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

Skip to comments.

Mass. GOP seeks injunction on Kirk appointment
Boston Herald ^ | 09/24/09 | Boston Herald

Posted on 09/24/2009 11:14:40 AM PDT by raccoonradio

The Massachusetts Republican Party has filed an injunction in a Boston court seeking to block former Democratic Party chairman Paul Kirk from becoming the interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Lawmakers this week passed legislation giving Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint an interim replacement, but laws approved in Massachusetts usually take 90 days to go into effect. Patrick signed an emergency letter that he says allows the law to become effective immediately.

Republicans allege in their court filing that Patrick did not have the constitutional authority to do that.

But State Secretary William Galvin said today the power to make the immediate appointment is "very clearly available" to Patrick.

Kirk, the former head of the Democratic National Committee, is set to be sworn Friday.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: 111th; kirk; ma2009; massachusetts; massgop; paulkirk; senate; tedkennedy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: y6162
Laws? We don’t need no stinking laws.

What is going on in this country during the past year proves we are no longer a nation of laws. Constitution is being shredded like GWB could only dream of. Wasn't it the left that accused GWB of trashing the document and wanted to impeach him for it?
61 posted on 09/24/2009 12:57:03 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barack Hussein 0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio
Judge Thomas Connolly as Suffolk Sup Ct

I googled Connolly; as far as I can tell, he follows the law, whether he likes the conclusion or not.

62 posted on 09/24/2009 1:01:43 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: maryz

“It’s got to be a legal principle somewhere! Every third grader knows you can’t change the rules in the middle, and only a cheater and a sneak would try!”

Obviously, Maryz, you don’t reside here in the People’s Republic. What you describe is a daily occurence and standard operating procedure in the hallowed snakepit that we euphimistically call the Massachusetts State Legislature. Consider this, there is now a movement afoot to amend the State Constitution that would make the open meeting law applicable to the legislature. As it has stood for so many years, the “people’s business”, for the greater part, is conducted behind closed doors. The Snakepit has the transparency of lead.

As far as the chances of the success of passage of this amendment? DOA


63 posted on 09/24/2009 1:05:18 PM PDT by Stormdog (A rifle transforms one from subject to Citizen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Stormdog
Actually, I do live in MA -- Southie. And I know what it's like here. I also know a number of people who just don't vote -- they're totally disgusted with the politicians and would rather spend their time trying to make some kind of life. I always vote myself, but it's pretty frustrating.

Something like 90% of the legislature typically run unopposed. The state GOP (and it's uncharacteristic that they're at least making an attempt to fight this) sometimes seems to actively work against actual conservatives -- they prefer "electable moderates."

The only way I can see for Republicans to make any headway is for the state GOP to get people to run for at least half the seats at once, have them run as a "team" (on a bare bones platform) and pool their money for TV ads.

64 posted on 09/24/2009 1:17:08 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

How convenient. Pass a law and them waive a law in order to implement the passed law. In other words, laws in mASSachussets are suggestions.


65 posted on 09/24/2009 1:27:38 PM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Article 1, Section 9 is a section limiting the powers of Congress, not the states. It actually does not read as you say it does. It reads, more precisely, “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Now, if you feel this applies to the states, that’s something different. But the Constitution most certainly does not contain the explicit directive you suggest.

Just sayin’.


66 posted on 09/24/2009 1:41:39 PM PDT by thetusknet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Republicans should be making this a HUGE issue - every day. GET some balls

Reporting for duty Sir!

The Repubs may be able to delay this a little, but little chance in this commie state. Kirk is an extension of Ted Kennedy (D-Hell). I did an informal poll again at the doctors office today in super liberal Newton MA and asked if any patients or staff supported obamacare and the expected Medicare outcome. Not a single person in the waiting room supported the bill and each random person I spoke to was pissed and agreed this would be a major consideration in the Special Election in January.

67 posted on 09/24/2009 1:56:49 PM PDT by balls (Fight Media Malpractice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike

The GOP would be better of filing in a Venezuelan court.


68 posted on 09/24/2009 1:58:13 PM PDT by omega4179 (We must be the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: maryz

We did just that in NJ and, with the concurrence of our Supremes, gave the country the benefit of our very own Frank Lousenberg.


69 posted on 09/24/2009 2:02:52 PM PDT by Postman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: thetusknet
Sorry, my mistake. Its not Section 9, but Section 10... 9 is for Congress, and 10 is for the states:

Article 1, Section 10:

"NO STATE Shall... pass ANY... ex post facto Law"

70 posted on 09/24/2009 2:18:16 PM PDT by C210N (A patriot for a Conservative Renaissance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Ike

LOL all this is is a prelude to 2016 the rats plan to repeal the 22nd ammendment then once they lose the presidency they will jump up and down to get it reinstated.

Liberal Text Book politics.


71 posted on 09/24/2009 2:30:37 PM PDT by Typical_Whitey (Joe Wilson was speaking truth to power in the Peoples House. I am Joe !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: C210N

Now, there’s something! Thanks, C210N!


72 posted on 09/24/2009 2:59:43 PM PDT by thetusknet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

Deval Patrick is becoming more like Rod Blagojevich every day...lol. Scum.


73 posted on 09/24/2009 3:06:13 PM PDT by khnyny (At least in the US we give our idiots an education, a suit and a speech writer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio; kristinn; Jim Robinson
Where's our freeper lawyer members? It's a major conflict of interest that KIRK is the executor of Teddy Kennedy's Will.

SCREAMS conflict of interest!

That should disqualify him immediately! Bret Baier reported Kirk executor of Teddy's Will.

74 posted on 09/24/2009 3:38:05 PM PDT by floriduh voter (Robert Schindler, Sr. We miss you very much. The Monopoly Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sun; Theodore R.; Republic; PhiKapMom; PhilDragoo
Paging Rule of Law, paging Rule of Law.

Profiting from Teddy's Estate and ALSO getting his Senate seat?

Is that simple conflict of interest, abuse of power or racketeering?

75 posted on 09/24/2009 3:41:42 PM PDT by floriduh voter (Robert Schindler, Sr. We miss you very much. The Monopoly Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Your thoughts?


76 posted on 09/24/2009 3:47:39 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Be prepared for tough times. FReepmail me to learn about our survival thread!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fishtalk

My great great grandfather had enough of that place and left... in 1879.


77 posted on 09/24/2009 3:52:41 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Be prepared for tough times. FReepmail me to learn about our survival thread!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion

Is somebody trying to hide somethin’? You’d think Teddy, RIP, would have a Trust. What would there be for Kirk to hide? For a. DNC b. Kennedy clan


78 posted on 09/24/2009 4:01:16 PM PDT by floriduh voter (Robert Schindler, Sr. We miss you very much. The Monopoly Man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

Wow! They found a pair...


79 posted on 09/24/2009 4:11:44 PM PDT by CatQuilt (Lover of cats =^..^= and quilts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raccoonradio

you cynic... ;-)


80 posted on 09/24/2009 4:14:21 PM PDT by CatQuilt (Lover of cats =^..^= and quilts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 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