looks like Senate seat to be appointed to guy who failed previous bid for it, no election required.

[butters]

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — When Republican Jim Pillen becomes Nebraska’s governor next month, one of his first acts will likely be to name his predecessor and biggest supporter to fill an open U.S. Senate seat.
Pillen was elected in November in large part because of current Gov. Pete Ricketts ’ backing, and now he can return the favor by appointing him to the Senate, more than 15 years after Ricketts spent $12 million of his own money on a failed bid for the office.

Even as they acknowledge Ricketts is deeply conservative and qualified to replace outgoing Sen. Ben Sasse, some Republicans aren’t sure such an appointment would be a good idea.

“It looks bad. It smells bad. What it looks like is two rich guys using their money and power to grab a Senate seat,” said Jeremy Aspen, an Omaha Republican and former state party delegate. “This is how authoritarian countries operate, where a powerful few ride roughshod to get what they want. Things like this stay on voters’ minds.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=db0cb9787b844ad8aa54280257927f15

he might be good for the position, might not, but to think he can just be appointed (especially after a failed previous election-bid) to a position of such importance is... disturbing. Is this sort of thing common in the Senate??

 

[phrodeau]

Is this sort of thing common in the Senate?

According to our local right-wingers, Kamala Harris slept her way to a Senate seat.

 

[butters]

According to our local right-wingers, Kamala Harris slept her way to a Senate seat.

yeah, but they're full of shit so...

 

[drobert44]

O yes, Nebraska.............

 

[Lazaran]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=db0cb9787b844ad8aa54280257927f15

he might be good for the position, might not, but to think he can just be appointed (especially after a failed previous election-bid) to a position of such importance is... disturbing. Is this sort of thing common in the Senate??

The Jeremy Aspen comments were very telling.

Either he’s an idiot for not understanding how his corrupt party operates, or he’s a POS for acting like he’s concerned about this “new” revelation about how his corrupt party operates.

JFC

SAD

 

[butters]

The Jeremy Aspen comments were very telling.

Either he’s an idiot for not understanding how his corrupt party operates, or he’s a POS for acting like he’s concerned about this “new” revelation about how his corrupt party operates.

JFC

SAD

perhaps he's only now concerned because of their anti-trumpism

 

[Lazaran]

perhaps he's only now concerned because of their anti-trumpism

If Jeremy Aspen is a “Trumper”, then his comments are even more ridiculous.

What a clown show the entire “republican party” is.

JFC

SAD!!’

 

[KeithD]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pc=U531&cvid=db0cb9787b844ad8aa54280257927f15

he might be good for the position, might not, but to think he can just be appointed (especially after a failed previous election-bid) to a position of such importance is... disturbing. Is this sort of thing common in the Senate??

Yes, it's common.

 

[Escierto]

Republicans are corrupt douche bags who are guided by only one principle: white supremacy. Their voters would vote for any cretin as long as he or she supports white supremacy. Hell you can even be an Uncle Tom like Tim Scott. That’s why their whole base of voters are ignorant white trash losers.

 

[icanhelp1]

You sure went out of your way to impress Laz.

 

[colddiesel]

According to our local right-wingers, Kamala Harris slept her way to a Senate seat.

Even if it was true, it illustrates an intriguing point of political/moral philosophy: In modern democracies it is perfectly acceptable to purchase votes but not to barter (oneself) for them. Philosophically there is not the slightest difference between the two methods.

 

[YDB95]

Is this sort of thing common in the Senate??

Not nearly as much as it used to be. That's partially because almost every time a governor has (effectively) appointed himself to the Senate - and I think it's fair to say that's what's happening here - he has lost the next election. There was only one exception, way back in the '50s.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

Not nearly as much as it used to be. That's partially because almost every time a governor has (effectively) appointed himself to the Senate - and I think it's fair to say that's what's happening here - he has lost the next election. There was only one exception, way back in the '50s.

There have been several elected after appointed just in the last 20 or 30 years.
I just looked. 17 since late 80s.
There have been a shit ton of appointments since the turn of the century. Like 25 or so. Probably more. Its as common now as it used to be.

 

[YDB95]

There have been several elected after appointed just in the last 20 or 30 years.
I just looked. 17 since late 80s.
There have been a shit ton of appointments since the turn of the century. Like 25 or so. Probably more. Its as common now as it used to be.

I was talking about governors appointing themselves to the Senate. That hasn't happened since 1977 (and on that occasion the senator lost next time out).

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

I was talking about governors appointing themselves to the Senate. That hasn't happened since 1977 (and on that occasion the senator lost next time out).

