Hypothetical Senate Question

[sirs]

Again, this is purely hypotehtical, and in no way is wishing to see Senator Johnson incapacitated or on his death bed.  Besides simple common human concern, as a medical professional, my position will always be in support of a complete recovery. 

If the poll allows for comments, by all means, please add the "why" to any option you choose, that doesn't follow both legal & historical precedent.  Legally, as Bt has indicated, the governor can appoint whomever, and historically, when Dems gained a 50/50 in the Senate, during Bush's 1st tenure, they demanded and received co-chairmanships.

So what-say-you folks?

[BT]

The law of South Dakato says that the governor appoints a replacement as necessary, there are no restrictions as to whom he can appoint.

The same type of law was in effect here in Georgia when Paul Coverdell died and was replaced by Zell Miller.

Where there joint chairs when Jeffords switched?

[Amianthus]

Thursday, December 14, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Democrats' slight hold on power in the Senate is largely safe despite South Dakota Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson's health scare, Senate Historian Don Richie tells CNN. As stipulated by Senate rules, Johnson could retain his seat even if he is incapacitated, unable to vote, and not even able to show up to work.

Moreover, the Senate does not have the power to forcefully remove Johnson unless he committed a crime.

Such a scenario has even occurred in Johnson's home state of South Dakota. After South Dakota Sen. Karl Earle Mundt had a stroke in 1969 he remained in office until his term expired in 1973 without casting another vote after the governor refused Mundt's wish of appointing his wife to the post.

A state governor has the power to appoint a new senator only if the current senator dies in office or resigns his seat.

-- CNN Congressional Producer Ted Barrett
Article

[sirs]

Thanks for the heads-up, Ami

[sirs]

Hmmm, over 11 viewings, and yet only 1 vote, outside of myself.  Interesting

[Xavier_Onassis]

Hmmm, over 11 viewings, and yet only 1 vote, outside of myself.  Interesting

I voted once.

 Did you vote three times?
 
For a Democrat?

Can this be true?

I guess it depends on how you define "vote outside of myself"/

Was it like, an out-of-body experience, dude?

[sirs]

I voted once.  Did you vote three times?  For a Democrat?  Can this be true?

No, you're only allowed to vote once.

Was it like, an out-of-body experience, dude?

Well, considering your rhetoric is most often non-reality based, you tell us

[Amianthus]

Did you vote three times?

Ignoring the snark, at the time he posted his comment, there were a total of 2 votes cast. His and mine. For the same result, actually - the one enshrined in the South Dakota Code.

[Brassmask]

Clearly, Rush and FOX are pushing hard for the Senator from SD to be declared incapacitated or else sirs wouldn't be so interested in what happens.

I haven't really looked into it yet, but I will be checking to see if his bout could have been induced in some way.

[Amianthus]

Clearly, Rush and FOX are pushing hard for the Senator from SD to be declared incapacitated or else sirs wouldn't be so interested in what happens.

Apparently, the Governor can only name a replacement if he:

• Dies
• Resigns
• Is kicked out of the Senate

Being declared incapacitated won't do it.

[sirs]

I haven't really looked into it yet, but I will be checking to see if his bout could have been induced in some way.

 

And of course the lack of proof will be proof positive that such a nefarious undertaking was at hand.  Knock your socks off, Brass

[Brassmask]

Clearly, Rush and FOX are pushing hard for the Senator from SD to be declared incapacitated or else sirs wouldn't be so interested in what happens.

Apparently, the Governor can only name a replacement if he:

• Dies
• Resigns
• Is kicked out of the Senate

Being declared incapacitated won't do it.

Too bad they didn't know that yesterday.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/14/johnson-fox-news/

They report, you decide.

[Brassmask]

And of course the lack of proof will be proof positive that such a nefarious undertaking was at hand.  Knock your socks off, Brass

Let's just see how it goes, shall we?

I said that I would be looking into it not that it had happened.  You should know how to assume, don'tcha?

[sirs]

Let's just see how it goes, shall we?  I said that I would be looking into it not that it had happened.  You should know how to assume, don'tcha?

See how what goes?  You should know what a practical hypothetical is, correct?  So, what-say-you?  Something other than current legal and historical precedent?

[Brassmask]

See how what goes?  You should know what a practical hypothetical is, correct?  So, what-say-you?  Something other than current legal and historical precedent?

You're out in Crazytown again.  I have no idea why you're getting all worked up.  All I said was I going to look into whether or not his condition could have been induced.  That's all.   

Geez.  At least let me make crazy accusations first!  We haven't even gotten to the point where we can make them yet.  There aren't even any indicators that something might have been done to Sen Johnson in order to try and get control of the Senate back to the lying scum in the GOP.  Sheesh.