Posted on 02/01/2010 11:29:43 AM PST by justlittleoleme
The Senate has voted on three pieces of legislation today that required 60 votes–to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion, to reduce the deficit by establishing five-year discretionary spending caps, and Ben Bernanke’s confirmation–all of which interim Senator Paul Kirk (D-MA) has voted on. In addition, there have been other Senate votes since Scott Brown was elected as Massachusetts senator that Kirk cast a vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at biggovernment.com ...
Because rules don’t apply to tyrants.
Because Brown is too busy doing Leno, instead of demanding he be seated.
Because Obama still needs to get legislation passed that Senator Scott Brown may not vote for. Damn the citizens and their vote, Obama just hasn’t explained it well enough yet, but when he does then you will agree with him.
Seems like this will be a weekly question until Scott Brown is approved by the election commission and sworn in. Until that time, Massachusetts has two representatives in the Senate.
Browns people were talking about this before the election and now not a word. Did he get the talk once he was in Washington? I have not heard a word from Brown.
He is still voting in violation of established Senate rules, and MA law because, and only because, GOP leadership (McConnell and friends) allow it. Pure and simple another example of GOP complicity in the destruction of Our Republic. IMHO
Because Brown isn’t sworn in yet?
Because it is what the EMOcrats want. Laws are for the little people. Now stop asking stupid questions and get back to work, serf!
The GOP is becoming the enemy. I am starting to despise them as much as the DNC. The only chance to save our republic lies only in the hands of we, the people. Steele is a Trojan horse and so are many of the so called Republicans. I loathe them all.
I feel the same, and could not agree more.
Nobody is demanding that Brown be seated. I looked it up, MA Rep (D) Tsongas was seated and voting within a day. I’m sure that all of the (D) examples were also seated almost immediately.
It would have been nice if Brown had crashed SOTU, or complained, or if RNC or (R) Senate leadership complained.
By hook or by crook, the Rats will hold on to power.
They are not for democracy. Votes don’t matter. They will push their agenda through by any means necessary.
Elections mean nothing to the DNC. It’s Monday, isn’t American Idol on? < /sarc >
Yep. The Dems seated a member of the House the day after her election in 2007 to vote on legislation. Two weeks after Brown's victory, and Kirk is still voting in the Senate. I blame Scott Brown and the GOP for not raising hell about this obvious underhanded Dem ploy.
What is Barney Fwank’s frank opinion on this?
Kirk was selected, not elected.
The people of Massachussetts have elected a new senator.
Kirk no longer represents the Commonwealth of Massachussetts or reflects the will of its people.
He should stand down immediately for the good of his state.
Absolutely right!!
I recall when Obama won the popular vote in November 2008 (the electoral college had not voted yet) and he was already establishing the heretofore never discussed “office of the president elect” so he could get down to work WITH then President Bush to enact legislation (like the bailouts of which he now says “Bush did it”).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.