PDA

View Full Version : Democrats: When the law doesn't favor your party, change the law!



John Ashcroft
03-06-2004, 11:26 PM
With support building for the change, Beacon Hill Democrats filed legislation yesterday to strip Governor Mitt Romney of his power to fill the Senate seat that Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry would vacate if he wins in November.

The bill, sponsored by the House and Senate cochairmen of the Joint Committee on Elections Laws, would mandate a special election within 105 to 130 days after a vacancy in the Senate is declared. The seat would not be filled temporarily.

One top Massachusetts Democratic leader said he is confident that the bill will whisk through with enough votes to override an expected Romney veto. House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran said yesterday that the Legislature would take a serious look at the proposal.

"We will have to examine that honestly and in depth with some hearings," Finneran said at a breakfast meeting of the South Shore Chamber of Commerce in Quincy.

Leaders in the House and Senate held back endorsement of the plan, although Representative William M. Straus and Senator Brian A. Joyce, chairmen of the Joint Committee on Election Laws, said they had solid support from the heavily Democratic Legislature to pass the bill.

No shit!, I wonder how long Massachussetts Governors have had the authority to appoint replacement Senators. I guess the law was fine and dandy so long as it was a Democrat Governor doing the appointing.

Said Joyce, a Milton Democrat: "My sense is that there is fairly strong support in the Senate, and Bill says there is a strong support in the House."

Only Oregon and Washington provide for special elections to fill a vacated Senate seat.

Currently, under a longstanding law, the governor appoints an interim senator who serves until the next statewide election. In the case of a Kerry resignation, a Romney-appointed interim senator, presumably a Republican, would serve until the 2006 election.

The move to change the system, which surfaced two weeks ago, has set off partisan attacks and counterattacks. A host of prominent Democrats are quietly eyeing the Senate seat. Also, there are high national political stakes because of the razor thin division in the US Senate.

Romney denounced the bill yesterday, saying that the Democrats are indulging in "speculation and gossip" about who will get to chose the next US senator. He said it was "just wishful thinking" that Kerry will beat President Bush.

"This is nothing but a transparent power grab by a monopoly party that wants to change the rules in the middle of the game to keep the old boys' club in power," said a statement released by Romney's office.

The governor also said that a campaign for the US Senate should allow sufficient time for fund-raising and "a full discussion of the issues through a normal primary campaign and general election."

"The only people who benefit from a shotgun election are incumbent congressmen with large war chests," Romney said. "In Massachusetts, that means women and people of color are shut out of the process."

Democrats said Romney's insistence on making the interim, two-year appointment is an effort to ensure that the Republicans can obtain one of the state's most highly prized political positions. They say his argument is inconsistent with his promotion of himself as a reformer who eschews patronage and politics as usual.

"I can't think of a public policy reason for denying to the voters the chance to pick the US senator and deny the governor this old-style patronage plum," said Straus, a Democrat from Mattapoisett.

Except when a Democrat Governor gets to pick of course...

Secretary of State William F. Galvin, the Commonwealth's chief election officer, sounded some concerns about the details. He said that he wants to make sure the time frame for the election is sufficient for candidates to gather the necessary 10,000 certified voter signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Link: here (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/03/05/democrats_bank_on_election_bill/)

FORD
03-06-2004, 11:51 PM
"This is nothing but a transparent power grab by a monopoly party that wants to change the rules in the middle of the game to keep the old boys' club in power," said a statement released by Romney's office.


The Republicans control the entire federal government, the media, and even the Democratic party machine through their moles in the DLC, and yet Shit Romney thinks the Democrats have a "monopoly" .

Monopoly of WHAT, exactly??

And for the record, I'm not defending Judas here. I think personally that if he's so fucking arrogant to think he deserves to be President after 3 years of Bush enabling, then he and his backers shouldn't have anything to say about how the state fills the position.

The voters of Massachussetes SHOULD have that say, however. They should have put this bill on the ballot in 2002 before Kerry was running, and then nobody could have made an issue out of it.

ScrewEddie
03-07-2004, 12:15 AM
Like the Republikins didn't change the rules in the Texas redistricting. From now on it's screw or get screwed. I hope the Mass Dems legislate every Republikin right out of the state. Besides, the legislature makes the laws. They can change them. All's fair in love and war. I believe it was your hero, Newt, who said politics is just war without bloodshed. Bring it on, mo' fo.

Viking
03-07-2004, 02:44 AM
*BELCH*

ELVIS
03-07-2004, 05:18 AM
What did he say ??

BigBadBrian
03-07-2004, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by ScrewEddie
Like the Republikins didn't change the rules in the Texas redistricting. From now on it's screw or get screwed. I hope the Mass Dems legislate every Republikin right out of the state. Besides, the legislature makes the laws. They can change them. All's fair in love and war. I believe it was your hero, Newt, who said politics is just war without bloodshed. Bring it on, mo' fo.

Lexington, KY, huh? Hmmmm...........................

