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

Skip to comments.

Brown sworn in, but not before confirmation on labor nominee
Washington Times-Water Cooler ^ | 2/5/10 | Kerry Picket

Posted on 02/05/2010 2:19:48 PM PST by paltz

If there was any clue that the Democrats wanted one last opportunity to pump their last hours of super majority muscle, it happened on Thursday, immediately before Sen.-elect Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican, was finally sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden at 5 PM. While the GOP grew antsier over when Mr. Brown would be seated in the Senate, Democrats managed to squeeze in one last vote for labor nominee Patricia Smith just hours before Mr. Brown became an official U.S. senator. Senate Democrats confirmed Ms. Smith to the Solicitor of Labor on a party-line vote 60 to 37.

Ms. Smith's May 2009 testimony to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee caused GOP Sen. Mike Enzi from Wyoming to ultimately request documents from New York State under its Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) concerning the Wage and Hour Watch Program that Ms. Smith was asked about.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; agenda; bho44; labor; patriciasmith

1 posted on 02/05/2010 2:19:48 PM PST by paltz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: paltz

Solicitor of Labor. Sounds like a prostitution job.


2 posted on 02/05/2010 2:22:20 PM PST by MIchaelTArchangel (Is anyone in the 0bama administration competent at anything?!!?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Would some legal eagle explain to me how these votes are remotely Constitutional?


3 posted on 02/05/2010 2:23:05 PM PST by A Strict Constructionist (How long before we are forced to refresh the Tree of Liberty? Sic semper tryannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz
it happened on Thursday, immediately before Sen.-elect Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican, was finally sworn in by Vice President Joe Biden at 5 PM. While the GOP grew antsier over when Mr. Brown would be seated in the Senate, Democrats managed to squeeze in one last vote for labor nominee Patricia Smith just hours before Mr. Brown became an official U.S. senator.

What does Barney Fwank have to say about that?

4 posted on 02/05/2010 2:23:35 PM PST by a fool in paradise ("like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning" Obama 2/4/2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MIchaelTArchangel

Na, she gave that up years ago.


5 posted on 02/05/2010 2:23:37 PM PST by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A Strict Constructionist
"Would some legal eagle explain to me how these votes are remotely Constitutional?"

Well, the fact of the matter is the Constitution gives wide birth to both Houses of Congress with respect to how they actually go about the business of creating legislation, to include the voting process. The Founders left it up to the sausage makers to determine how the sausage is made. As one might expect, it's an ugly process.

6 posted on 02/05/2010 2:26:48 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Appears that they had the 60 votes even if Brown were to have been sworn in earlier.

This delaying of Brown’s ceremony was not playing well here in Massachusetts.

The Boston Herald had a story today about Patrick Kennedy’s polling numbers in (link below) RI. Fifty six per cent unfavorable in his District, 65% unfavorable in the entire state.

That and the Drudge post about Kennedy’s stupid comments are just more fuel for this bon fire.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100205kennedys_shaken_as_gop_eyes_ri_too/


7 posted on 02/05/2010 2:30:28 PM PST by Radix (I am from Massachusetts, and I voted for Scott Brown. You're welcome.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“I hate those guys!”


8 posted on 02/05/2010 2:30:40 PM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A Strict Constructionist

Even in the most strict interpretation of Massachusetts law, the moment the Governor and Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts signed the papers certifying the election, Paul Kirk was no longer a US Senator. His term did not end when Brown was sworn in, it ended when Brown was “duly elected” and “qualified” under the terms of the law that the Democrats themselves rammed through.

Gov. Patrick signed the certification papers around 10:00am on February 4, and that is when Kirk’s term ended.


9 posted on 02/05/2010 2:30:47 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paltz

Senate Democrats confirmed Ms. Smith to the Solicitor of Labor on a party-line vote 60 to 37.


It would not have matter one whit whether Brown had been sworn in before and voted in the Smith confirmation vote. All that was required at this juncture was a majority vote. The cloture vote requiring 60 votes occurred on Monday, Feb. 1.


10 posted on 02/05/2010 2:37:58 PM PST by deport (25 DAYS UNTIL THE TEXAS PRIMARY....... MARCH 2, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

These are some evil people!


11 posted on 02/05/2010 10:31:34 PM PST by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paltz

This one I don’t understand. While Brown certainly isn’t Senator until the Senate decides to seat him, they have no right to allow a person to sit who is constitutionally prohibited. And the constitution clearly states that an appointed senator is no longer eligible once a new senator is elected, as determined by state law. And state law said Brown was officially elected when the Governor signed the paperwork sometime Thursday morning.

So Kirk was no longer a senator.

And an objection to the parlamentarian would have certainly led to such a ruling.

But apparently, no republican made such a motion.

Which leads me to believe the republicans did not want to stop this nomination.


12 posted on 02/05/2010 10:51:17 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport

But the vote still shouldn’t have been recorded. It’s very sleazy.

Still, thank you for reminding us about the cloture vote, which was also pretty sleazy.


13 posted on 02/05/2010 10:52:57 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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