# Kirk takes over for Kennedy **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 25, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585 "2009-09-25T22:27:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/21 "2009-09-26T04:28:22Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That line works with things like Supreme Court nominations, and I agree with it. But you don’t expect one side to cheat and simply make shit up. You want to associate yourself with such behavior? Enjoy. As far as I can tell, as a Massachusetts resident, while the process was a bit sketchy, the end result reasonably reflects the will of the people of the state. So, as much as it does seem wrong, I doubt there’s going to be much outrage other than from the usual blowhards. But Howie Carr probably needs something to replace all the Chappaquiddick jokes that just aren’t as funny anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/22 "2009-09-26T04:47:06Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Unless there’s a particularly narrow definition within the Massachusetts Constitution defining what an emergency is (I’m no expert on MA law), they seem to be perfectly within their authority to call a special session on this matter. From the article linked previously it appears you are correct: [http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking\_news/2009/09/judge\_to\_rule\_b.html](http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/judge_to_rule_b.html) > [@](#): > > On Thursday, Secretary of State William F. Galvin, a Democrat, said the emergency letter is “very clearly available to the governor under the Constitution. I don’t know how you suggest this is something novel. It’s not.” > > Former Republican governor Mitt Romney used the emergency provision 14 times, Galvin added, including to increase the boating speed limit in Charlton and to change the office of town moderator in Milton. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/23 "2009-09-26T06:22:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That line works with things like Supreme Court nominations, and I agree with it. But you don’t expect one side to cheat and simply make shit up. You want to associate yourself with such behavior? Enjoy. This is so obnoxious. Clearly, it’s in the interest of the people from Massachusetts to be represented in the Senate. It’s also clearly the preference of the people from Massachusetts to be represented by a Democrat there. Ergo, in both instances the legislature was carrying out the obvious, uncontroversial will of the people. We could have a system whereby the rules for filling vacancies were more rigidly defined, like you claim you want. But that isn’t the way it works. And the issues at the table are much too important to play nice. This action may well save literally thousands of lives in the next few years alone. And so they shouldn’t have done it because it offends your delicate constitution? Tell that to Kimberly Young, a 22 year old who caught swine flu recently. Oh wait, you can’t. She’s dead because she couldn’t afford to see a doctor. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/24 "2009-09-26T06:57:32Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > The MA legislature decided to go back on there change to the law that would have prevented Mitt Romney from being able to appoint someone. MA is effectively a single party state. We did not want the possibility of a republican representing us. Then how did Romney get elected? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/25 "2009-09-26T07:56:17Z")
No. This is awful. Process matters. The _rule of law_ matters, and you don’t play fast and loose with it. Winning does not mean you get to change the rules, mid-stream, according to whim, in order to make sure you keep on winning; that’s a (small) step in the direction of tyranny. I know this is a standard conservative meme around here, but I don’t care: this is exactly the sort of thing we hated Bush and the Republicans for. Or do you have no problem with, say, Tom Delay gerrymandering congressional districts along racial lines? Because, hey, elections have consequences, right? ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/26 "2009-09-26T08:00:55Z")
William Weld and A. Paul Cellucci also were Republican. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/27 "2009-09-26T08:03:11Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Then how did Romney get elected? We want our federal representation to be Democrats. We don’t tend to object to Republicans in local office. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Poster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Happy\_Poster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Poster)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/28 "2009-09-26T09:46:07Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > It’s all pretty subjective, isn’t it? Any measures for natural disaster relief would also be a matter of “resource allocation”, but nobody would complain about it not being an emergency, would they? I don’t see any meaningful distinction. > > Unless there’s a particularly narrow definition within the Massachusetts Constitution defining what an emergency is (I’m no expert on MA law), they seem to be perfectly within their authority to call a special session on this matter. Yup. So it’s a meaningless term essentially… I mean boat speed limits wtf? ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/29 "2009-09-26T10:41:32Z")
> [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](#): > > More on the judge’s decision here: > [http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking\_news/2009/09/judge\_to\_rule\_b.html](http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/judge_to_rule_b.html) > > It doesn’t bother me that Governor Patrick was allowed to appoint a replacement, what bothers me is that Ted Kennedy’s wife and kids felt it was their place to make a recommendation for Kirk and Patrick went along with it. Well, heck, at one point, wasn’t Victoria Kennedy one of the possibilities? It’s a common thing to do, see Mary Bono. I’d think that her suggesting someone else in place of her is a perfectly cromulent thing to do. ---
**Author:** ![glilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/48db29/32.png) [@glilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glilly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/30 "2009-09-26T14:22:59Z")
> [@boytyperanma](#): > > We want our federal representation to be Democrats. We don’t tend to object to Republicans in local office. If that’s so, why did people vote Republicans into the only local office that can appoint federal representatives? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/31 "2009-09-26T15:04:00Z")
> [@glilly](#): > > If that’s so, why did people vote Republicans into the only local office that can appoint federal representatives? Because we believe in choosing the best candidate for our interests. For example, I am very strongly against gun control; one of the major things democrats tend to support (and the reason I won’t join the Democratic Party). On the other hand, I am strongly in favour of UHC, freedom of choice, and other things that make the country as a whole stronger and a better place for the most people. So I’ll vote for Democrats because there are more planks in their platform that I approve of than the one I don’t. The things I approve of are things best handled at the Federal level. On a state level, I may decide that one party is better for the state than the other party. (Disclosure: I voted Democrat here.) I lurk at another place, where All Things Democrat Are Evil. Those guys wouldn’t vote Democrat to save their lives (which it very well may). Many people choose to actually consider which candidate serves their interests best, regardless of party. ---