John Ashcroft
03-07-2004, 10:30 AM
Uh, the Republicans followed the redistricting rules in Texas. It's the Dems that had a problem with the rules, the same rules they used to their advantage in the past, when they didn't favor their party. Spin won't work 'round here bubba.

FORD
03-07-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Uh, the Republicans followed the redistricting rules in Texas. It's the Dems that had a problem with the rules, the same rules they used to their advantage in the past, when they didn't favor their party. Spin won't work 'round here bubba.

They did NOT follow the rules. They did the legal redistricting which happens every 10 years after the census. Then DeLay bitched and whined because it didn't create enough advantage for the Republicans - which is hard enough to imagine in TEXAS, for Christ's sake!

Furthermore, DeLay shouldn't have even involved himself in the business of the Texas state legislature. The asshole has a bigger ego than Sammy Hagar.

Dr. Love
03-07-2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Uh, the Republicans followed the redistricting rules in Texas. It's the Dems that had a problem with the rules, the same rules they used to their advantage in the past, when they didn't favor their party. Spin won't work 'round here bubba.

Whatever... the Texas Republicans, by forcing the issue when the Governor called special session after special session WASTED 25 MILLION DOLLARS of Texas taxes. The Texas Democrats, by running away, wasted 25 MILLION DOLLARS of Texas taxes.

All over something so stupid as a blatant attempt to grab more seats. I don't care which party does it (in the past, present or future), it's stupid.

Republicans can get as mad as they want over this senate seat thing.

Tough shit; cry me a river. I have no sympathy for a party that's already had their own fair share of questionable acts (and that is applicable to either one).

BigBadBrian
03-07-2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Love
Whatever... the Texas Republicans, by forcing the issue when the Governor called special session after special session WASTED 25 MILLION DOLLARS of Texas taxes. The Texas Democrats, by running away, wasted 25 MILLION DOLLARS of Texas taxes.



So what. Like FORD said here (It's called politics, boys. They all do it, and it's not anything new.), (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=35768#post35768) politics is politics. :gulp:

BigBadBrian
03-07-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Dr. Love
Whatever... the Texas Republicans, by forcing the issue when the Governor called special session after special session WASTED 25 MILLION DOLLARS of Texas taxes. The Texas Democrats, by running away, wasted 25 MILLION DOLLARS of Texas taxes.



So what. Like FORD said here (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=35768#post35768)(It's called politics, boys. They all do it, and it's not anything new.), politics is politics. :gulp:

Dr. Love
03-07-2004, 03:58 PM
So what... exactly.

John Ashcroft
03-07-2004, 05:43 PM
Rules is rules, and the Dems have bent, broken, twisted, and maliciously complied whenever it's been to their advantage. I'm glad the Republicans in Texas gave the fucking weasels a taste of their own medicine. The only rules broken in the whole situation is when the Dems ran like fugitives to other states. The whole lot of 'em should've been arrested (or shot) upon return.

I stand by my original statement, Dems love the law when they can twist it to their advantage, and continuously undermine law when it doesn't favor them.

Steve Savicki
03-07-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Dems love the law when they can twist it to their advantage, and continuously undermine law when it doesn't favor them.
And I suppose you elephants wouldn't do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot?

EDITED TO ADD: Isn't Bush guilty of murdering American citizens?

BigBadBrian
03-07-2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Steve Savicki
And I suppose you elephants wouldn't do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot?

EDITED TO ADD: Isn't Bush guilty of murdering American citizens?

NO.

John Ashcroft
03-07-2004, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by Steve Savicki
And I suppose you elephants wouldn't do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot?

EDITED TO ADD: Isn't Bush guilty of murdering American citizens?

The shoe is on the other foot as Republicans own majorities in both houses of Congress, the White House, and 28 of 50 Governorships. Yet you still don't see this wanton abandon of the rule of law, do you. You don't even see the President (or the Senate) playing hard-ball with Judicial appointments to get a majority in the legislative branch.

So, I can confidently say that "no, they wouldn't (and aren't)".

Oh, and put the crack pipe down with that whole Bush/murderer thing. You sound foolish.

ScrewEddie
03-07-2004, 09:48 PM
Oh, come on. I believe it's called recess appointments. W. couldn't get a couple of his extremist judges through, so he waited till Congress was out of town to do it his own self. Besides, the only reason the Congressional leadership didn't play hardball is because they know the people didn't support them on these appointments and they'd rather W. took the fall. Why hasten the downfall of the few remaining GOP Congressional moderates in the Northeast over a couple of judges? (Let's face it, most of the GOP leadership could care less about the social issues stuff anyway. They just want the tax breaks.) They wouldn't need recess appointments and last-minute gerrymandering if the people did support them on the social issues stuff. Don't confuse fear of electoral retribution with respect for the law.

Also, the Mass legislature can't twist the law if it's actually changing it using the power granted it by the state's constitution. Twisting the law to your advantage is more like what a rich boy with connections does to get himself moved to the front of the Texas Air Guard list in order to get out of fighting in Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, I don't care if he reported for duty or not while he was in Alabama. That's beside the point. He never should have gotten into the Air Guard in the first place.

