Boston Globe Writer Ignores Mass. Law on When Appointed Senator's Term Ends

NewsBusters ^ | January 18, 2010 | P.J. Gladnick

[PJ-Comix]

Boston Globe writer Lisa Wangsness can't be blamed too much for assuming that appointed senator Paul Kirk's term ends when the winner of tomorrow's election in Massachusetts, Scott Brown (photo) or Martha Coakley, is seated. Wrong. Mass. law is very specific on that term limit as Fred Barnes has noted in the Weekly Standard. The reason why Wangsness can be forgiven for her error is that it is the same assumption made by most of the rest of the mainstream media. Here is the relevant section of her article about the effect of tomorrow's election on the health care bill:

Another possibility would be for Democrats to hurry and pass a compromise bill before Brown were seated.

[PJ-Comix]

It isn't a matter of when the next senator's term begins. What counts is that Paul Kirk's term ENDS tomorrow. The senate parliamentarian needs to order his removal if he attempts to hang around after tomorrow's election.

[Petronski]

I hope you read this and, if need be, get word to the Senate GOP.

It seems they can delay seating the new Senator if they chose, but Kirk’s power expires upon “election and qualification.”

I hope you bring your expertise and influence to bear on this one. Big.

Huge.

[Sacajaweau]

Somehow, I think the Dems overlooked this...having gotten all wound up in thoughts of challenging etc...

Can someone tell me why they didn't run Kirk....whoever he is...

[Conservative Vermont Vet]

WOW! Just wow!

This is fantastic and don't know why we are only now learning this?

Now it remains to find one (JUST ONE) Republitard in the Senate who has a "pair" (a daunting task) to move that this law be enforced, or the entire R contingent will refuse to allow any further Senate business until they do

Next there needs to be a move for an immediate injunction (by someone, I don't know who) in some Fed Court if Kirk does not step down.

[Truth is a Weapon]

Yes. After tomorrow the Senator from Massachusetts will be either Brown, Coakley or Kennedy. So, no matter how close the election, Kirk ceases to be the Senator after the polls close because someone else will be the elected Senator. All three candidates are qualified.

Even if Coakley were to win (which I see as almost impossible at this point), Kirk cannot vote on any more bills. So any delay will not help the Dems. They need 60 votes. It is not that the Repubs need 41 to block. If a Senator is absent, dead or whatever he does not count toward 60.

[newfreep]

Both Rasmussen & Zogby just picked Coakley by 1-2 points on Hannity’s show - perhaps they know the dead will be voting in VERY high numbers for Marcia.

[seowulf]

I’m sure the Mass legislature will change the law on Wednesday.

It’s not like they haven’t pulled that trick before.

[donhunt]

Kirk said from the “get go” that he wouldn’t run as permanent replacement.

[PJ-Comix]

MR. Kirk. The Senate floor is reserved only for senators. Please don't cause a scene by forcing me to call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to physically remove you. Thank you and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[MrDem]

Why are you the only person reporting this?

[MrDem]

Where does that leave us? On Intrade, Brown begins Monday morning as the slight favorite in the race. However, nobody really knows who will win because it all comes down to turnout. Clearly, Brown has the more enthusiastic support and has run a better campaign. If turnout remains low, he is likely to win. That’s why the president went to Boston. If his appearance boosts turnout among Democrats, the Democrat will win. That’s a long way around saying that we’re right back where we were a week ago - at the time of the last Rasmussen Reports poll. Brown is leading slightly among those certain to vote, and Coakley will do better if more Democrats show up.

Straight from Rass's web site.

[colorado tanker]

IIRC, the polls also showed New Jersey Governor much closer than it was. Of course, that didn't have the national implications and Obama didn't try to convert the race into a referendum on his administration. That's the wild card here, will his intervention hurt or help Brown?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Both Rasmussen & Zogby just picked Coakley by 1-2 points on Hannity’s show

Rasmussen Reports today: "That’s a long way around saying that we’re right back where we were a week ago - at the time of the last Rasmussen Reports poll. Brown is leading slightly among those certain to vote, and Coakley will do better if more Democrats show up."

Strange. Rasmussen did not do his own poll since last week, and yet he is commenting on poll someone's else's numbers. Rasmussen also said that Brown has a "slight" lead in Intrade. Slight???? 79 to 25?

Maybe he is afraid to do another poll for some reason? If he thinks this race is not important enough to poll, he's out of his mind.

[Loyal Buckeye]

My guess is that Rasmussen didn’t want to do a final poll over the weekend + a holiday.

[Phantom Lord]

Rass has been getting attacked without end lately by the media and assorted leftists and blogs. I wonder if he decided to just lay low this week to try and lessen the hate and attacks coming his way.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I can't say Rasmussen is wrong, because he didn't really say anything. I think Brown wins by +5.