|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:54 pm Post subject: Republicans Prepare Their Legal Machine Re: Mass. Election |
 |
|
Article here.
| Quote: |
A victory by Republican Scott Brown Tuesday in Massachusetts could quickly turn into a legal battle over the man he would replace � Sen. Paul Kirk � with the future of health reform in the Senate hanging in the balance.
Conservative commentator Fred Barnes is arguing that Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday's special election, no matter who wins, signaling a possible GOP line of attack against health reform if it passes with Kirk�s vote.
GOP elected officials haven't embraced that argument, and two academic election law experts contacted by POLITICO refuted the notion that Kirk will no longer be a senator after Tuesday's election. But it�s a sign of the fierce legal and political battles likely to ensue if Brown upsets Democrat Martha Coakley in the race to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.
And Kirk would be in the middle of it all. Brown would take over for Kirk, a supporter of reform, and become the 41st vote against the health bill - ending the Democrats' filibuster-proof majority and throwing reform's future into serious doubt.
Republicans are worried that if Brown wins, Democrats will try to jam through a Senate health reform vote while Kirk still occupies the seat, in the time between Brown's election and when he is certified the winner.
Kirk has pledged to vote for reform for as long as he remains a senator, even if Brown wins Tuesday. Some Republican lawyers are arguing he won�t have the chance.
"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," 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."
...
David Schultz, a professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, said that "Democrats have to accept Brown as soon as Massachusetts certifies the election or delivers the election certificate to the Senate."
Delaying it, Schultz said, would be the same situation as if Pawlenty refused to sign an election certificate for Franken.
"However, to argue that Kirk is no longer senator if Brown wins is not exactly accurate -- Kirk is senator until the state certifies the election," Schultz said. "The reason for that is that there could be a recount in a close election, litigation, etc. What could be really interesting is if the election is close, Brown appears to be a winner, and then the Democrats go to court to delay his seating.
"That would really open them up to criticism that parallels what happened in Minnesota," Schultz said.
And it's far from clear whether the legal argument that Kirk is no longer a senator would hold up.
Guy-Uriel Charles, an election law expert at Duke University, disagrees with the GOP's contention, saying that the Senate is the ultimate judge of its members. Charles said that Kirk has the proper certifications to serve in office and, under the law, can do so "until the next person is certified."
"Now if the Republicans were in charge in the U.S. Senate, they could do away with Massachusetts certification requirement," Charles said. "But it is obviously unlikely that the Democrats would do so. If the Massachusetts' Democrats engage in delaying tactics, if Brown wins, the Republicans can go the courts.
"But I don't buy the argument that the results of the election itself, without certification, is sufficient to divest Kirk of the office." |
I have to say, while it's nothing new to see Republican Attorneys out there trying to twist the law in their favor, I really don't feel they have a case at all. The entire point of Kirk being in office is to represent the people of Massachusetts until a new Senator can be placed, and that requires an individual who has won an election and been certified. It's fairly obvious that until such an individual comes forward, Senator Kirk will remain a senator. Republicans trying to argue otherwise is just more tired disingenuity from a party desparate to obstruct in any way possible.
Really what Republicans seem to be doing here is to cover themselves in case the vote is so closely split that this turns into a Minnesota style situation. They want the option to endlessly challenge results in courts without leaving the Democrats with that vote in the Senate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I fail to see how this comes close to matching the disingenuous nature of the Democrats in Massachusetts who pushed through a law to keep then governor Mitt Romney from appointing a replacement senator, only to push through legislation to repeal that very same law when a Democratic governor took office while Kennedy lay on his death bed. That shit looked like it was pulled straight from a bad Harrison Ford movie. This? Much less so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let's see, Franken was elected in early November '08 but didn't take his seat until July 7, '09. Hmmm...8 months. I guess the Dems have 8 months to play politics with the seat if they end up needing it. Turnabout is fair play after all.
Actually I don't buy that.
I didn't see a real problem with the Mass legislature playing fast with the rules when they maneuvered Kirk in because the seat was won by a Democrat in a fair election and it seems fair to keep the seat in Democratic hands until a special election could be held to let the people speak. That's what's going to happen tomorrow.
A contested election tomorrow would be a nightmare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| I fail to see how this comes close to matching the disingenuous nature of the Democrats in Massachusetts who pushed through a law to keep then governor Mitt Romney from appointing a replacement senator, only to push through legislation to repeal that very same law when a Democratic governor took office while Kennedy lay on his death bed. That shit looked like it was pulled straight from a bad Harrison Ford movie. This? Much less so. |
I agree that was also completely inappropriate hypocrisy. Anything to say about the actual topic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
ANY PREDICTIONS FOR TUESDAY'S SPECIAL SENATE ELECTION IN MASS?
Democrats have a long and less-than-proud history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (BTW, who originally said that?). Will tomorrow be another in that line?
Will the progressives sit on their hands/take their baseball bat and go home because they haven't gotten all they hoped from Obama? Has Coakley been the most dismal candidate since ever? (Yeah, pretty much, by all accounts.)
Will the election end up so close that it's contested in the courts? (Yikes!)
My hope is that the progressives have come to their senses enough to swallow their temper tantrum and pull the lever for Coakley rather than hand Obama a major defeat. As I said, my hope... I'm also hoping Obama goes on national TV Monday evening and ends DADT as a bribe to the progressives, followed by a publically televised waterboarding (it isn't torture after all) of Glenn Beck. (I can dream, can't I?)
I think Coakley will pull out a narrow victory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
^Agree, except I really can't imagine it being that close in the first place, considering we're talking about MASSACHUSETTS!
I really think Coakley would be laughed off the radar in most any other state (OK, OK not California.)
I think this may be made out to be a closer race than what it actually is, but I could be in for a surprise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nate Silver, who usually knows what he's talking about when it comes to polls, is now predicting a 74% chance of Brown winning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A Suffolk University (not the most prestigious) poll a few days ago had Brown ahead by 4% and gaining momentum.
http://www.suffolk.edu/39994.html
Personality-wise, Coakley reportedly comes off as cold and smug, while Brown is a former Cosmopolitan centerfold (so not as much personality needed ...)
Given the political significance of differences in skin tone, I think it might be difficult to rally black voters to vote against a guy named Brown (although Coakley rhymes with Stokely - which might inspire older Civil Rights activists...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't you just love CNN's headline:
"miracle in massachusetts would upend Dems agenda"
despite brown leading in polls, it would take a miracle for him to win? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Don't you just love CNN's headline:
"miracle in massachusetts would upend Dems agenda"
despite brown leading in polls, it would take a miracle for him to win? |
A Republican Senator in Massachusetts in 2010 would be a miracle, yes. I don't think its referring to current polls.
I also think its curious that you seem to think its a biased headline against Republicans because calling it a 'miracle' could itself be considered an endorsement of a Republican victory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is a close race. Miracle would not be even remotely close to describe the race there. It basically implies coakley has the seat Locke down and it would take an act if god to lose it to brown. Look in a dictionary and read the definition Of miracle . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| This is a close race. Miracle would not be even remotely close to describe the race there. |
It being a close race is part of what's being called a miracle. We're talking about a pretty blue state here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm starting to see why pkang doesn't like it being called a miracle.
Here's a portrait of Coakley the prosecutor.
Its not pretty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I'm starting to see why pkang doesn't like it being called a miracle.
Here's a portrait of Coakley the prosecutor.
Its not pretty. |
Wow. I hadn't actually familiarized myself with the details of this race beyond the facts regarding election polls, but after reading this, I'm pretty disgusted. This doesn't seem to be a woman who should be in power, regardless of her politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
