“I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would.”
A far Left cable TV host blabs what many libs are undoubtedly thinking to themselves about tomorrow’s special election in Massachusetts, but won’t say out loud, via Radio Equalizer Brian Maloney:
Related: Dems are pondering what to do with Sen. Paul Kirk, Teddy Kennedy’s hand-picked seat holder, if Scott Brown wins:
“Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys,” [Fred] Barnes, the Weekly Standard’s executive editor, wrote on the conservative magazine’s website Saturday night. “Based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period.”
So if Brown wins and Democrats vote on reform before he is seated, they will have to defend the rushed vote and, now, the legitimacy of Kirk’s clutch 60th vote.
Fearing a political backlash in the Senate, Democrats could try to pass the Senate bill through the House with no changes, sending it straight to President Barack Obama’s desk. But that is still considered a last-ditch maneuver fraught with its own perils.
Health care insiders see an even bigger problem should Brown win on Tuesday – nervous Senate Democratic moderates reconsidering their support for the bill.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
More CPAC speeches in 20 words
February 11, 2012 06:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
54 CommentsUS State Department Expands Travel Warning for Mexico
February 11, 2012 03:29 PM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
172 CommentsL.A. Board of Supervisors Impose $1,000 Fine for Having Fun on the Beach
February 9, 2012 04:42 PM by Doug Powers
77 Comments
CPAC vs. the Occupiers: Keep calm and carry silly string
February 9, 2012 10:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
109 Comments
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 CommentsSteny Hoyer: The Fact is You Don’t Need a Budget
February 8, 2012 03:27 PM by Doug Powers
74 Comments
Sheila Jackson Lee: Privatizing TSA Screeners Would Be Asking for Another 9/11
February 7, 2012 11:07 PM by Doug Powers
72 Comments
Categories: Politics
Patterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidGateway Pundit
» White House Says They Won’t Budge on HHS Birth Control Mandate: “Our Position Is Clear” (Video)Gateway Pundit
» Sarah Palin on HBO Palin Movie: I’ve Created More Impersonators Than Obama’s Created Jobs (Video)Daily Caller
» Will: ‘Strongest Republican candidate has the last name ‘Romney’ and the first name ‘not” [VIDEO]
I need to apologize. I think I’ve been rude to chapier and I shouldn’t have been. I don’t know what is wrong with me. I should be able to debate without getting mean. I’m becoming a monster.
I still say if Kirk gets to vote after the election, they should not have had the election as they already had their representative to finish the term. It would make no sense to have an election to replace a provisional/interim position and ignore the victor of the election.
serving out as a lame duck elected is different than serving a term for someone else who was elected.
This statement is directly contradicted by the relevant statute.
That is because Colemans term, BY LAW, had already ended. Kirks term, BY LAW, extends until AFTER the election AND QUALIFICATION of his successor.
I have no idea why anyone here thinks Coleman’s situation has any bearing.
If, in the incredibly unlikely situation that not one Democrat in power has actually contemplated, the Senate refused to seat someone that had been elected and certified, and all possible avenues for recount or revote had been exhausted, the aggrieved party could go to Court. It’s called checks and balances.
Gee, and I thought that they have been cheating to get their own bastards in. The truth is that when their ideas or candidates can’t stand on their own merits then it’s time to pull out all the stops and win at all costs, without understanding the consequences. Bad ideas and slimy candidates need to be tosses out. Lying and cheating doesn’t make the country better. In fact it has caused us to be where we are now.
I think his posts are soporific!
HINT, HINT, HINT!!!
Chappy and Winger have alluded to a key issue here. Let’s see how long zyzyzyzggyygzzzyzyzyzgggggy will take to pick up on it…
John Deaux,
Now you are going to get him angry by calling him names that he doesn’t understand! It is gonna take him weeks to figure out what “soporific” means.
Do you suppose he knows now to click on a link…
Even if Coakley wins, I can’t imagine Kirk casting another vote at all.
It’s not like the president where we always have to have one. The continuity of government doesn’t depend on whether or not MA has 2 votes in the Senate. It only matters because of this one bill that was written as far left as possible and the breakdown in the number of D’s currently.
Kirk doesn’t have a ‘term’ to complete (unless it’s Kennedy’s in which case there shouldn’t have been a special election). After the election, MA has no vote until the election is certified.
Again, if Brown wins and Kirk votes in the interim a way Brown wouldn’t. . . I’d be prepared for pitchforks in Boston as the government will have gone rogue in their eyes if not in the eyes of the courts.
I applaud you for your addressing the issue. Thank you. Responding to an actual logical arguement is always far more satisfying.
True. And that Senator who is being replaced is a lame duck and continues to vote. Correct?
Again true.
Therein lies the rub.
