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

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

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…..)

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

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.

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.

“Enexpectedly”.

Cheating in former cases does not establish a defendable precedent.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

I hate it, but it isn’t illegal.

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.