The Democrats won control of the Senate in the November elections, but now since this guy had a stroke or whatever, it seems like it's possible that the Republican Governor of his state may nominate a Republican to take over if Johnson can't return.
My question is, if the people elected a Democrat, why shouldn't the Governor be required to replace Johnson with another Democrat? Either way he’ll be putting someone in office that the people did not elect.
In my opinion, rules like this leave the door wide open for shenanigans wherein “accidents” can be made to happen to people in a situation where the swing of one person can change control over the Senate. Yes, this is a bit of a far-fetched conspiracy theory here, but it’s not impossible.
Here’s part of the article about this:
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota was in critical but stable condition Thursday after emergency brain surgery, creating political drama over whether Democrats will control the new Senate next month if he is unable to continue in office.
Johnson suffered from bleeding in the brain caused by a congenital malformation, the U.S. Capitol physician said. He described the surgery as successful. The condition, present at birth or immediately after, causes tangled blood vessels that can block the flow of blood or rupture.
"The senator is recovering without complication," said the physician, Adm. John Eisold. "It is premature to determine whether further surgery will be required or to assess any long-term prognosis."
Eisold said doctors drained the blood that had accumulated in Johnson's brain and stopped continued bleeding.
Democrats hold a fragile 51-49 margin in the new Senate that convenes Jan. 4. If Johnson leaves the Senate, the Republican governor of South Dakota could appoint a Republican to fill the remaining two years of Johnson's term — keeping the Senate in GOP hands with Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking power.
Johnson's condition, also known as AVM, or arteriovenous malformation, causes arteries and veins to grow abnormally large and become tangled.
The condition is believed to affect about 300,000 Americans, according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. The institute's Web site said only about 12 percent of the people with the condition experience symptoms, ranging in severity. It kills about 3,000 people a year.
beanoX3 wrote:I voted no, but I don't see in the article where it says the governor will be FORCED to pick a replacement from his own party.
I voted hell no! And he wont be forced to pick from his own party. But do you really think he wont?
I'm with knapp though if a person dies or is unfit to serve in office his replacement should be from the same party being that he/she was elected by the people.
beanoX3 wrote:I voted no, but I don't see in the article where it says the governor will be FORCED to pick a replacement from his own party.
He wont be forced to, but he will be under an extreme amount of pressure by his party, and the members of his party to do so. If he doesn't, he can pretty much do away with the idea of ever running for re-election.
Anyway, to answer the question: This seems like an intrinsically unfair system for choosing a replacement. However, it is currently law, so them's the breaks. Hopefully this situation will give them reason to re-examine that law.
beanoX3 wrote:I voted no, but I don't see in the article where it says the governor will be FORCED to pick a replacement from his own party.
He wont be forced to, but he will be under an extreme amount of pressure by his party, and the members of his party to do so. If he doesn't, he can pretty much do away with the idea of ever running for re-election.
Anyway, to answer the question: This seems like an intrinsically unfair system for choosing a replacement. However, it is currently law, so them's the breaks. Hopefully this situation will give them reason to re-examine that law.
Right, and that sucks, but I guess what I'm getting at is that the law should be changed.
If the Gov. has future Republican aspirations... he'll have to pick a Republican.
Personally, I'd like to see what the Dems do in power... instead of just talking about what they would do IF they got in power (btw - no specifics, other then they want a lame duck session till the 2008 Pres. election).
I think the right thing to do is for the governor to have a run-off race... based on the votes, he'll pick the next Senator.
Otherwise, he should stick with the voter wishes... and select a Dem (albiet, he can pick a DINO).
beanoX3 wrote:I voted no, but I don't see in the article where it says the governor will be FORCED to pick a replacement from his own party.
He wont be forced to, but he will be under an extreme amount of pressure by his party, and the members of his party to do so. If he doesn't, he can pretty much do away with the idea of ever running for re-election.
Anyway, to answer the question: This seems like an intrinsically unfair system for choosing a replacement. However, it is currently law, so them's the breaks. Hopefully this situation will give them reason to re-examine that law.
Right, and that sucks, but I guess what I'm getting at is that the law should be changed.
i think youre right, but like Twisted Sister said, the governor wont get anywhere in the future by picking a democrat. the republicans will dump him.
on a side note, my social studies teacher actually worked on one of Tim Johnson's campaigns a few years ago.
Kudos to Leber for the amazing sig and to Metroid for the userbar and making them both fit 2008 and 2009 Defunct Dynasty League Champion
I'm a Republican, but if a State votes in a Democrat, then the will of the people has spoken. He should fill the seat with another Demorcat........ one like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller!
Yo, Met... thanks for the sig! GO DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm a Republican, but if a State votes in a Democrat, then the will of the people has spoken. He should fill the seat with another Demorcat........ one like Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller!
The law in the state which allows the governor to replace a member of congress is worded so that it is only effective if the congressman DIES.
There is no wording regarding INCAPACITATION.
So, the horse may be before the cart here...
(however, there is some federal precedent that may come into play to allow replacement when there is only incapacitation. This will probably be a huge court battle, between states rights and federal powers, and may be quickly jetted to the Supreme Court. Hence we could be on the brink of Gore v. Bush part duex.)
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by knapplc » Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:32 am 
