roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:14 pm
@joefromchicago,
Wink
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:29 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

And they are absolutely correct (I think even McGentrix understands this).

Of course, if they are wrong about what we want the people of Massachusetts will make them pay on election day (except everyone knows they they aren't wrong).

That's how representative democracy works.

Oh, don't get me wrong: I agree, that's how democracy works. The people of Massachusetts may very well believe that their best interests are served by serving the best interests of the Democratic Party -- that may be a big reason why they elected so many Democrats in the first place. Furthermore, I acknowledge that, in this particular instance, they may even be right. I don't object to the process, I just object to the hypocrisy
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:34 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
I don't object to the process, I just object to the hypocrisy

I'm not sure that I see any hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. They're being pretty upfront about keeping control of that Senate seat in the hands of the Democrats.

Frankly, I don't see why this is an issue for anyone but the voters in Massachusetts.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 12:43 pm
@DrewDad,
Thanks Drew.

No one is arguing that the Legislators don't have the Constitutional right to change the law and allow an interim Senator.

This is between the legislators and their constituents.

I will be very angry if my state legislator does not vote for an interim Senator before the votes on the health care bill come up-- in my district he would face an angry mob if he even thought about opposing such a bill. I imagine in some of the few Republican-leaning districts in Massachusetts, the opposite might be true.

I won't be surprised if the final vote in the state legislature will look something like the results from the last presidential election.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:16 pm
@McGentrix,
Definitely completely hypocritical political BS, not that Dems have a monopoly on that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:35 pm
Certainly they don't. Originally, Senators were not elected, they were appointed by the state legislatures. They have only been universally, popularly elected since the ratification of the XVIIth amendment in 1913. Before that time, although some states provided for the popular elections of Senators, they were usually a political plum in the gift of the legislature. Most commonly, when a Senate seat was vacant, it was given to the "political boss" of the party in power in the state house.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:39 pm
@Setanta,
Certainly they do.

17th amendment (emphasis mine) wrote:
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:44 pm
As i was replying to Miss Duck to the effect that the Democrats don't have a monopoly on hypocritical political BS, i take it you're saying they do.

Do you think before you post?
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:51 pm
@Setanta,
The only hypocritical BS here is people who don't live in Massachusetts passing judgment on whether those of us who live in Massachusetts should be allowed to have full representation in the Senate.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:54 pm
Can you point out who in this thread has stated or even suggested that the people of Massachusetts should not have full representation in the Senate? I must have missed that.
McGentrix
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 01:55 pm
@Setanta,
I must have as well.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:01 pm
@Setanta,
I am a Massachusetts resident. I want Massachusetts to have two Senators seated for the health care vote. This means an interim Senator (since an election to replace Sen. Kennedy will not take place for a few months).

The Massachusetts legislature, which is elected by Massachusetts residents to serve Massachusetts residents has the constitutional right to allow our governor (who was also elected by Massachusetts residents to serve the interests of Massachusetts residents) appoint an interim Senator.

Why shouldn't the Massachusetts legislature do with the majority of Massachusetts residents feel is in our best interests?

And why isn't it hypocritical for people who aren't Massachusetts residents to stick their self-righteous noses in our business?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:04 pm
Love the poutrage (as DD calls it), but you haven't answered the question. Who in this thread has stated or even implied that Massachusetts should not have full representation in the Senate?
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:06 pm
@Setanta,
My bad... I thought the whole point of this thread was that Massachusetts shouldn't appoint an interim Senator and that we would have to spend several critical months with only one vote in the Senate.

If we all agree that Massachusetts should be able to have two Senators during the next few months-- then what's the big deal?
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:08 pm
@ebrown p,
Why would you care about a health care vote? Massachusetts already has mandatory health insurance. Trying to stick your self-righteous nose into the business of the other 49?

Quote:
Why shouldn't the Massachusetts legislature do with the majority of Massachusetts residents feel is in our best interests?


As determined how? Oujie board? Surely not by voting!
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:10 pm
I don't know that there is any "big deal." McG simply pointed out that the Democrats wanted to elect a Senator when a Republican governor might have appointed one, but now that there is a Democratic governor, they want to change back to the previous method, and have the governor appoint the Senator. He suggested that this represents political hypocrisy.

Given that you have affirmed your belief that the Democrats have a monopoly on hypocritical political BS, i take it you agree with McG.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:15 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Why would you care about a health care vote? Massachusetts already has mandatory health insurance. Trying to stick your self-righteous nose into the business of the other 49?

Quote:
Why shouldn't the Massachusetts legislature do with the majority of Massachusetts residents feel is in our best interests?


As determined how? Oujie board? Surely not by voting!


Well, MA consistently votes in Dem Senators. The idea that they won't this time, to replace Kennedy, is a little laughable.

There's nothing wrong with a Dem looking for his state to have a say in national Dem matters. I would vote on the national level for LOTS of things that my state already has legalized, b/c I think that's the way America should work, or that others should be able to enjoy the same privileges that I do.

The whole 'self-righteous nose' bit is a little much. You could apply that to almost anyone with an opinion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:17 pm
@Setanta,
Roger, it's called representative democracy. The state legislature has the power to make this decision; they decide whether there we are represented by one Senator or by two. The only practical solution is to have them make this decision. As they are elected officials, they were chosen by us to make these decisions and are accountable to us.

As far as what Massachusetts residents want...

In case you haven't noticed, Massachusetts is a strongly Democratic state (with the occasional exception of a couple governors who had to lie about their positions to get elected). It it not difficult to predict what we want...

But anyway, State legislators have also been hearing from quite a few of us about what we want. I have certainly called mine-- and there is quite a bit of activity to get a bill that gives the Governor this power passed.



0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:28 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
[McGentrix] suggested that this represents political hypocrisy.

Yeah, I'm still not buying that.

Political hardball, maybe.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Sep, 2009 02:39 pm
@ebrown p,
If that's the way you feel then the hypocritical part was when the Democrats opposed the same thing when it would have benefited the Republicans.
 

Related Topics

Who is your favorite hypocrite? - Discussion by dagmaraka
Facebook experiment - Question by FreedomEyeLove
The Forgiveness Dance - Discussion by snood
What I believed about religion as a young man. - Discussion by Alan McDougall
Obunga on Discrimination - Discussion by gungasnake
THE NEED FOR SPEED . . . - Discussion by Setanta
Moderat Molly does just curious - Question by SpawnOfGod
US Hypocrisy - A solid foundation - Discussion by JTT
Can you believe the hypocrisy? - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/07/2020 at 04:18:09