The People's Seat...

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
A very effective campaign.

Congratulations to Scott Brown (R) for overcoming overwhelming odds to win a Seat in the Senate.

From 30 points back to 5 on the positive in under two months! Now to see if they'll try to hold him back from taking his seat after a clear victory...
 
Damocles said:
A very effective campaign.

Congratulations to Scott Brown (R) for overcoming overwhelming odds to win a Seat in the Senate.

From 30 points back to 5 on the positive in under two months! Now to see if they'll try to hold him back from taking his seat after a clear victory...
Click to expand...

Did you hear Reid? "He'll be seated after all the proper paper work has been filed". I wonder how long that'll take?
 
Senator Jim Webb said:

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Damocles said:
If it takes any longer than past elections they will show a clear and unreasonable double standard.
Click to expand...

I believe I read that the longest it has taken a Mass. Senator to be seated is 2 days?

as a side:

FORMER REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SARAH PALIN

"Clearly this victory is a bellwether for the big election night ten months from now. In the spirit of bipartisanship, let me offer some advice to the Democrats on how to stem this populist tide. Scrap your current health care bill and start from scratch. We all want true reform, but government mandated insurance is not it. Scott Brown campaigned against this top-down bureaucratic mess. We need common sense solutions like reforming malpractice laws, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, giving individual purchasers the same tax benefits as those who get coverage through their employers, and letting small businesses pool together to provide insurance for their employees. Focus your efforts on jobs, not on job-killing legislation. Such a change in approach would show Americans that you're listening."

And the tone of the dems? Blame Bush as usual...LOL can you believe the wrong-headed stupidity???

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

"House Democrats have been preparing since day one last year for what we knew historically would be a very challenging election cycle."

"President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident. President Obama and congressional Democrats have been focused repairing the damage to our economy."

"Elections are about choices and this year's Midterms will be a choice between continuing the economic progress and independent leadership that House Democrats are delivering for their districts versus Republicans who are eager to turn back the clock to the same failed Bush-Cheney policies that brought our economy to the brink of collapse."
 
It takes at least 15 days for the Secretary of the Commonwealth to certify the election results. Federal law requires localities to wait at least 10 days for military and overseas ballots to come in, as all absentee ballots postmarked by today must be counted. Once those 10 days have elapsed, localities have five days to report the final results to the Secretary.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I believe I read that the longest it has taken a Mass. Senator to be seated is 2 days?
Click to expand...

That's because you read an endless stream of bullshit from total jackasses. For example:

Ice Dancer said:
FORMER REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SARAH PALIN

"Clearly this victory is a bellwether for the big election night ten months from now. In the spirit of bipartisanship, let me offer some advice to the Democrats on how to stem this populist tide. Scrap your current health care bill and start from scratch. We all want true reform, but government mandated insurance is not it. Scott Brown campaigned against this top-down bureaucratic mess. We need common sense solutions like reforming malpractice laws, allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines, giving individual purchasers the same tax benefits as those who get coverage through their employers, and letting small businesses pool together to provide insurance for their employees. Focus your efforts on jobs, not on job-killing legislation. Such a change in approach would show Americans that you're listening."
Click to expand...
 
Damocles said:
Senator Jim Webb said:

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.
Click to expand...


I agree.
Click to expand...

In many ways, Jim Webb is full of it. THIS is what the GOP is all about regarding healthcare:

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
---Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.)

The GOP doesn't give a god damn about it's constituents....for them it's about the status quo retaining POWER. It's about destroying the very idea that this country openly rejected the PNAC (and put a black man into the Oval Office to boot). If the folks in Mass. think Brown and the GOP have their best interests at heart, are they in for a rude awakening...because the status quo is what's been screwing them over regarding healthcare. They have no one to blame but themselves.



I'm always fascinated at how people in this country continually vote against their best interest.
 
