NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_go_co/johnson If he cant continue serving then control may well shift back to the GOP as the SD governor is a Republican and would likely appoint one of his own. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 First of all, that he recovers... then we can talk politics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted December 13, 2006 Author Share Posted December 13, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 13, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) First of all, that he recovers... then we can talk politics Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 That's very scary. It sounds like they caught it very, very, very early which is a great sign for the Senator and his family. Hopefully he gets a fasty, speedy and complete recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 yeah, yeah, of course we are concerned for his health, now let's talk politics. When this comes up, and it goes either way, it seems that the replacement should be from the same party. It has never made sense to me the fairness of a Dem picking a Dem to replace a GOP and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 13, 2006 -> 04:43 PM) yeah, yeah, of course we are concerned for his health, now let's talk politics. When this comes up, and it goes either way, it seems that the replacement should be from the same party. It has never made sense to me the fairness of a Dem picking a Dem to replace a GOP and vice versa. It makes sense because that Senator is a representative of South Dakota first, and his party second. And the Governor is the highest representative of the state. So, despite that it may cause a stir in the Senate, I happen to agree with the policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 You both raise good points, but how many of us Illinoisans (or at least at heart anyway), would want Blag Daddy or George Ryan to pick a new senator. *shudder* Either way, the way they caught the stroke so early makes it seem to me like he'll be okay and their won't need to be a replacement. Plus he's (relatively) young, so I think he'll make it back to the hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) It makes sense because that Senator is a representative of South Dakota first, and his party second. And the Governor is the highest representative of the state. So, despite that it may cause a stir in the Senate, I happen to agree with the policy. So the Governor picks someone from the same party as the person being replaced. I am certain there are great Dems and Reps in every state. Then the odds are better the replacement would have closer views than someone from the other party. And the will of the people should trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 13, 2006 -> 03:09 PM) So the Governor picks someone from the same party as the person being replaced. I am certain there are great Dems and Reps in every state. Then the odds are better the replacement would have closer views than someone from the other party. And the will of the people should trump. South Dakota statute: 12-11-1. Special election to fill congressional vacancy--Time of election of representative. If a vacancy occurs in the office of a senator or representative in the United States Congress it shall be the duty of the Governor within ten days of the occurrence, to issue a proclamation setting the date of and calling for a special election for the purpose of filling such vacancy. If either a primary or general election is to be held within six months, an election to fill a vacancy in the office of representative in the United States Congress shall be held in conjunction with that election, otherwise the election shall be held not less than eighty nor more than ninety days after the vacancy occurs. Link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeFroman Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Well, I guess the Dem's hold on the senate is even more tenuous then previously thought. It does sound like he's going to be ok... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Update on Johnson's Condition Word has it that he is speaking and is expected to be fine. More to come... Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota was hospitalized Wednesday, weeks before his party was to take control of the Senate by a one-vote margin. Johnson, who turns 60 on Dec. 28, was admitted to George Washington University Hospital with an undiagnosed illness, said a spokeswoman, Julianne Fisher. She said, however, the senator did not suffer a stroke or heart attack. His office had said earlier it was a possible stroke. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Dec 13, 2006 -> 05:29 PM) South Dakota statute: Link. Election - even better. But I still contend that a Governor's nomination should not be bound by party. I think that runs counter to the spirit of a representative body in a federalist nation like ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 13, 2006 -> 07:46 PM) Election - even better. But I still contend that a Governor's nomination should not be bound by party. I think that runs counter to the spirit of a representative body in a federalist nation like ours. Regardless of what the law is for that state ... election, appointment, bound by party, whatever ... The state law is the important thing ... The law passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. There is no way the feds should have a say so in who represents the people of a state. So to say that it should be bound by party ... just because it might change the balance of power in the senate ... is bunk. Unless, the state law deems it be that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 (edited) wow, good thing I am keeping up with the news on my state's politicians prayers for the best...I've always liked Johnson. I met him once when I was in 4th grade. I have a hunch he doesn't remember me Edited December 14, 2006 by witesoxfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 It sounds like Republicans are already 'salivating' - which is pure bunk if that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 04:25 AM) It sounds like Republicans are already 'salivating' - which is pure bunk if that's the case. They probably are, but it will more than likely come to nothing. Which I hope is the case. That means he has a reasonably full recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I Just saw the reports this morning that he's in critical condition. Damn. Hopefully he comes out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 07:10 AM) I Just saw the reports this morning that he's in critical condition. Damn. Hopefully he comes out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 07:10 AM) I Just saw the reports this morning that he's in critical condition. Damn. Hopefully he comes out of it. I've heard that since I made my post, as well. He sounds like a good man. Hope he pulls through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 02:24 AM) Regardless of what the law is for that state ... election, appointment, bound by party, whatever ... The state law is the important thing ... The law passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor. There is no way the feds should have a say so in who represents the people of a state. So to say that it should be bound by party ... just because it might change the balance of power in the senate ... is bunk. Unless, the state law deems it be that way. I am not saying the feds should. I am saying that the voters in a state have elected someone. The obviously want someone like that to represent them in that position and at that time. I think we can also agree that there are fundamental differences between the parties. The best chance that the voter's choice would continue is to have a member of that same party representing them. And this goes both ways, and I am speaking in a general sense. But if the voters elected a conservative Senator, how are they better served when the Governor appoints a liberal to fill his shoes, or vice versa? And of course I am not advocating a change in this situation, the law is the law. But I'd like to read a counter explaining how the voters, who elected someone with a given ideology and from a certain party, benefit when someone from the other party, and presumably a different ideology, is selected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 08:14 AM) I am not saying the feds should. I am saying that the voters in a state have elected someone. The obviously want someone like that to represent them in that position and at that time. I think we can also agree that there are fundamental differences between the parties. The best chance that the voter's choice would continue is to have a member of that same party representing them. And this goes both ways, and I am speaking in a general sense. But if the voters elected a conservative Senator, how are they better served when the Governor appoints a liberal to fill his shoes, or vice versa? And of course I am not advocating a change in this situation, the law is the law. But I'd like to read a counter explaining how the voters, who elected someone with a given ideology and from a certain party, benefit when someone from the other party, and presumably a different ideology, is selected? The people didn't elect a party they elected a person. They also elected the state legislature and the governor. Johnson had 'successful' brain surgery last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) The people didn't elect a party they elected a person. They also elected the state legislature and the governor. Johnson had 'successful' brain surgery last night. And shouldn't there be some effort or protection that the same type of person be selected as the replacement? If they elected a Pro-Life, war hawk why should the replacement be a Pro-Choice dove? How are the voters better served? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) The people didn't elect a party they elected a person. They also elected the state legislature and the governor. Agreed. As you stated, this is a representative of the state and the people, and should not involve the federal government. QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 08:19 AM) Johnson had 'successful' brain surgery last night. Glad to hear it. I wonder what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 14, 2006 -> 08:38 AM) Agreed. As you stated, this is a representative of the state and the people, and should not involve the federal government. Glad to hear it. I wonder what that means. How would requiring selecting someone with different views honor the voter's intent? I don't see anyone here mentioning anything about Federal. My point is honor the intent of the voters and select someone similar in views. So far no one has tackled this from the voter's perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts