« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

How long are we going to let the Democrats keep 60 Senate votes?

Why aren't our leaders publically protesting the delay in seating Brown?

By: civil truth (Diary)  |  February 2nd, 2010 at 03:21 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Fox News reports this evening that the Senate broke a three-month Republican hold over the nominee for the Labor Department solicitor:

The Senate has voted to move forward with the nomination of New York’s state labor commissioner for the No. 3 post at the Labor Department despite GOP complaints about her qualifications. The 60-32 vote on Monday allows lawmakers to begin debate on the confirmation of Patricia Smith to become solicitor of the agency. Republicans have held up a vote on Smith for more than three months. They claim she misled lawmakers about her role in creating a New York program that allows labor unions to help uncover wage-and-hour violations. The hold meant 60 votes were needed to move her nomination to a full floor vote.

I was willing to give the Republican Senate leadership a pass on the debt reduction as political theater, but this is allowing the Democrats in the Senate to poke the Republican in the eye and allowing an action that clearly will harm our country. This was a significant vote.

As I recall past stories on Patricia Smith, this program was an egregious effort to intimidate employers from opposing union organizing efforts by inviting complaints that would provoke state investigations against the company, tilting the playing field.

And now this labor partisan is going to be a top official in the department that oversee labor relations, the person in charge of issuing legal opinions for the department (representing the Federal government) – which means an open door to intimidating companies nationwide, especially smaller companies that don’t have the money and legal resources to fight the unlimited resources of the Federal government.

And this motion was passed by 60 votes.

So why are the Republicans laying down on the road without a peep while Democrats run them over instead of demanding that Sen. Brown be seated?

It’s two weeks since his opponent conceded the election. Why hasn’t Sen. Brown been sworn in yet?

When we’ve seen the partisan railroading of the Democratic Senate for this past year, why are the Republicans not derailing this train. They should have been demanding a least a week ago with dramatic effects that the Massachusetts citizens get to be represented by the man they’ve elected – and every day have a another protest in front of cameras until something gets done.

What mischief will the Democrats do next while the window remains open? Do we really want to know. Sen. DeMint, where is your voice?

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • JadedByPolitics

    this is for the people of MA to “concern” themselves with. Just be quiet civil and go back to your life in your state……you might have forgotten WE were asked to defend the continued seating of Paul Kirk by a resident of MA HELL NO! he MUST GO!

    Me I want to know where the McConnell is and why they are NOT blocking these ILLEGAL votes!

    • discerningconservative
    • Gandalf

      We may not like it, but there is no legal argument for why a sitting Senator can’t vote. And there’s no legal argument for removing Kirk from the Senate until Brown is sworn in. And there’s no legal argument for saying that the Democrats delaying Brown’s swearing in until 11 February is illegal.

      I hate it, but it isn’t illegal.

      • JadedByPolitics

        said they WOULD BE ILLEGAL after that Tuesday election So lets STOP IT NOW

        The time for civility has WELL PASSED it is time to get down to business and STOP those craven Democrats from continuing their ILLEGAL VOTES!

        • bk

          Since the GOP make this big claim about a constitutional challenge on leaving Kirk seated and then did absolutely diddly about it.

        • Gandalf

          One partisant GOP attorney does not the law make.

          Precident and the law are on the Democrats’ side this time.

          I’m all for hounding out their sorry butts when they are actually breaking a law, but to pretend they are when they are cleary not is not so smart, in my opinion.

          I get frustrated and angry when Democrats try to accuse us of breaking the law when we use legal and legitimate means to get our stuff through. Having Sen. Kirk vote until Sen. Brown is seated is well within the law, their rights, and precident.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            Sometimes Gandalf, blogs are not the appropriate forum to discuss reason and the law. But your analysis has been extremely astute, In the end, Brown was seated just as quickly if the GOP decided file lawsuits, divert their message machine, and go to war over this. There was a reason none of the major conservative personalities, including conservative Senators like Jim Demint and Tom Coburn never ran with this story; because it was frivolous.