What does that have to do with anything? A governor didn't appoint himself.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Yea... Those pesky Republicans!!!!! Following the Constitution and all! The nerve.

FFS.

Vacancies Filled by Gubernatorial Appointment​

In the following 37 states, the governor makes an appointment to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy, and the appointee serves until the next regularly scheduled, statewide general election. The person elected in that general election serves for the remainder of the unexpired term, if any. If the term was set to expire at that general election, the person elected serves a full six-year term.


[TR]
[TD]Alabama[/TD]

[TD]Kansas[/TD]

[TD]New York (2)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Arkansas[/TD]

[TD]Kentucky (1)[/TD]

[TD]North Carolina (1)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Arizona (1)[/TD]

[TD]Maine[/TD]

[TD]Ohio[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]California[/TD]

[TD]Maryland (1)[/TD]

[TD]Pennsylvania[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colorado[/TD]

[TD]Michigan[/TD]

[TD]South Carolina[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Delaware[/TD]

[TD]Minnesota (2)[/TD]

[TD]South Dakota[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Florida[/TD]

[TD]Missouri[/TD]

[TD]Tennessee[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Georgia[/TD]

[TD]Montana (1)[/TD]

[TD]Utah (1, 3)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hawaii (1, 2, 3)[/TD]

[TD]Nebraska[/TD]

[TD]Virginia (2)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Idaho[/TD]

[TD]Nevada[/TD]

[TD]West Virginia (1)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Illinois[/TD]

[TD]New Hampshire[/TD]

[TD]Wyoming (1)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Indiana[/TD]

[TD]New Jersey (2)[/TD]

[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Iowa[/TD]

[TD]New Mexico[/TD]

[TD] [/TD]
[/TR]



(1) The governor’s appointee must be of the same political party as that of the vacating senator.

(2) If the vacancy occurs before a specified date preceding the regular primary (Hawaii, 21 days; Minn., 11 weeks; N.J., 30 days; N.Y., 59 days; Va., 120 days), the election is held the following November; if the vacancy occurs within the specified period preceding the regular primary, the vacancy election is held at the second November election after the vacancy occurs.

(3) The governor makes an appointment by selecting from a list of three prospective appointees submitted by the party.

Did any of you Scrotes pass your 9th grade Civics class?

 

[butters]

What does that have to do with anything? A governor didn't appoint himself.

i'm not entirely sure that's the case:

this appears to be a matter of two very rich guys working together in their positions as governor to get the other one further up the ladder. The work of one to get the other elected into the governor's postition is now being paid off by that incoming governor to get the first into the senate. Seems to have very little to do with the will of the people and much closer to a buddy system.

When Republican Jim Pillen becomes Nebraska’s governor next month, one of his first acts will likely be to name his predecessor and biggest supporter to fill an open U.S. Senate seat.
Pillen was elected in November in large part because of current Gov. Pete Ricketts ’ backing, and now he can return the favor by appointing him to the Senate, more than 15 years after Ricketts spent $12 million of his own money on a failed bid for the office.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

i'm not entirely sure that's the case:

this appears to be a matter of two very rich guys working together in their positions as governor to get the other one further up the ladder. The work of one to get the other elected into the governor's postition is now being paid off by that incoming governor to get the first into the senate. Seems to have very little to do with the will of the people and much closer to a buddy system.

Yeah thats how it works. But a governor did not appoint himself. He appointed a political friend. Thats what they all do.

 

[butters]

Yeah thats how it works. But a governor did not appoint himself. He appointed a political friend. Thats what they all do.

he's expected to appoint the governor who got him into the job as next governor... kinda quid-pro-quo, no?

 

[YDB95]

Yeah thats how it works. But a governor did not appoint himself. He appointed a political friend. Thats what they all do.

Governors don't literally appoint themselves, but this case does look a lot like there was backroom dealing going on.
And no one ever said anything against governors appointing senators. The issue is the appropriateness of whom they're appointing.

 

[butters]

Governors don't literally appoint themselves, but this case does look a lot like there was backroom dealing going on.
And no one ever said anything against governors appointing senators. The issue is the appropriateness of whom they're appointing.

i don't understand how it's considered fine for a governor to appoint a senator rather than that person be elected

 

[ll74]

i don't understand how it's considered fine for a governor to appoint a senator rather than that person be elected

The state voted for that to be the case. Each state decides its own approach.

 

[butters]

The state voted for that to be the case. Each state decides its own approach.

thanks.

 

[JohnnySavage]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

 

[phrodeau]

i don't understand how it's considered fine for a governor to appoint a senator rather than that person be elected

You may be shocked to learn how Gerald Ford became President.