Smoot Point Really Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Does anyone else find it consistent with everything you know about liberal democrats that they would keep changing laws just to maintain their own political power? In 2004, Mitt Romney was Governor of the state of Massachusetts. John Kerry was running for President, and the state decided to change their constitution so that the people of that State would vote to decide the replacement. Kerry didn't become President, so "crisis averted" for liberals in Mass and conservatives everywhere else. However, they did change the law. Now that you have a democrat as Governor, they don't want to leave this up to "chance" (aka "the will of the people"), but they are trying to get the law changed back to how it was... This is so stereotypical it's comical. I'm sure someone is going to bring up Republicans in Texas redistricting and all, but this is so blatant... It should be embarrassing. I didn't see this mentioned anywhere else... Please merge/delete if I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toe Jam Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 I knew this thread was coming eventually. I'm sorry he died but it seems kind of hypocritical to me. Sigh. Politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 Well, at least the Democrats are not trying to SELL this vacant Senate seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 No of course not. They attempt underhanded tactics all of the time its when they are thwarted or lose fairly that they accuse Team Elephant of cheating in the way they thought they could get away with. Imagine if the RNC kept voting areas open way pass the deadline in predominant GOP voting areas or the next Republican President decided that "she" would personally take care of the census with her own advisors. The media and DNC would litter the DC area with all of the race cards they had thrown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmacop Posted August 28, 2009 Share Posted August 28, 2009 It is hypocritical, for sure. The only mitigating factor is that the current Dems aren't trying to change the law back to what it was before 2004 (i.e., governor appoints a person to serve until the next election, as much as two years away, and that person can run for the seat he or she is appointed to). Instead, the power to appoint will be limited to appointing someone who promises not to run, and the law keeps the special election part of the 2004 law, so that an election is held no later than 6 months from the vacancy. If I ran the world, every state would have the following law about vacant Senate seats: 1. Governor has the power to appoint a temporary placeholder who promises not to run again, and who must be from the same party as the vacating senator; 2. A special election is then mandated no later than four months from the date the seat was vacated, giving the people the final say. This would keep the partisan make-up of the Senate the same as before the vacancy until the special election, remove the political power of governors to appoint cronies and retards (see Blago and Burris), make sure that the "real" replacement is seated quickly, and put all of the power in fully replacing the senator with the people of the state, as it should be. If this recent (and clearly political) proposal in Massachusetts actually gets us closer to my ideal proposal, I can live with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted August 28, 2009 Author Share Posted August 28, 2009 I'm fine with that KC, but it would've been nice had they thought of it when they changed the law 4 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.