  • Third Street

    …as the fact Kirk is still there and still voting, in apparent violation of long-standing rules and precedents. Don’t want to seat Brown for three weeks while the drunken lout who preceded him was seated inside of a day back in 1962, fine; the Republicans should absolutely make hay about the fact that Paul Kirk’s ass is still in that seat casting potentially illegal votes in apparent violation of all kinds of laws, rules, and precedents; this, after we were assured by certain lawyers on our side that Kirk had to vamoose immediately upon Brown’s election. The cost of these ridiculous and obvious games should be a vacant MA Senate seat for three weeks, which costs the Dems their 60th vote whether or not Brown is seated.

    • Gandalf

      Again, a quick search of past elections shows that the precedence IS there for Sen. Kirk to continue voting.

      Of the examples I listed in my post a below:

      Jean Carnahan (D-MO) kept her seat until the day before Jim Talent was sworn in back in 2001.
      Harlan Mathews (D-TN) kept his seat until the day before Fred Thompson was sworn in back in 1994.

      As far as I can tell, those are the only two comparable situations to Scott Brown?s situation, and in both the appointed Senator kept his or her seat until the new Senator was sworn in.

      There have been only a handful of special Senate elections, and most of them don?t set precedent one way or the other because there was either no appointed Senator or because the appointed Senator won the special election.

      Sorry, much as I hate the fact that the Democrats still have 60 votes, it appears to be quite legitimate.

      Elections have consequences. That includes past elections.

      • Third Street

        Because that’s not what we were being told before the election.

        And as for Jean Carnahan’s seating, don’t even get me started on the legality of a dead man winning a Senate race.

        But this is why the Democrats walk all over us… we let them. And then, apparently, we let prior occasions on which we let them walk all over us stand as reasons why we should let them continue to do it forever.

        • Gandalf

          Again, I hate the idea that Kirk is still voting. But it’s his right.

          I understand what the GOP’s partisan attorneys said before the fact. That was, I think, a political strategy to make sure the Democrats didn’t try to bring up healthcare again. It worked and the Republicans have let it dropped since they know that a challenge in the courts would get them laughed half-way across the country.

          The Massachusetts Law that their argument is based on says that the appointed Senator will serve ?until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.? Since “qualification” comes after “election,” it is clear that it means being sworn in.

          And again, Senate precident, whether we want to argue about whether it was legit or not, is there from both Republicans and Democrats…

          But let me say this: If people are serious about wanting to rectify this situation, they will make it a hill to die on AFTER Brown is seated to apply for the next time this happens, whether he or she be Republican or Democrat. As of now, all of this somewhat feigned outrage just makes me think of the Democrats whining in MA and wanting to change the rules when it suited their team.

          Sorry, that’s the way I see it. And I’m on your team.

      • pilgrim
        • Gandalf

          The Constiution is fairly clear that Senate terms end 3 January 2009. Since Norm Coleman had not yet earned a new term (and sadly would not in the long-run), he was obliged to step down as of 3 January until such a time as it was proved that he had won a new term.

          I don’t see how that’s related to a special election in the middle of February of a non-election year. It’s a completely different situation.

      • E Pluribus Unum

        As the newsmedia would say about rising unemployment figures:

        “Enexpectedly”.

        Cheating in former cases does not establish a defendable precedent.

        • Gandalf

          No one called foul in either of those cases, probably because the precedent had been set by both parities throughout the long history of the Senate.

          I didn’t look back at previous special elections before 1970 1) because I didn’t have the time and 2) because I doubt Wikipedia is too accurate with the exact dates before, say, the 1970s. From my research, it appears that we Republicans simply don’t have any similar cases.

          In almost every case that a new Senator was elected in a special election since 1970, with the exception of those filling an empty seat, the former seat holder has continued to hold the seat and, presumably, vote until the day the new Senator was sworn in. The only exception to this I can find is Sen. Adlai Ewing Stevenson III (D-IL) back in 1970. However, since that special election coincided with a regular election, it doesn?t seem to be a comparable situation.

          What I will grant you is that Democrats have apparently been more successful at delaying the seating of Republican Senators, including Sen. Brown, while it appears new Democratic Senators winning special elections were seated fairly quickly. Of course they do this, and they?re doing this with Sen. Brown for political reasons, but it seems to be within their right to do so since they hold the office of Secretary of State of MA and the Majority in the Senate. It may be an underhanded tactic, one that Republicans haven?t had the opportunity to use since delaying the seating of Sen. Stevenson III (D-IL) back in 1970. Nevertheless, both parties have done it and it appears to be completely legal and legit.

