“We did everything we could and there’s no need to delay for the sake of delay at this point,” Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei told reporters after the Senate vote. “The vote’s been cast, and I hope the governor picks somebody who can represent the state well for the next couple of months.......”——
“Is anyone going to challenge this unlawful procedure?”
I imagine every judge would rule that no one has “standing” to take such a measure—as in the case of obamination having to prove that he is a legitimate president—NO ONE has standing.
Is there nobody? Is there no shame? Are the majority of people in Massachusetts really no better than this? And there is no “emergency” with this bill which they do not even plan to enact for several years. Where was the outcry for this emergency need when the “emergency” stimulus bill was getting pushed through? We must demand they STOP USING THE WORD EMERGENCY ALL THE TIME. It is starting to take on a whole different meaning to me...it means BOHICA. Good people of MA......please do something. Even if you are a Democrat, there must be some good Democrats. Or did freedom go home, go to where it was born in order to die?
And what about the GOP OUT of MA ?
THe problem is, once you get past the hypocrisy argument, the REAL travesty was when they voted in 2004 to take away the power of the Governor to appoint a senator.
If they had tried to pass this law next year, the republicans wouldn’t have had a reason to oppose it. It’s a sound way to replace a governor, and many states just do the appointment and wait for the next scheduled statewide election for the special election process.
So it’s fun to point out that the Democrats are hypocrits, it’s harder to argue that giving the governor the power to appoint a temporary senator is somehow “anti-democratic” or something, since most states have the governor appoint the replacement already and we haven’t been fighting to change the law elsewhere.
I was wrong on this...didn’t figger they could do it
The bill was enacted by the House, 95-59, and by the Senate, 24-16, after only brief speeches by lawmakers. Lawmakers did not pass, however, an emergency preamble to the law...
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
The current composition of the House is 141 Democrats and 19 Republicans. The current composition of the Senate is 35 Democrats, 5 Republicans. (No typo: only 12% of the lawmakers in MA are Republicans)
Assuming (dangerous in MA) all the Republicans voted against, 40 Democrats in the House and 11 Dems in the Senate voted against the bill. (Actually I don’t have much problem with the bill as written, except that it should have been written 50 years ago and never questioned after that due to political effects.) Those 40 Democrats essentially neutered this in the current situation since they withheld effective power to appoint in this situation by not including the emergency clause.
Glenn Beck has been all over the place saying that the present situation in this country is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing, and I agree. There ARE “good” (meaning law-respecting here) Democrats. On the basis of this single vote, 24(100%) Republicans and 51(29%) Democrats in the Massachusetts General Court get “good” points.
We have to get the Democrats with us against this corruption, and here is an example that we can use.
“IS THERE SOMETHING IN THIS LAW PROHIBITING the appointed person from running in the DEC. primary?
If so, it is likely unconstitutional (similar to the striking down of term limit laws that added additional qualifications to the ones specified in the constitution).”
BTW, laws that require that the governor name someone from the party of the person that died or resigned (such as in WY and AZ) are unconstitutional for the same reason you stated above, but have never been challenged that I know of.
I hear what you're saying, AFP, but holy crap. With Marxists controlling the Dem Party right now, and the rampant corruption/abuse of power, what's it gonna take for these "good" Dems to actually say "enough"?
A vote is a vote--and it remains to be seen if Harry Reid seats the interim appointee (I think he will and fast--harder to undo), but unless and until some of these Democrats start speaking out against the hard-left Marxists, I don't have a very high opinion of any of them.
I beat up on Republicans when it's deserved. Always have. Truth is truth.
Looking at the numbers is very enlightening. I understand there are just 5 GOPers in the Mass Senate and probably a similar percentage in their Assembly. 95/59 and 24/16 are indicative that maybe not all Democrats are on board for this heavy handed crap.
The Glob doesn’t even mention the two problems that make this vote so sickening.
1. The legislature based this bill and its predecessor purely on whether the governor happened to be a Republican or a Democrat.
2. It violates the rule of law to pass such a bill ex post facto.
Good eye. The corruption is bare-faced and absolutely unapologetic.
I'm going to have to give you a 5 star moron badge.
It goes to the core of the Democrat party to rig the rules. That is the essense of big govt. It is to rig the rules to get the outcome you desire. That is AT THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE DEMOCRATS.
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.