TPMDC

Massachusetts Senate GOP Leader Not Ruling Out Legal Challenge Against Appointment Law Change


State Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei (R-MA)

Read More

MA-SEN, Ted Kennedy

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

I just got off the phone with Massachusetts state Sen. Richard Tisei, the leader of the minority Republicans in the state Senate, and he confirmed to me that the GOP is not ruling out a court challenge against any possible new law to quickly fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat through an interim appointment.

Tisei said that when Democrats changed the law in 2004 to provide for special elections instead of gubernatorial appointment -- when John Kerry was running for President and Republican Mitt Romney was Governor -- the GOP offered an amendment to have interim appointments. The Democrats, he said, are all on record shooting it down back then. And Tisei says that Dems can't change the rules to fit the new circumstances of a current vacancy.

"Here's the thing, if we were talking about prospectively doing this for an opening that may come up in the future, that would be one thing," said Tisei. "But we're doing it based on -- there is currently an opening right now, the law that's in place has been activated, and to change the rules while you have the process underway, probably does raise some questions."

I asked if a legal challenge was possible. "Yes, because again, we're changing the succession law in Massachusetts while the process that -- there is a process underway," said Tisei. "We're gonna explore every option that we can to prevent this from coming up. And I'm gonna tell you, obviously a lot of people are upset about Sen Kennedy's passing, and he went through a terrible struggle. That said, though, this is very controversial."

Tisei explained that he himself is not a lawyer -- his career has been in real estate -- but the legal dimension has been discussed among Republicans.

I asked Tisei about the concern being advanced by Democrats, that the state should have full representation during a time of great debates in Washington. His answer was two-fold: First, that state Democrats rejected this same reasoning when the law was changed in 2004. And second, he said things aren't so urgent as they might seem -- that things can wait.

"The Democrats control the United States Senate, so they control the scheduling on every important issue that takes place," said Tisei. "So if there is an important vote to be taken on health care or another important issue, and they need the vote from Massachusetts, they can just schedule it after the special election. There's no emergency that needs to be taken care of. And if it's health care, that's an issue the candidates who are running for the seat can discuss, and the voters of Massachusetts can make their choice."

Join the Conversation!

27 comments

Recommend Recommend (2)

August 28, 2009 2:02 PM   

While I agree if that is the case, doesn't it go both ways. If they thought it was a good idea then and want to block it now, isn't it only because the circumstances have changed and it is now in his political interest to see the status quo?

Seems to be bald politics on both sides.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:33 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

In the words of one well known sociopath, "so?"

Dick Cheney

We in MA have an overwhelming majority of Dems in both Houses and if the legislature passes a law and the governor signs it, the repukes can kiss our liberal arses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:53 PM    in reply to VictorShaw

"We in MA have an overwhelming majority of Dems in both Houses and if the legislature passes a law and the governor signs it, the repukes can kiss our liberal arses."

Well put Victor. I live in Kingston, MA

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:56 PM    in reply to VictorShaw

I believe this is what Gore Vidal once described as "a passion for prevailing winds." The capricious tyranny of the majority is what causes politicians to be held in such low regard.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 3:01 PM    in reply to Schmed

Well there's that. But it's not capricious. It's an effort to stop the thousands who die every day for lack of health care coverage, and the daily foreclosures also attributed to the problem. Not urgent, though, nossir.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 3:16 PM    in reply to Anthony Thomas

I truly loved Ted Kennedy and I'm seriously considering braving what could be Hurricane Danny to pay my respects tomorrow. Nonetheless, if having Massachusetts fully represented for the health care debate was paramount to him, then he should have resigned months ago so that the special election could have been held and his successor could be now in place. Last minute legislative do-overs are not honorable or fair.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 4:23 PM    in reply to Schmed

Your dedication to the fairness of the process is admirable, and the point you make should be made in to a longer post of its own. I'd submit though, that passing a real HC reform bill would go alot farther in bolstering the public's regard for politicians than a committment to the "fairness" of the process in choosing Teddy's successor.

Not sure if adding one more Dem vote would push us over the top, but it wouldn't hurt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:59 PM    in reply to Walter Mitty

Agreed, Jonze. It appears that hypocrisy isn't just for Republicans anymore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:12 PM   

If they do, Democrats can use it against them in the special election. It really doesnt matter because it will give democrats an excuse to go for reconciliation on healthcare instead of the 60 vote filibuster, something they might not have on healthcare.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:21 PM    in reply to vamonticello

Yep, this makes it more likely that Democrats will use reconciliation and they will have an excuse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 6:20 PM    in reply to Maritza

But if the, I forget his title, but an official in the senate will make a ruling regarding the public option and chances are 99.999% against him allowing the public option into the bill because of the bloody Byrd Amendment.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:12 PM   

Bad politics, perhaps, but nevertheless perfectly legal. This is just Coleman v. Franken 2.0.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:16 PM   

Let the MA GOP go ahead with a court challenge. The voter backlash against them will further consign them to permanent minority status.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:19 PM    in reply to rosebowl

Exactly!

Dumb move!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 6:24 PM    in reply to rosebowl

If they can run out the clock until next year, we will likely have to try and pass it with smaller majorities in 2011. Let's all think about the moves 5 or 6 steps ahead. We already know nothing will get passed next year; an election year. This bloody time, the ends justify the means. Health care is a human right and I'm sick of feeling badly that we live in the one country that blatantly puts a monetary value on human life. Obama needs a win desperately or he will be a one term flunky.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:20 PM   

Call their bluff. Let these bastards OWN this offensive attack.

I'm sure citizens in Mass. won't appreciate this. Sen. Kennedy, who is popular there, asked for the law to be changed. Let the GOP assholes jump the shark and own this.

Dems need to let the GOP jump off the cliff when they threaten to. I want to see more Coleman-like disasters. I want to see asshole GOP reading the telephone book in the Senate. Try to stand in the people's way, and we'll make you famous. Stop backing down on GOP threats. Force their hand. Call their bluff.

The GOP is all bark, not bite.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:26 PM   

Why, oh why, is it considered a story simply because someone "won't rule out" doing something or other? It's not!

I haven't ruled out having waffles for breakfast tomorrow but that doesn't mean I'm going to. It just means I haven't decided.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:29 PM   


"That said, though, this is very controversial."

Um, no it's not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

August 28, 2009 2:43 PM   

I asked if a legal challenge was possible. "Yes, because again, we're changing the succession law in Massachusetts while the process that -- there is a process underway

Well we all know about the well-known constitutional requirement that state legislatures not interrupt processes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:51 PM   

The Realtor who plays a lawyer on the internets has health insurance and doesn't see any rush because the thousands of people who die every day because of a lack of coverage are not...him. As for a court challenge? I bet most of our judges in Massachusetts owe their jobs to Teddy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 2:52 PM   

There's no interruption of any process (now vested in exactly whom I have no idea). The Special Erection would proceed according to current law

So what's the beef?

Oh I get it...Mass becomes the New Minnesota

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 6:26 PM    in reply to johnmccsf

There is no beef. This is going to get done. I'm proud to live in the one state where liberals routinely kick the conservatives' teeth in! ;-)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 3:37 PM   

I'm increasingly swayed by the arguments stated above that it is time to visit on Repubicans the consequences of their own past acts and present threats.

Past Act I: Using reconciliation in the Senate to pass the Tax Cut For the Wealthy/Deficit Creation Act by a one vote margin.

Threats I thru Infinity: Filibuster anything and whatever.

Threat Infinity plus One: Stall interim Senate appointment in MA by filing a court challenge.

It's nice to contemplate their expressions as they stand holding the leaking bag. Oh, shit!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 4:01 PM   

There's no law being violated here, and courts don't get involved in merely political issues. Next.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 5:10 PM   

Tisei explained that he himself is not a lawyer ...
He didn't really need to explain that. The Legislature made the law and the Legislature can change it when, if, and however it sees fit. If there the is a section of the law that contravenes the Commonwealth's or the US Constitutions, then go for it. But the fact that the Republicans offered a similar clause, which was rejected, and the Democrats are now planning to add it doesn't really rise to that level. Tisei could hold a caucus of all the Mass Senate Republicans in his living room, so court is his only hope.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 6:31 PM   

I don't think they understand that just because they don't like it, and just because it is obviously politically motivated, it doesn't mean it isn't perfectly legal, if they change the law. They have zero case, and they know it, but they are willing to do what they did to Al Franken with this seat for as long as humanly possible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 28, 2009 7:24 PM   

Well, at least the dems change the laws so that they are in compliance. Repukes just ignore the law. See the last 8 years of the king ruling by fiat. Pathetic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!