Quote:
Originally Posted by bomelia
First of all, is this type of activity legal? Second, wasn't the law changed from appointment to popular election when Romney was governor to keep him from appointing a republican under similar circumstances?
This is blatant hypocrisy.
Mike
|
It's funny how the complete story of this legislation is never presented in right-oriented blogs and media outlets, especially considering they are the first to accuse the other side of media domination and bias. That also sounds like hypocrisy to me, as Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh, et. al, are only reporting one side of this story. It's the same bias the right is so fond of whining about.
The complete facts are:
1) The law was previously changed in 2004 to change the previous law where a permanent appointment to a vacant Senate seat is appointed by a Mass Governor. It happened when Sen. Kerry was running for President in 2004, and if he had been elected President, under the previous law, Gov. Romney (R) would have appointed a replacement who would have served until January 2009 (
4 years which was the remaining time on Kerry's term). It could have also been an appointment to a full 6-year term if a new MA Senator died the day after being sworn in. The law was changed to require a special election by the
people to decide a successor.
2) The new legislation under consideration now is an amendment to allow the Governor to appoint a
temporary replacement for
4 months, until a special election can be held to elect a permanent replacement by the people. That temporary replacement is ineligible to run in the special election to select a permanent replacement. The intent of the original law remains exactly the same.
3) It is regarded to be a minor change that will allow Massachusetts to have full representation in the Senate for that 4-month period, and obviously there are some major items on the agenda during the period between Sen. Kennedy's death and the date of the special election in January 2010.
4) It is the elected representatives, of the
people, who will make the choice, which is the way our system works. Laws are introduced and amended routinely to correct unforeseen circumstances or oversights as standard practice in our system of government. I suspect no one had previously considered that a 4-month vacancy would be as critical as it is during this 4-month period.
I fail to see the hypocrisy, as the intent of the original law remains. I also fail to see how a vacancy for any period serves the will of the people. A
permanent replacement will still be selected by the people, not appointed by a Governor, either D or R.
Who are the hypocrites here?