Posts Tagged ‘brain cancer’

Laws As Playthings For Democrats’ Partisan Ideology

August 23, 2009

There are people for whom the law represents fixed and objective standards.  They see lady justice as blind; and the law as representing no interest beyond what is right.

And then there are Democrats.

Kennedy Asks for Faster Way to Pick His Successor

By ABBY GOODNOUGH
Published: August 20, 2009

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, terminally ill with brain cancer, has asked state legislative leaders to change the law and let Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a temporary replacement upon the senator’s death.

Under current law, the seat would be vacant until a special election could be held 145 to 160 days later. But Senator Kennedy, a 77-year-old Democrat, wrote in a letter to the governor that he wanted Massachusetts to have full representation in the Senate during that period.

Although he did not mention the issue in the letter, it is becoming increasingly clear that Democratic votes will be crucial to passing the health care legislation that is the subject of intense Congressional debate. Senator Kennedy has been a passionate supporter of overhauling the nation’s health care system, but his absence from the debate and from public life in recent months has raised speculation that he will not be well enough to cast a vote when the time comes.

Should Senator Kennedy die before then, it is likely that, under current law, his seat would still be vacant when the legislation came up for a vote in the Senate.

Mr. Patrick and legislative leaders, all Democrats, did not immediately offer opinions on the senator’s request, which was first reported in The Boston Globe.

“It’s typical of Ted Kennedy to be thinking ahead and about the people of Massachusetts,” Mr. Patrick said in a statement, “when the rest of us are thinking about him.”

In a joint statement, Robert DeLeo, speaker of the State House of Representatives, and Therese Murray, president of the Senate, said: “We have great respect for the Senator and what he continues to do for our Commonwealth and our nation. It is our hope that he will continue to be a voice for the people of Massachusetts as long as he is able.”

Up until 2004, state law called for the governor to appoint a temporary replacement for a Senate seat that became vacant. But in that year, when Senator John Kerry, a Democrat, was running for president, the Democratic-controlled Legislature wanted to deny the governor at the time — Mitt Romney, a Republican — the power to name a replacement if Mr. Kerry won the presidency.

In his letter, Mr. Kennedy, who has held his seat for 47 years, wrote that he supported the 2004 law, but he added, “I also believe it is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.”

The New York Times, of course, makes it all about what a magnificently wise and noble man Ted Kennedy is, always thinking ahead and thinking of others.  They forget to mention what a blatantly crass partisan political move this would be.

The same people who nominated a “wise Latina” whose rulings would be better than a white male’s – and who frankly don’t give a damn about justice being blind as regard to race, gender, or political affiliation – have struck again.

First they write a law and pass it in order to prevent a Republican governor from being able to appoint a senator if John Kerry was elected president – as the law had previously required – and now they want to change it back for the sake of the same partisan special interest that led them to change it in the first place.

That’s right.  When John Kerry was running for president, Ted Kennedy decided to change Massachusetts law to prevent Republican Governor Mitt Romney from being able to appoint the new US Senator should Kerry win.  It was naked special interest partisan ideology at work, but what the hell.  And now that there’s a Democrat governor, and Ted Kennedy realizes he may not make it, he wants to change the law back to favor Democrat special interest partisan ideology again.

Basically the law is whatever the hell Democrats want it to be at any given moment – which is really the way it’s been ever since Democrats first began to gaze into the constitutional crystal ball and see penumbras and emanations.

These people would be ashamed of themselves – if they had any shame.

Tragically, and shamefully, Americans will probably look the other way while Democrats prove that we are no longer a nation of law, but rather only a nation of partisan politics.

Advertisements