Where is it written that Sen Kirk no longer holds office? Is there a law that says he no longer holds office? The Weekly Standard offers lawyerly opinions based on what? In the abscence of written law what should be done?
Begin with commonsense and precedent.
Sen Kirk is a lame duck, and lame ducks still get to vote. There are mounds of precedents to support that position.
Then there is the larger principle of having representation in the Senate. I am uncomfortable with taking away any State’s vote when there is a person lawfully holding that seat. Call me silly, but being a republic and having a representative form of government is important to me. Is it important to you? No State should have to go without voting representation when they do not have to.
I am prepared to concede when there is written law that supports your position.
And, MA new Senator swearing-in should not be delayed. There are rules and laws covering the period of time from election to certification to swearing-in. Follow the rules. Period.
Exactly. And, did Sen Coleman continue to vote until the day that Senate class was sworn in? Yes, Minn had no vote in the Senate, but that was not because there was no one to serve. There is some one to serve and to vote on behalf of MA, until the new Senator is sworn in.
[We can take a tangent and say that Gov Pawlenty could have appointed someone until the election had been decided. But, there is no precedent for that.]
That is an extreme example. Couldn’t the majority party also refuse to sit the newly elected Senate Class? Especially if that new Senate Class would change the majority in the body? Nope. Use examples that make sense and have precedent.
Besides, the issue is whether Sen Kirk can continue to vote, and not whether the newly elected Senator will be seated. Re-read the article again.
And my point is that Kirk can not vote because he does not have a term to complete.
Roland Burris was appointed to the Senate to finish Obama’s term. He will finish the term without having been elected. There was no special election.
Boston shouldn’t have had the special election but the state constitution demanded it. The legal question was whether they could appoint an interim before the special election, but it was Kennedy’s dying request. . . and they created legislation to allow it (ie it was against the law so they changed the law).
Don’t feel too badly. On the whole, Chap is a stand-up guy, but every once in a while, he needs a sock in the jaw. And he knows it.
I wasn’t offended by anything Thacker said and, without disagreeing with your general premise, are you saying that this thread was one of those times?
Whacking lawyers is Fundamental!
No. You have been much more outrageous in other threads! Especially when you were trashing Iceland. I mean, really!! Sometimes you just have no shame.
I do believe it is a constitutionally protected right!
To be fair, they had it coming.
“…the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.”
–MLK,jr, Letter from Birmingham Jail, 1963
Sound like a plan. Get a lawyer from Iceland and we can all join in.
On Cavuto: French are trashing us for being too slow in aiding Haiti. Any French lawyers in Iceland?
We have all seen elections stolen thanks to ACORN and the union thugs. It is rather amazing that the news networks now support such theft by giving people like Matthews and Schultz a forum.
Is it “arguement” or “argument”? Someone constantly looking to argue should try to spell it right. Viewing a Monty Python “paid” argument might help…no charge.
Oui. And they are living in FEMA trailers, smoking cigs and reading Sartre.
Ed Schultz said what many have always suspected of this Dem regime wishing to do; win at any cost and irrespective of the laws our public officials and citizens swear to uphold.
Never saw this guy’s MSNBC show…but it appears to aptly be named the E.D. show!
___‹^›__‹(•¿•)›__‹^›___
Ladies and gentlemen, this kind of cheating is what the Left does. Don’t ever give them your vote again. They stole the election from Dino Rossi in Washington. They never even bothered to explain to Washingtonians why King County (Seattle) had 3,000 more votes than voters. They will stop at nothing.
Then why is Obrainless allowed to appoint powerful czars without any checks or balances from Congress?
Race.
Doubtful. He’s here to hear himself type.
Two Funy! LOL.
You take isue with my speling and avoid adressing and reponding to the topic at hand.
I will acknowlege my mispeling and hope you will acknowlege and ofer sum substance to the topic being discused.
ROFLMAO
What relevant statute is that? Quoting from the acticle:
“Qualification” is a reference to the Constitutional requirements to hold office. I fail to see where it provides any lamb duck period after the election.
A fair point to reference, however the candidate must meet the “qualifications” before they can be elected to the Senate, according to the Constitution.
“Qualifications” for office precede election according to the Constitution. Agreed? Certainly you do, because you say so.
“Qualification,” and the use of that term, as used in in the MA law follows the word “election.” Yep, I am parsing.
Qualification for office happens before the election. That being the case, saying “qualification” after “election” must mean something different.
Qualification -> Election -> Qualification. Huh?
Like it or not, mistakes are made in wording. Yes, the law should have said “certification” instead of “qualification.” Often intent has to be examined.
And, the law is silent on the issue of ‘lame duck-ed-ness.’
[Note: I was taken to task for mis-spelling 'argument' so, you might be taken to task for saying 'lamb duck' by other posters. I will not do so because I understand your intent. Yep, mistakes happen, and it is the intent that should also be examined.]
But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.