Regarding the concern over Kerry's Senate seat in MA if he gets tapped for an administration post.

[WilliamPitt]

Last edited Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:34 PM - Edit history (1)

I've seen a lot of concern about Scott Brown getting a chance to win Kerry's seat in a special election if Kerry takes an administration post.

Don't be concerned, and here's why.

Back in 2003-2004, when Romney was governor of MA and Kerry was running for president, the law said the governor could appoint a successor.

The MA legislature changed the law to make sure Romney couldn't appoint a successor in the event of a Kerry victory. That's why there was a special election when Kennedy died; the law had been changed.

But if Kerry gets tapped for a Cabinet post, you can be sure the MA legislature will change the law back, so Patrick can appoint a successor and we won't have to deal with another Brown campaign. It won't even take an afternoon.

They didn't do it in 2010 after Kennedy because, well, it never occurred to anyone that they would need to. Now, we know, and the law will change back if Kerry leaves. We won't have Scott Brown to kick around any more.

On edit: even if they don't change the law, Brown still has to run again, and it won't be easy the third time. His act has gotten incredibly stale around here.

[hrmjustin]

1. It will look political, but to prevent that guy from being a senator I say do it.

I think brown wants to run for governor.

[WilliamPitt]

2. "It will look political."

MA Democrats in the legislature don't care. This ain't patty-cake.

It looked political in 2004. They did it anyway. What's the damage? "Oh, those Massachusetts liberals!" The GOP thinks we're all communists here anyway, so fuck it.

[hrmjustin]

18. Ok yea I am with you on this one.

[nichomachus]

53. They're politicians. Everything they do is political.

[Angry Dragon]

3. If they change it it has to be done before he is confirmed

because I do not think they can make it retroactive

[WilliamPitt]

7. Like I said

it won't take an afternoon.

[babylonsister]

4. Recommend. People on DU need to read this. Thanks, Will! nt

[msanthrope]

8. No. nt

[babylonsister]

13. Hahaha! Allrighty then!

Don't read it.

[msanthrope]

5. Article 1, Section 10. It wouldn't pass a Calder analysis. nt

[WilliamPitt]

9. I had to look that up

and I still don't get it.

[msanthrope]

16. Well, that would be the Constitution, Will. And the scenario you suggest

would lead to the application of the ex post facto clause to civil law because of the substative due process concerns raised by O'Connor in General Motors v. Everet 1992. We don't have a majority that would uphold that law, and trust me, you really don't want SCOTUS taking this one on until we do.

For 200 years, the ex post facto clause hasn't held to apply to civil law. You've come up with a scenario that would allow it to, using substantive due process, under a Robert's court, at rational review level.

You do not want to open up that Pandora's box.

[WilliamPitt]

19. I was talking about "Calder analysis," smartass.

Serious question: why didn't all this bad stuff happen when they changed the law in 2004, brazenly and for no reason other than rank fuck-you-Romney politics? There was no good reason to change it. The only reason was to deny Romney the power to appoint. They had the votes, they did it, and he had to choke on it...and none of that stuff happened.

Like I said, serious question.

[BlueMan Votes]

24. when they changed in 2004- was there an open or potentially open senate seat at the time?

if they want to do it- they should do it now, and not wait for Kerry to be officially nominated.

[WilliamPitt]

25. Not open yet,

but Kerry was in a tight race, so it was definitely possible. It was a pre-emptive strike. when they changed the law, but wound up being a moot point.

[BlueMan Votes]

34. oopsie...I forgot that Kerry was running for potus at the time.

so yeah- i guess that there was a potentially open seat.

if it's changed back now, the repugs would probably scream bloody murder about trying to 'subvert the people's right to free and fair elections to choose their representatives', or some such crap.

and they'd have a point, as far as the public is concerned.

[WilliamPitt]

40. See post 2

...and after that, we can have a talk with them about the GOP redistricting Democratic House districts out of existence in the South and West.

Sauce for the goose.

[msanthrope]

32. Kerry lost the presidential election, Will. Therefore, with no vacant seat, no case.

Now you have a possible vacant seat. And another proposed change.

[WilliamPitt]

33. Even though they actually did change the law?

[msanthrope]

35. Yes. There was simply no 'Plaintiff' when Kerry lost.

Nor was the issue 'ripe' unless and until he won.

[WilliamPitt]

36. Interesting.

So they risked all that when they changed the law, had Kerry won.

[msanthrope]

37. Yes. They quite stupidly risked a case that could have morphed into giving the

right wing of the Court a resounding victory for corporations and the like.

Imagine no ex post facto laws on taxation. Or on contracts. And, without me writing REAMS on this, please understand that it would also gut anti-trust and environmental protections. And we don't need the Roberts court meddling any further with those things.

[WilliamPitt]

38. Thanks.

Very much food for thought, thanks. And thanks for your patience, too.

Cheers.

P.S. I still don't know what a Calder analysis is. I looked it up and found stuff about horse racing.

[msanthrope]

41. I should have more patience, frankly. Please forgive my churlishness this evening.

I am quite put out by other things, and as I re-read my posts to you, I regret my tone and manner.

It's Calder v. Bull. I wrote a paper on it. It's an esoteric point.

[WilliamPitt]

42. Heh

We've all been there. No worries.

What's a Calder analysis? Sorry, I edited my last reply to ask, but I don't think I made it in time.

[msanthrope]

44. Calder v. Bull.

I wrote a paper on it. It's an esoteric point involving the Federalists.

