Judge tells GOP to go F itself, Mass to get new Senator this afternoon

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A Massachusetts judge on Friday rejected a Republican request to delay the swearing in of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's temporary replacement.

...

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly denied the request and dismissed the case after hearing arguments Friday morning.

"The (Republican) Party has not shown that it has a chance to succeed on the merits and, therefore, any risk of harm to the party will not outweigh the risk of harm to the governor and the commonwealth," Connolly wrote.

Kirk is to be sworn in Friday afternoon in Washington.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_...uccessor_gop_11

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Merits? Kennedy had the law changed so that Romney couldn't appoint someone in the event of a John Kerry Presidency. Now that they're assured of a dem appointment, the law is changed again. Here we change laws based on whatever political gain we can make in the short-run (well at least MA).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Merits? Kennedy had the law changed so that Romney couldn't appoint someone in the event of a John Kerry Presidency. Now that they're assured of a dem appointment, the law is changed again. Here we change laws based on whatever political gain we can make in the short-run (well at least MA).

Are you commenting on the judgment without having actually read it?

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course, it's not ideologically sound to actually examine the evidence, simply ramp up the platitudes et voila, Joe's show is on the road again, yipee!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Merits? Kennedy had the law changed so that Romney couldn't appoint someone in the event of a John Kerry Presidency. Now that they're assured of a dem appointment, the law is changed again. Here we change laws based on whatever political gain we can make in the short-run (well at least MA).

Are you commenting on the judgment without having actually read it?

I did read it before this was even posted, but I didn't see the part where he said "merits"

I'm just pointing out that it changes with whatever political gain can be made. Thats all.

[mawilson 2,133]

Doesn't surprise me.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Of course, it's not ideologically sound to actually examine the evidence, simply ramp up the platitudes et voila, Joe's show is on the road again, yipee!

Another irrelevant post. Moving along.

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course, it's not ideologically sound to actually examine the evidence, simply ramp up the platitudes et voila, Joe's show is on the road again, yipee!

Another irrelevant post. Moving along.

You the message board policeman now? Groovy, I'm going to try to post to keep in your good books, yessir, yessir.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Actually, come to think of it, this judge is telling the Law to go F itself.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Massachusetts needs a Senator sooooo bad. Teddy pushed the law in Mass that wouldn't let then Republican Governor Romney pick a Senator in 2004 if Kerry won the presidential race. Now he wants it changed back. Typical Mass Dem strategy.

Of course Ted Kennedy missed 97% of the votes in 2009. I guess representation wasn't really that important then.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000105/

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Merits? Kennedy had the law changed so that Romney couldn't appoint someone in the event of a John Kerry Presidency. Now that they're assured of a dem appointment, the law is changed again. Here we change laws based on whatever political gain we can make in the short-run (well at least MA).

I think changing that law to suit one parties agenda was quite hypocritical. Now the law is back to where it was originally.

[GabiandVi 34]

If, in fact, the judge was "telling the GOP to go F itself," he wasn't basing his decision on the merits. I tend to agree with the decision of the judge. At the same time, I think this whole thing stinks to hell and back of the worst kind of partisanship and blatant hypocracy and I would be ashamed to be touting it even if I was pleased with the outcome. But I suppose if you are a total hypocrite, you don't find anything shameful in this sort of thing. It's a sort of "chalk one up for my team and be damned with the precedent it sets or the harm it does."

I sort of think if you are going to play fast and loose with your constitution, you should have to suffer your own consequences, but I don't think it's the judge's place to see that happens. His job is to carry out the law and I think he probably did that.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Merits? Kennedy had the law changed so that Romney couldn't appoint someone in the event of a John Kerry Presidency. Now that they're assured of a dem appointment, the law is changed again. Here we change laws based on whatever political gain we can make in the short-run (well at least MA).

I think changing that law to suit one parties agenda was quite hypocritical. Now the law is back to where it was originally.

typical of the left and the "above the law" Kennedys

[Peikko 1,575]

Keep telling yourself it's only left wing politicians who are in it for themselves and not 'the people'

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Keep telling yourself it's only left wing politicians who are in it for themselves and not 'the people'

How's the view?