It ain't QUITE over yet, folks.

[polmaven]

BOSTON -- The Massachusetts Republican Party has filed an injunction in a Boston court seeking to block former Democratic Party chairman Paul Kirk from becoming the interim replacement for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Lawmakers this week passed legislation giving Gov. Deval Patrick the power to appoint an interim replacement, but laws approved in Massachusetts usually take 90 days to go into effect. Patrick signed an emergency letter that he says allows the law to become effective immediately.

A hearing has been scheduled for 8 a.m. Friday.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/21105070/detail.html

I doubt it will go anywhere, bu you never know. It ain't over till it's over.

[gateley]

1. Of course they have.

I envision them telling their folks: Okay, if the Dems are against whatever it is, we will be for it, and vice versa.

It's as simple as that.

[niyad]

2. and if it were a repuke gov with a repuke legislature--the replacement would

already be in DC

[liberal N proud]

3. They fight the stupidest fights or the dumbest of ideals

Democrats have a majority in the Senate. All they are fighting over is the veto proof super majority of 60.

This is what they did, blocking Franken and the Senator Kennedy dies and they get to do it all over again.


OBSTRUCTION!, OBSTRUCTION!, OBSTRUCTION!, OBSTRUCTION!, OBSTRUCTION!, OBSTRUCTION!, OBSTRUCTION!

[TxRider]

4. It's no more stupid...

Than it was to take the right of the governor to appoint a senator away was in the first place..

These tit for tat games annoy me greatly from their side or ours, as I'm sure it does most sensible people.

[LynneSin]

12. But Kirk isn't not the permament senator

He's only there so that Massachusetts has 2 senators while they work the special election coming in 2010

[TxRider]

16. It's still a case of unintended consequences

From playing petty political games a few years back...

And the games continue...

They should have just rescinded the law and let the governor appoint someone IMO.

[Matt_in_STL]

6. I say let them hold it up

What good does it do for the Democrats to have the 60 seat, filibuster-proof majority? Thanks to blue dogs 60 senators just gives the Republicans a talking point - "They have a filibuster-proof majority and still can't get anything done". In the beginning it was a great thought and I was happy to get Al Franken in there but it is more of an albatross rather than a ticket to get some real reform passed.

[Qutzupalotl]

15. Ignore the Right's complaints.

If we only had a simple majority, we'd still get blamed for getting little done. Believe me, having a filibuster-proof one is better.

Meanwhile, Olympia Snowe slow-walks the healthcare amendment negotiations.

[butterfly77]

5. I am so sick of these damn people...

[KansDem]

7. Wait a minute! Isn't the governor the "head of state" for a state?

Patrick signed an emergency letter that he says allows the law to become effective immediately.

Isn't this like the "signing statements" of W Bush? Wouldn't this emergency letter be similar and considered "law?"

[TxRider]

8. We are about to find out

[Lone_Star_Dem]

9. Those damn anti states rights Republicans! Erm, wait...wha?

You just gotta love it when they show their true colors. :rofl:


It was all done perfectly legally, they're just being Republicans.

[TxRider]

10. It's the state rethug party

Has nothing to do with states rights that I can see, this is all within one state.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

11. True enough

You're right. Even if it did poop on my parade of laughter, I now see I misread the article when I first glanced at it.

[Hepburn]

13. The Party of NO strikes again.

Fucking assholes....:grr:

[barbtries]

14. fucking republicans

they'll do anything to keep progress from happening.