« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Another shameless power grab coming from Massachusetts Democrats?

By: SunshineStateSarah (Diary)  |  November 25th, 2012 at 11:38 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

As you may know, I spent some time in Massachusetts this year, working on some Congressional races, and it’s been an interesting time for me, seeing the differences (the many, many, many differences) between that state and my home state of Florida.

Both states have a legislature dominated by one party, but with wide variation in how much autonomous power the controlling party really has. When the Republicans who control the Florida House and Senate push their luck too far, the Florida press corps howl in protest and voters in even heavily-Republican districts tend to reject anything really outlandish (case in point: the failure of many of the constitutional amendments, which originated in the Legislature, on the ballot this year).

In contrast, in Massachusetts, when the Democrats try something nutty, it’s met with shrugs and mostly ignored as simply business as usual. At best, media outlets like the Boston Herald may cover a story here and there, but it rarely seems to slow down the Democrats’ appetite for abusing government power.

Here’s the latest example: amid chatter that Senator John Kerry will be appointed to a Cabinet position for Obama’s second term, Democrats are scheming to change the rules for filling his seat:

Boston Herald | Hillary Chabot | Whispers build of change to special election rules

Power-hungry Bay State Democrats — eyeing another potential Senate opening if U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry joins the Obama Cabinet— are quietly discussing reinstating a 2004 law that would let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a permanent replacement to help keep the seat under party control until at least 2014.

“I think that would be preferable. It would certainly save the taxpayers money if they don’t have to pay for another election,” said Phil Johnston, former chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party.

“I think people are campaigned out. I think the governor is very popular and most voters would be happy to support his choice until the next general election,” Johnston added.

The current law triggers a special election within 160 days if Kerry accepts a long-anticipated post in President Obama’s Cabinet. Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown scored an upset win over his heavily favored Democratic opponent, Attorney General Martha Coakley, in the special election for the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat…

…The move comes eight years after Democratic lawmakers stripped then-Gov. Mitt Romney of his appointment powers in an effort to keep Republicans out of the office, and three years after they changed the law again to let Patrick appoint a temporary replacement.

Read the rest of the article here.

Oh, how grand. The former chairman of the MA Dems says it would be “preferable” if they didn’t have to bother with an election. Isn’t that considerate of him?

Shhh…never mind the irony of the party that has no problem with food stamps being spent on tattoos, alcohol, and strippers suddenly worrying about taxpayer dollars being spent on anything so frivolous as an election!

What Johnston really means, of course, is that it would be preferable for the Democrats if they didn’t have to bother campaigning against Scott Brown again. Even in a state like Massachusetts, it’s harder for the Democrats to turn out voters for special elections, and the Republicans have a fighting chance. Yeah, so, not really “preferable” for the Democrats.

Laws are not meant to be flipped over and over like pancakes depending on what party is in power or who is in office. It never ceases to amaze me how the same Democrats who screamed bloody murder about the Patriot Act under George W. Bush are quiet little mice regarding Obama making unilateral decisions about killing people, including American citizens, with drone strikes. For additional giggles, go research what various Senators have said about the filibuster power depending on whether or not their party had control.

Let’s hope that State Senator Barry Feingold (D-Andover), who chairs the Massachusetts Legislature’s election laws committee, really was telling the truth when he said that he does not support changing the current law, and that he is able to stand up to his power-hungry colleagues who disagree with him.

I’m not holding my breath.

[Cross-posted at Sunshine State Sarah]

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • oldtownyankee

    This sort of B.S is nothing new for Massachusetts. Look, we just elected Elizabeth Warren to the Senate over Scott Brown, does anyone have to say any more. You might recall the “Gay Marriage” issue back when Patrick first got in. We the voters gathered more than enough votes to place it on that ballot to be voted on. However, the State Senate with the backing of Patrick voted not to place it on the ballet as all ballot initiatives have to get through the Senate. Up until recently even the Massachusetts Senate honored the wishes of the voter. This is not the case up here anymore. Elections are an inconvenience if there is a chance that the results differ from what the democrats would like. The list of abuses goes on and on in every town and city. I live and work with liberal elite who don’t want to be argued with over policy, the law, the constitution or even what goes on my own home. If they can’t force their secular progressive agenda on the population then they usurp the law via Executive Fiat. If that causes problems than there is always an unelected judicial activist judge sitting around looking for something to do. This is Massachusetts folks, get used to it because its coming to a state and town near you. Hey; look on the bright side. If your state has a wife murder in the slammer and he decides that he wants to become a “gal”, then all’s he has to do is put in for a sex chance operation under the “cruel and unusual punishment clause” of the constitution and “bingo” a judge grants him a taxpayer sex change operation. We are sensitive to the needs of all our citizens up here in Massachusetts.

