Why? Senate committee positions are based on allotments to the majority and minority party, who then get to award positions which are customarily deeply deferential to seniority, but still maintained discretion. You can’t take the view that any particular state is owed anything in the way of committee privileges, that’s not how the system works. Voters get to reward or punish politicians for what they accomplish but they don’t have any direct claims on procedural integrity of legislative bodies.
Fact is, the party has been extremely lenient to him in allowing him to keep his chair position - and they needn’t apologist to CT voters for offering Joe an alternative chair or committee role. If Joe finds that unacceptable - he can live with it and try his chances in the future or defect to the GOP who can’t offer him much. It’s just tough luck - he backed the wrong horse.
Besides, any appeal to the Democratic sovereignty of CT voters runs in the opposite direction. CT-4-Lieberman was explicitly premised as IINO (independent in name only) based around his claim to being a better alternative than Lamont in positioning the Democrats for an presidential victory, which had his support. If you want to argue deference to CT voters, he is acting ultra vires of his electoral platform.
Oh, yeah, rolling over for him now will definitely send the message that he had damn well better toe the line from now on… :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I thought it took a resolution voted on by the full Senate to remove a chair once the session is, well, in session. Bayh makes it sound like the split second Lieberman goes wrong, the caucus can remove him.
In the appointment of the standing committees, or to fill vacancies thereon, the Senate, unless otherwise ordered, shall by resolution appoint the chairman of each such committee and the other members thereof. On demand of any Senator, a separate vote shall be had on the appointment of the chairman of any such committee and on the appointment of the other members thereof. Each such resolution shall be subject to amendment and to division of the question.
On demand of one-fifth of the Senators present, a quorum being present, any vote taken pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be by ballot.
Except as otherwise provided or unless otherwise ordered, all other committees, and the chairmen thereof, shall be appointed in the same manner as standing committees.
When a chairman of a committee shall resign or cease to serve on a committee, action by the Senate to fill the vacancy in such committee, unless specially otherwise ordered, shall be only to fill up the number of members of the committee, and the election of a new chairman.
[/QUOTE]
I thought it took a resolution voted on by the full Senate to remove a chair once the session is, well, in session. Bayh makes it sound like the split second Lieberman goes wrong, the caucus can remove him.
[quote=“Katriona, post:123, topic:471433”]
MIssed the edit window - that should have said, “I thought it took a resolution voted on by the full Senate to REPLACE a chair, once the session is, well, in session.” Not remove.
Look, let’s get a few things straight here: Joe Lieberman loses his primary for not being enough of a Democrat. That’s really the only way to look at it. He’s to the right of the Democratic party in Connecticut. Then he runs as an independent and wins. That’s okay, but it doesn’t entitle him to anything. Yet the Democratic Leadership gives him a position of great power (undoubtedly due to Lieberman playing hardball when the Democrats were weak). Does he use this significant oversight power to reign in the Bush administration on various wrongdoings? Of course not.
Secondly, remember how Joe mentioned during the campaign how he was afraid of what would happen if Obama became President? Yes he said it numerous times. He even tried to help out downticket Senate Republicans.
Who is to say that Joe won’t use his power to have a change of heart and start investigating President Obama? Lieberman is clearly only out to serve himself politically. The really interesting thing here is that we need to wait on the outcome of two more Senate races to determine if Joe has any real bargaining power. If AK, MN, and GA all go to the Dems we get a supermajority with Joementum. But really this shouldn’t be a concern. I say that Obama appoints Olympia Snowe to some cabinet post and have the Democratic governor of Maine appoint a democrat to replace her. Then nobody will need Joementum, and he can go cry with the Republicans if he wants.
Joe’s only way to get a position of any power is to caucus with the Democrats. The Republicans can’t offer him anything. It is up to Harry Reid to see this and if he can’t figure it out, he needs to go too. If Harry Reid let’s Joe Lieberman stay in his position of power, and if Joementum uses this power to hinder the Obama administration, Reid will easily go down as one of the worst Senate leaders in a long time. The risk of losing Joe are far less serious than the risks of keeping him in his current place. It’s irresponsible to not take action here.
And to that list, you can add the fact that he was very close to being the Republican candidate for Vice President. Many sources have reported that he was the one McCain really wanted.
That’s not even necessary. If Snowe (or any other moderate Republican, for that matter) can be convinced to take a position in Obama’s cabinet and be replaced by a Democrat, then she can also be convinced to vote with the Democrats on reasonable clotures herself. And cloture votes are, so far as I understand it, the only issue for which the 60-seat supermajority is relevant: It’s not like we’d be asking her to take the Democratic side on bills.
In fact, it might even be better to not have 60, since it seems to me that we’re almost as likely to defeat a filibuster with 59 as with 60 (given that both Republicans and Democrats can vote for the “other” side of any given issue), but the magic number 60 would lead to complaints about the Democrats forcing legislation through and utterly silencing their opponents, which might cause backlash among the voters. If we can get things done with less than that, then there’s clear evidence that we had to reach across the aisle, at least to some extent, to get things done.
Aside from that, having Lieberman in the caucus doesn’t automatically give the Dems 60 votes - he still has to vote on each question for it to count. Anybody who think he’s just going to fall in line behind the party leadership on every filibuster-prone issue is crazy.
Leaving Lieberman in his position not only gives him what he wants now, but it also assures him of more opportunities to hold the party over a barrel in the future. It’s like pulling a band aid off of a hairy arm. You can do it a few millimeters at a time, or you can just rip the sucker loose, wince, let loose a few expletives, and then go about your business.
Is there anything preventing CT from passing a law allowing Lieberman to be removed from office, or would it require an ammendment to the CT constitution?
Most of the state laws regarding recalls, as least as far as a quick perusal tells me, apply only to state or lower officials. Insofar as any state attempts to apply their law to Senators and Congressmen, that is unconstitutional, just as the attempt by states to apply term limits was.
In 1967, the State of Idaho refused to accept petitions for a recall of Frank Church.