White House Lobbies for Interim Kennedy Seat Appointment

[clayfoushee]

Originally Posted by purespeed

Where the conflict comes in is the fact that Massachusetts had a law on the books to handle the situation of selecting a replacement Senator in 2004.

The law was changed that such the decision was taken out of the Republican governor's hands in 2004.

Now the desire is to change the law where the Democratic governor can insure a democratic replacement for Obama's Senate.

Get the difference... Republican governor - remove appointment from his hands.
Democratic governor - put the appointment in his hands.

I have to ask the question...and this is the important issue:

If the governor were Republican, would Obama make the same request? The answer is certainly no.

Yes, there is a minor difference as I acknowledged. But, under the amended law if it becomes law, the Governor (whether D or R) cannot appoint a permanent replacement, which previously was the law, only a replacement for 4 months. And yes, obviously the President would like to have another vote in the Senate for this crucial 4-month period. That's politics, and both sides play the same game--I acknowledged that.

My point was the intent of the original law remains. The will of the people is not served by a vacancy of any length, unless you think denial of a vote serves the will of the people. Do you see the difference?

I would prefer this law be changed in every state, such that a Gov can only appoint a short-term temporary replacement, and every state would have a special election for a vacancy. In most states, the Gov. has the power to appoint a permanent replacement for the remainder of the term, whether 6 years or 1 day. I prefer that the people decide these things directly.