I was always under the impression that the Senate cannot refuse to seat someone simply because they don't like them; they have to have some sort of legitimate argument as to why the person is unfit to serve. Thus, when Ashcroft decided not to contest the election and Carna-HAM's appointment, the Senate had no legitimate legal reason to consider refusing to seat her.
Anyone know if I'm right on this?
And rightfully so; the Republican Ashcroft was derelict to allow the widow a Senate seat as though the wife ran for election instead of the husband.