[WilliamPitt]

46. So not horse racing.

Thanks again.

[msanthrope]

52. Oh, Jesus, what a memory you stirred....taking my grandfather to

the Rascal House before the start at Calder. He had to have a bowl of that lentil soup before he bet, no matter how damn hot it was. A lifetime ago.

[TheCowsCameHome]

6. I doubt it would happen (reversal).

[st17011864200074656]

47. It did

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick can now pick late Senator Ted Kennedy's replacement

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-09-23/news/17932570_1_deval-patrick-appoint-replacement

Edited to add: Governor Patrick chose Paul Kirk to be that replacement

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-09-24/news/17930396_1_sen-kennedy-vicki-kennedy-kennedy-family-friend

[Tx4obama]

55. Kirk held the seat temporarily until the special election which had to be held within 145 days. n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. Oh Gawd, my dear Will, I sure hope you're right...

It really upsets me to think that Scott Brown could get back in.

[WilliamPitt]

11. Well, even if they don't change the law

he still has to win another election. Won't be so easy the third time.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

30. OK, that helps..........thanks!

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. I don't think I could deal with another Brown campaign

He came across as a total ass the last time, parading around with his wife and daughters everywhere he went, the stupid barn coat, old truck, endless indian heritage BS, etc. - I'd have to leave the state until it was over.

[WilliamPitt]

15. It was not fun

At all.

That alone makes me positive they'll flip the law back. The folks in the legislature endured that campaign just like the rest of us, and they have the power to stop it from happening again.

Kidding, but not really.

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. Bill Weld is back in town.

Could he come into play somehow?

[WilliamPitt]

23. Anything is possible

but I would be beyond astonished. Last I heard, he took another lawfirm job. I think he's out of the politics biz.

[TheCowsCameHome]

27. He did go with a law firm,

but I'd rule nothing out. This is a strange state sometimes.........

[MADem]

45. He dumped his wife after he left the state for NY--traded her in for a younger model, I think.

That kind of shit doesn't always fly very well.

Also, he helped "W" prepare for his debates--talk about poor judgment.

[WilliamPitt]

48. He was done when Jesse Helms broke his ambassadorship over his knee.

I don't see Bill making a comeback.

[MADem]

49. Me neither. He's a bit too frayed about the edges. nt

[Gregorian]

14. I cheered when I read Kerry as a possible choice. Then I read DU and felt like a chump. Then you.

This is the power of DU.

So I'm back to being all cheery about Kerry. So many good things to be happy about right now.

[babylonsister]

21. Gregorian, such is the power of DU.

I'm cheery, too. I want the man of great integrity to be where he's most valuable, and happy.

[riverwalker]

17. thats good news

been worried about losing that seat.

[BlueToTheBone]

22. Your lips to the Party's ears. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

26. I know, but...the NEW appointee will have a tough run the next election. Unlike Kerry. nt

[AlinPA]

28. I could never understand why MA elected Brown. Teabagger enthusiasm?

[WilliamPitt]

29. Teabagger money

combined with a very bad Dem campaign, combined with an off-year election with low turnout. When he ran this time against Warren, 300,000 more voters went to the polls than did in 2010, and most of them were Democrats.

Bear in mind that MA is not as stereotypically blue as everyone thinks, too. Before Deval Patrick, we had GOP governors for sixteen years straight.

[AlinPA]

43. Sounds something like PA. Teabagger senator (Toomey) elected with low voter turnout and outspent

by Toomey 3:1.

[graham4anything]

31. But why would anyone want Kerry to leave the Senate anyhow? We need liberals w/seniority

and we need all liberals to stay senator-that means both Mass. ones

why is it in 2012 that people find being senator demeaning?

It's the #3 job in the nation to have, power wise.(after President and VP).

and SOS or SOD would be 4 years (unless Hillary45 kept him onboard in Jan.17).

Senators like Kerry and Warren can have the job for another 18 years if they choose to stay where they were elected for.

As it seems like Susan Rice will be SOS anyhow, I hope this issue passes by with Kerry remaining as Senator, where indeed he would have far greater power.

[karynnj]

57. Kerry turns 69 this December and Warren is not far behind him

It is unrealistic to think both will be there for 18 more years. There are many who feel that SOS is higher than being a Senator. In fact, it is likely impossible to compare. Not to mention, not all Senators are the same - and Kerry is one of the most powerful given his seniority and his skills. It is premature to speculate on who will win in 2016 - even in the Democratic primary.

[MADem]

39. I agree with your assessment of the situation. nt

[Starry Messenger]

50. I really like Kerry.

I'd like him to have a place in the Cabinet, because his talents would be great there too. But also as a poetic bookend to the awful Bush years. This is Obama's time, but I think Kerry deserves no small credit for breaking trail through some terrible years in the US. Standing up in 2004 wasn't any picnic.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Brown's awful antics will not age well

He's gone for good.

[brooklynite]

54. You can NOT be sure...and I would object if they did...

If the Massachusetts Legislature thinks that a Governor's appointment is a good idea, have them do it now. Anyone who thinks that changing the law to win one specific seat better not complain again about gerrymandering districts or any other attempt to "rig" an electoral outcome.

[Tx4obama]

56. When Kennedy died the state legislature allowed the Gov to temporarily appoint Kirk, BUT

a special election had to take place within 145 days.

So, if Kerry takes a cabinet position then the same thing will probably happen.