**Author:** ![glilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/48db29/32.png) [@glilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glilly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/32 "2009-09-26T15:45:40Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Because we believe in choosing the best candidate for our interests. For example, I am very strongly against gun control… > > … > > …Many people choose to actually consider which candidate serves their interests best, regardless of party. I think this adds to my argument. Like you, most people (even in MA) aren’t uniformly partisan in positions and have complex political opinions (compared to polarized viewpoints). Therefore, I think it’s an overly simplistic argument that the legislature knows what the people _really_ meant by voting in a person from a particular party for a particular position, and will therefore take away those responsibilities that the voters didn’t really want to give to a person of a particular party (even though they did). ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/33 "2009-09-26T15:48:53Z")
I disagree. If the people vote overwhelmingly for Democrats to represent them on the Federal level, then it’s a good bet that they really do want a Democrat to be appointed to represent them on a Federal level. ---
**Author:** ![glilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/48db29/32.png) [@glilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glilly)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/34 "2009-09-26T16:08:36Z")
If switching the law each time it looks advantageous to Democrats is ethical and acceptable, why not just pass the following law and be done with it? **A mid-term senatorial vacancy shall be handled as follows:** [ol] [li]If the govenor is a member of the Democratic party in good standing, an interrum senator shall be selected by the govenor.[/li][li]Otherwise a senator shall be selected by statewide special election.[/li][/ol] ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/35 "2009-09-26T17:16:12Z")
It was mentioned upthread, but how many supporters of the Mass legislature’s move supported the Tom DeLay orchestrated mid-decennial redistricting in Texas? Republicans only took over the Texas legislature in 2002, so it was only right for them to throw out the tradition of only redistricting at the start of the decade and gerrymander 6 new Republican seats, right? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/36 "2009-09-26T17:48:58Z")
I like Wyoming’s system, personally: the party that previously held the seat will make a list of three candidates they like, and the governor picks one of them. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/37 "2009-09-26T18:22:22Z")
One thing about the matter is that Senate vacancies are pretty damn rare. Aside from Paul Tsongas resigning with a day left in his term to allow Michael Dukakis to appoint John Kerry to the seat he had won a day early and get a bump in seniority, the last time a seat was vacant in Massachusetts was when John F. Kennedy was elected President, and a placeholder was needed as Teddy was too young to take the seat himself. Since it comes up so rarely, it seems like it’s inevitable that the circumstances could be vastly different from one time to the next, and it would be impossible to simply fashion a one-size-fits-all solution. Look at Illinois. Who would have foreseen the situation of a Democratic legislature trying to take the choice away from a Democratic governor? Even in Massachusetts, had the governor in 2004 been someone like Bill Weld, there probably wouldn’t have been much issue with letting him choose a replacement. Romney, on the other hand, had amply demonstrated by that point that his primary concern was future Republican presidential primaries, and not the people of Massachusetts. So, basically, I figure there’s some value in having a transparent process that’s respected, but I’m not about to get upset if it’s thrown together _ad hoc_ as long as the interests of the people are carried out. ---
**Author:** ![boytyperanma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4491bb/32.png) [@boytyperanma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boytyperanma)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/38 "2009-09-26T20:10:30Z")
> [@glilly](#): > > If switching the law each time it looks advantageous to Democrats is ethical and acceptable, why not just pass the following law and be done with it? > > **A mid-term senatorial vacancy shall be handled as follows:** > [ol] > [li]If the govenor is a member of the Democratic party in good standing, an interrum senator shall be selected by the govenor.[/li][li]Otherwise a senator shall be selected by statewide special election.[/li][/ol] Because in the future that may not be what the people of the state want. We already have in place a system where the state legislation can change the rules as needed to represent the people of the state. This system is working for the people within the state for the most part. It seems to me the majority of people against this change are not from Massachusetts. If we had known at the time that Romney would have the power to select a senator and would be willing to select someone who did not represent our interests he would have lost by a landslide. Sorry we didn’t have the foresight to predict that possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/39 "2009-09-26T20:23:48Z")
> [@](#): > > So when the state legislature decides that the state should have a dead Senator replaced as soon as practical, but that the will of the people should also be heard as soon as is practical, that’s cheating and making shit up? If the legislature had felt the same way under Romney’s administration, there’d be no problem with it. And if it was only Kennedy’s death that gave them the wake-up call that continual representation was important, then they could have passed a law for how the _next_ vacancy would be handled, but write it to not apply to the current situation. If they don’t want to risk a governor of the opposite party putting in a senator they don’t like, they could pass a law requiring the governor to select from a short-list prepared by the party of the outgoing senator, or by the state legislature itself, and then keep that law in effect no matter who’s governor. But changing the rules mid-game is sleazy. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2009, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585/40 "2009-09-26T20:41:08Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > So, basically, I figure there’s some value in having a transparent process that’s respected, but I’m not about to get upset if it’s thrown together _ad hoc_ as long as the interests of the people are carried out. First, it’s not about the interests of the people, it’s pretty obviously about the interests of the Democratic party. That the bulk of Democratic citizens (and, hence, the bulk of Massachusetts residents) seem to approve of the state party’s actions is ultimately beside the point. Second, even assuming that the motivation behind this behavior is purely about serving the public, it \*still \*is not a question of serving the interests of the people. Rather, it’s about serving the interests of the majority. This truly is a kind of tyranny of the majority: the agreed upon legal process yields a result that is unfavorable to the majority party, so the party unilaterally tinkers with said legal process for the explicit purpose of changing that particular outcome. If it was a Republican legislature doing this dance in order to rush another Senator to the floor in time for a big vote, every single poster here (except **Shodan** ) would be screaming his head off. It’s a laughable notion that the consensus would be “well, they’re just carrying out the will of their constituents, so making up the rules as they go along is ok.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kirk-takes-over-for-kennedy/511585.md?page=3)