Skip to comments.Boston Globe Writer Ignores Mass. Law on When Appointed Senator's Term Ends
Posted on 01/18/2010 2:05:57 PM PST by PJ-Comix
Boston Globe writer Lisa Wangsness can't be blamed too much for assuming that appointed senator Paul Kirk's term ends when the winner of tomorrow's election in Massachusetts, Scott Brown (photo) or Martha Coakley, is seated. Wrong. Mass. law is very specific on that term limit as Fred Barnes has noted in the Weekly Standard. The reason why Wangsness can be forgiven for her error is that it is the same assumption made by most of the rest of the mainstream media. Here is the relevant section of her article about the effect of tomorrow's election on the health care bill:
Another possibility would be for Democrats to hurry and pass a compromise bill before Brown were seated.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
I hope you read this and, if need be, get word to the Senate GOP.
It seems they can delay seating the new Senator if they chose, but Kirk’s power expires upon “election and qualification.”
I hope you bring your expertise and influence to bear on this one. Big.
Can someone tell me why they didn't run Kirk....whoever he is...
This is fantastic and don't know why we are only now learning this?
Now it remains to find one (JUST ONE) Republitard in the Senate who has a "pair" (a daunting task) to move that this law be enforced, or the entire R contingent will refuse to allow any further Senate business until they do
Next there needs to be a move for an immediate injunction (by someone, I don't know who) in some Fed Court if Kirk does not step down.
Yes. After tomorrow the Senator from Massachusetts will be either Brown, Coakley or Kennedy. So, no matter how close the election, Kirk ceases to be the Senator after the polls close because someone else will be the elected Senator. All three candidates are qualified.
Even if Coakley were to win (which I see as almost impossible at this point), Kirk cannot vote on any more bills. So any delay will not help the Dems. They need 60 votes. It is not that the Repubs need 41 to block. If a Senator is absent, dead or whatever he does not count toward 60.
Both Rasmussen & Zogby just picked Coakley by 1-2 points on Hannity’s show - perhaps they know the dead will be voting in VERY high numbers for Marcia.
I’m sure the Mass legislature will change the law on Wednesday.
It’s not like they haven’t pulled that trick before.
Kirk said from the “get go” that he wouldn’t run as permanent replacement.
Really? What was their rationale and how did they explain their position given what we are seeing in the polls (didn't Rasmussen show Brown +7 today?)?
Why are you the only person reporting this?
Straight from Rass's web site.
Rasmussen Reports today: "Thats a long way around saying that were right back where we were a week ago - at the time of the last Rasmussen Reports poll. Brown is leading slightly among those certain to vote, and Coakley will do better if more Democrats show up."
Strange. Rasmussen did not do his own poll since last week, and yet he is commenting on poll someone's else's numbers. Rasmussen also said that Brown has a "slight" lead in Intrade. Slight???? 79 to 25?
Maybe he is afraid to do another poll for some reason? If he thinks this race is not important enough to poll, he's out of his mind.
My guess is that Rasmussen didn’t want to do a final poll over the weekend + a holiday.
Rass has been getting attacked without end lately by the media and assorted leftists and blogs. I wonder if he decided to just lay low this week to try and lessen the hate and attacks coming his way.