John Ashcroft
03-07-2004, 10:17 PM
I would've appointed Bork in a recess appointment, myself... Oh, and let go of the hate brother. I suppose you were a Dean supporter, no?

So, since when did judicial appointments take 60 votes in the Senate anyway? Where's the precedence?

And what's a little think like the State Constitution when you've got activist justices on your Supreme Court pushing a liberal agenda anyway? Gay marriage anybody?

And just what was "extremist" about Miguel Estrada? I think a certain memo explains this quite well, but I'm interested in your definition of extremist.

ELVIS
03-08-2004, 02:44 AM
This is exciting...

John Ashcroft
03-08-2004, 09:57 AM
We were cybering and he left me hanging! Damn I hate that...

ScrewEddie
03-09-2004, 01:19 AM
There's no hate. I've put Republicans out of office. I don't need hate. And actually I started out as more of a Lieber-man. I liked Edwards, too, but Kerry will do just fine. So, don't try to bait me with the old Deaniac routine. I've been around long enough not to fall for the first candidate who rolls up his sleeves and pumps his fist in the air. He'll be great on liberal radio.

I don't think 60 votes is tied to judicial appointments in particular just to breaking filibusters. Here's some history on a tool that's been used and abused for quite some time.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

BTW: Mass's constitution is not my constitution. However, I feel that Mass has the right to marry consenting adults as it pleases. It's a little thing called state's rights. You might have heard of it and supported it when it served your interests. It doesn't require any other state to recognize it. It doesn't require any minister or church to sanction any marriage.

Estrada showed "extreme" contempt for the Congress by refusing to answer questions put before him by the Judiciary Committee. As far as I'm concerned that's far worse than his abortion or whatever position. I've always hoped the GOP would make a real assault on abortion. I know at least 10 moderate Republican women whose voting habits would change overnight if that happened. But, alas, Rove knows this, too. So, no dice. I wish you could've appointed Bork.

And, don't even mention that stolen memo in a thread that started out about how the GOP has respect for the law. If you're going to be Machiavellian, embrace it. Save the spin for the rubes. I'm Machiavellian enough to admit I'd trade a generation of abortion rights to pick up 4 million women's votes in the short term. This phony defense of marriage act will send at least a half million gay GOP votes our way. And we don't lose any. I mean who doesn't know where Democrats and Republicans fall in the culture war? It's just a question of who makes this their primary issue. I can't imagine too many gay haters have been leaning Democrat lately.

John Ashcroft
03-09-2004, 09:24 AM
Uh, that's all great and all but it was Massachussetts state law that prohibited Gay marriage. And that was the people of Mass. exercising their state rights through legislation. The Courts can of course review any legislation brough to it. But it's job is to determine whether any such law is Constitutional or not. It is beyond their authority to redesign law to their liking (which is exactly what liberal courts like in Mass. do all the time.) I'm all for state's rights, but I'm all against activist judges. It's simply not their job to write law.

Now, on to Estrada. Which questions didn't he answer? Come on now, let's hear them. Let's hear how extreme he was. It's you who shouldn't try to spin fella. You put it out there, now I want to hear it. Sounds like Estrada is guilty until proven innocent in your mind (no worries though, it's that way with all you libs concerning any issue that involves conservatives. We're used to it by now, and the continuous practice in justifying policy positions is why Republicans are winning election after election). I wonder if you've been paying attention at all in the electoral trends since the early '90s. Who's been winning and who's been losing? It's no wonder you "know at least 10 moderate Republican women whose voting habits would change overnight if...(the abortion issue was pressed). Chances are, you don't really know any conservatives. You hang in tight little liberal circles, surrounded by people who tell you that you're right all the time, don't you. Kinda like at the D.U. Any dissenting opinion is verboten, and the poster is banned for life. Great little world you're creating, but I'll give you a little help here... You're a dying breed. The voting public is on to you, and expect to be out of power for some time to come. Good luck on the "4 million" women's votes too. I'll bet all your friends tell you the abortion issue is a lock with women, right? Keep on believing it buddy. Stand on the stairs of the Capitol and scream at the top of your lungs that you propose a Constitutional Ammendment guaranteeing late term abortion rights. I dare ya. Oh, and how'd this stance go for old Wesley?

Oh, and about the stolen memo. Nice try. You think that the stealing of the memo outweighs the planned obstruction from the Judicial committee??? Talk about spin! I've seen the talking points on this issue, so spare us. I wonder how Hispanics and Blacks will react to this admission from the left that they belong at the back of the bus? I wonder how they'll react to the notion that free thought is also verboten in the Democratic party? That the "thinking" should be left to the rich, white, good old boys that run the democratic party... It'll be fun for sure.

ScrewEddie
03-09-2004, 10:14 PM
That's the reaction I wanted. ;)

John Ashcroft
03-09-2004, 10:18 PM
Heh heh heh... That did come across as a little "excitable" on a re-read...

Good job!