NigelTufnel said:
It takes at least 15 days for the Secretary of the Commonwealth to certify the election results. Federal law requires localities to wait at least 10 days for military and overseas ballots to come in, as all absentee ballots postmarked by today must be counted. Once those 10 days have elapsed, localities have five days to report the final results to the Secretary.
Click to expand...
Actually they are allowed to certify if those ballots cannot change the outcome, which is the case here. The ballots must be counted, but this one is in the books regardless. He can, and past Senators have been, seated much more quickly than that.
 
Damocles said:
Actually they are allowed to certify if those ballots cannot change the outcome, which is the case here.
Click to expand...


Actually, no they aren't. The Secretary may send a letter stating that the absentee ballots cannot change the outcome, but by law the election results cannot be certified until after the 15-day period. Senate rules require actual certification.
 
Damocles said:
Actually they are allowed to certify if those ballots cannot change the outcome, which is the case here. The ballots must be counted, but this one is in the books regardless. He can, and past Senators have been, seated much more quickly than that.
Click to expand...


The only way for him to be seated more quickly than the 15 days required for actual certification of the election results is either (a) a Senate vote changing the rule requiring actual certification to something lesser, like a letter from the Secretary of the Commonwealth (which would be sufficient under the House rules) or (b) unanimous consent of the Senate to seating him without certification.

Neither seems likely.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Actually, no they aren't. The Secretary may send a letter stating that the absentee ballots cannot change the outcome, but by law the election results cannot be certified until after the 15-day period. Senate rules require actual certification.
Click to expand...
And those rules have been "bent" in the past in their favor. The reality is, if they take an over long period to seat him it will work negatively against them in the next election.

A Senate rule is not the constitution and the law allows them to verify the victory before the time limit.

Unanimous consent simply means no objection, this has happened often. Who do you think will put themselves out to object to his seat? Maybe Bennett, he doesn't expect to keep his job.
 
This is key


But in the days after the election, it is Kirk’s status that matters, not Brown’s. Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.” The vacancy occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy died in August. Kirk was picked as interim senator by Governor Deval Patrick.

~~~
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.

An appointed senator’s right to vote is not dependent on whether his successor has been certified, the lawyers said. In Massachusetts, the election of a senator must be certified by the governor, the governor’s council, and the secretary of state – all of them Democrats.

Read the rest here.
 
Damocles said:
And those rules have been "bent" in the past in their favor. The reality is, if they take an over long period to seat him it will work negatively against them in the next election.

A Senate rule is not the constitution and the law allows them to verify the victory before the time limit.

Unanimous consent simply means no objection, this has happened often. Who do you think will put themselves out to object to his seat?
Click to expand...

I read an article that gives Dems a legal allowance until Feb 3rd. After that all hell breaks loose.
 
Damocles said:
And those rules have been "bent" in the past in their favor. The reality is, if they take an over long period to seat him it will work negatively against them in the next election.

A Senate rule is not the constitution and the law allows them to verify the victory before the time limit.
Click to expand...


Name one time that the Senate rules have been "bent" in the manner that you are suggesting.

The one time that you are probably referring to, Ted Kennedy taking his brother's seat in a special election in 1962, occurred while the Senate was in recess such that there was no objection to seating him without certification and hence he was seated by unanimous consent.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Name one time that the Senate rules have been "bent" in the manner that you are suggesting.

The one time that you are probably referring to, Ted Kennedy taking his brother's seat in a special election in 1962, occurred while the Senate was in recess such that there was no objection to seating him without certification and hence he was seated by unanimous consent.
Click to expand...
Again, unanimous consent simply means no objection. Many, many, many times this has happened in the Senate. Of course, Now that Kirk is no longer a Senator (by their state law since Brown is qualified Kirk is done) it doesn't really matter.
 
Ice Dancer said:
I read an article that gives Dems a legal allowance until Feb 3rd. After that all hell breaks loose.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the 15 days plus one for the Senate to set a date. That's pretty normal. The Senate could seat him with unanimous consent... but NT is right, it isn't likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top