    • carolina

      Ouch You make me VERY grateful that I live in a red state. I have some conservative friends that also live in MA. They are considering moving away once both are retired. Sounds like they will continue to rack up more incentives to do so!

  • 1stRichard

    You missed the points that Romney abused this same power and this is one of the primary reasons we have Obamacare as it is today. I would question that if Brown41 was elected sooner it would be different. Basically Massachusetts is considered a lost cause by the established and this ignorance costs all of us dearly. The last time this power was abused, ALL Republicans should have joined the fight, instead what we got was the typical roll over and play dead, form the typical circular firing squad. This should have been fought….

    ***************************************

    Deval Patrick’s enactment article II of amendment 48, The Referendum, II, declaring an emergency to enact the law allowing for an interim senator to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat and subsequent law.

    So stated as evident, one person’s last wish, that of late Senator Kennedy that his seat be immediately and prejudicially filled. Consequently so enacted by Deval Patrick. Further that one partisan group also enacted to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges. Thereof, Part of the fist article 7.

    At present are the largest ever federal tax increases and entitlement under debate in the U.S. Senate with a partisan majority rule at risk. 417 Mass. 406 In the first place, art. 7 speaks essentially to a right of the people to institute and change government…

    Of part of the fist art.23, No subsidy, charge, tax, impost, or duties, ought to be established, fixed, laid, or levied, under any pretext whatsoever, without the consent of the people or their representatives in the legislature. No continues effusive representative preexisted for the reason of illness, therein the merit of immediate disorder is negated. Thus the consent of the people must be upheld, that all the inhabitants of this commonwealth, having such qualifications, have an equal right to elect representatives, of the fist art. 9, thus consent of the people as paramount and no other.

    440 Mass. 309 In broad terms, it is the Legislature’s power to enact rules to regulate conduct, to the extent that such laws are “necessary to secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community” (citations omitted). Opinion of the Justices, 341 Mass. 760 , 785 (1960). [Note 12] See Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53 , 85 (1851).

    CA No. 209-4078 failed to make safe and secure the health, safety, good order, comfort, or general welfare of the community.

    Respectfully submitted, …….

    • oldtownyankee

      On Kennedy’s death the legislature went into special session to change the existing law of the time that called for an election by the people within a certain amount of time to fill that vacant sent. They rigged the system for Patrick to select a “coat holder” for a period of time until an election could be had. I forget all the details but it was just another stinky Patrick type Chicago – Obama move.

  • gawken

    Why should you be surprised, even a tad? Lord Acton figured it out, long ago. Look, if the idiots in Mass wouldn’t even toss out a totally corrupt slimeball like Tierney, then this is what happens.

    OTOH, here’s a sure-fire way for the GOP to start making HUGE gains in Massachusetts elections, which I happily present to you gratis:

    Just start a state-wide search for all the conservative Republicans in the state named KENNEDY, ( statistics suggest there have to be a few dozen, if not more) and run them for every office possible. At least 50%, if not more, are sure to be elected..

  • revtm

    they very well should be scared of Brown, in a non-presidential year I do not see a way Scott Brown doesn’t win a state-wide election in Massachusetts with his favorables.
    He was, and remains, the best candidate we can muster for a state like Mass. and despite his loss should take solice in knowing hes the highest republican vote getter since 1972 in the state of Massachusetts.

  • http://gardenslegal.com morstar150

    I’m not in the least shocked by the moves of the Democrats in Mass. but I have to say that was one of the funniest things I have read in a long time.

    “Oh, how grand. The former chairman of the MA Dems says it would be “preferable” if they didn’t have to bother with an election. Isn’t that considerate of him?

    Shhh…never mind the irony of the party that has no problem with food stamps being spent on tattoos, alcohol, and strippers suddenly worrying about taxpayer dollars being spent on anything so frivolous as an election!”

    SAD but ABSURDLY HILARIOUS!

    Great Post! Thank you!