          If it was cheating, then I’d gladly agree with you. As I?ve said dozens of times, I?m as disgusted as anyone that Sen. Kirk is still voting. But I just don’t see any real legal argument to say that he shouldn’t be given a vote up until the day that Sen. Brown is sworn in.

  • Gandalf

    As far as I can tell, nothing irregular is happening here. I did a quick search via Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_special_elections_to_the_United_States_Senate#List_of_special_elections

    Looking back to 1970, some Senators who won in a special election take their seats within a few days (usually these are when the elections coincide with the general election in November).

    The following Senator-Elects have had to wait for a bit longer:

    Ron Wyden (D-OR) had to wait 7 days before taking his seat after winning a special election in 1996.
    Jim Inhofe (R-OK) had to wait 8 days before taking his seat after winning a special election in 1994.
    Adlai Ewing Stevenson III (D-IL) had to wait 15 days before taking his seat after winning a special election in 1970.
    Jim Talent (R-MO) had to wait 20 days before taking his seat after winning a special election in 2001.
    Fred Thompson (R-TN) had to wait 25 days before taking his seat after winning a special election in 1994.
    Kent Conrad (D-ND) had to wait 30 days before taking his seat after winning a special election in 1987.

    It’s not really that suspicious that Sen. Brown hasn’t been seated yet. My guess is that he doesn’t even WANT to be seated quite yet; he’s still gathering staff, trying to organized in Washington, and so forth. He will be seated on 11 February, 22 days after the election but still not that unprecedented.

    And perhaps the Democrats ARE delaying… They have the right to do so. Elections have consequences, and the Democrats won previous elections giving them the right to delay, within reason, the seating of Sen. Brown.

    Much as I don’t like the fact that Democrats are still exercising their 60 votes, they have the right to do so.

    Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, and anyone else who knows how the Senate works understands that Sen. Brown will be seated when all of the paperwork has been done. Their voices are being used

    • ReaganLives

      I wasn’t upset about this because on election day I was in Boston; I remember the local news talking about the fact that in MA, the election certification process typically took ten day to two weeks. The other Brown volunteers were looking into the laws about actually seating him, and one of the volunteer attorneys checked it all out.

      So, I guess it is what it is. I’ve got plenty of other stuff to be angry about this week!

      • Swamp_Yankee

        Be quiet. Truth is not allowed. Anger, name calling, exclamation points and capital letters trump truth, reason and wisdom.

        • ReaganLives

          I’VE GOT IT !! !! ! (How’s this?)

          YOU’RE A REASONABLE TRUTH-TELLER AND FOR THAT YOU SHALL BE BANISHED TO A SWAMP WITH A BUNCH OF YANKEE LEFTIES UNTIL YOU REPENT!!!

          (oh, wait…..)

  • pilgrim

    http://www.redstate.com/pilgrim/2010/01/29/my-take-on-lame-duck-senators-casting-votes/

    Lame duck Senators should be spending their time clearing out of their office, and working with the Senator his state just voted in. He can do what he can for his staff. There should be no major votes taken by him. He should be too busy getting out of Dodge to have time to read, understand, and cast roll call votes. This issue with lame duck Senators has been around for a long time. I think that the Senate could have a rule that would fix this problem.

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      Rules change when they become inconvenient to the “ruling” party.

      I agree it should be that way but considering the government the way it is now, it’s an exercise in futility.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    So should RedState.

    While our front page seems to be filled with endless stories of growing prospects for November, and the current Dem implosion, the Republic is being stolen from us.

    Just saying.

    And saying.

    And saying.

  • SusanAnne Hiller

    If you want the laws and statutes and dissection of the entire issue, here’s the link abd scoll down for the articles on Brown, Kirk, and the MA laws.

    Went vrtal on net and Hannity picked up the story on his radio show Monday.

    http://biggovernment.com/author/sahiller/

    • SusanAnne Hiller

      n/t