What’s the Franken Precedent for Seating Scott Brown?

By
Wednesday, February 03, 2010 at 2:57 pm

Republicans have done a pretty fantastic job of working the refs and making a political issue out of when Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.) will be seated. Before the election, they raised the possibility of delays to gin up conservative support. And before the polls even closed in Massachusetts, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) recorded a video demanding that Democrats seat Brown immediately.

Right now, Brown is demanding that he be seated as soon as he is certified as the winner of the election tomorrow — sending him to the Senate a full week earlier than had been scheduled. The reason, according to his counsel Daniel Winslow, is that “there are a number of votes scheduled prior to that date.”

Because Brown is going to fill a seat left vacant by the death of another senator, there’s not a ton of direct precedent here. But the last man elected to the Senate (we’re not counting interim Sen. Paul Kirk) did not get this speedy treatment. Last year, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won a lengthy legal battle that certified his victory on June 30. Later that day, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-Minn.) signed Franken’s certificate of election. It took one full week for Franken to be sworn in, on July 7, more than seven months after he won the first recount of the election.

Brown’s argument that Democrats are moving ahead with votes on nominees — breaking filibusters with the help of Kirk — is compelling. But for those seven months between Franken’s recount win and his certification, the Senate simply operated with 99 senators, and the 41- (then 40-) member Republican caucus was free to filibuster Democratic bills and nominees.

Again, the circumstances of the races are so different — Franken’s slim victory, Brown’s special election — that parallels are going to be imperfect. But this sets up a no-win situation for Democrats. Either they stick to their plan and get excoriated for blocking Brown’s right to serve in the Senate — something Republicans have been ready to argue for a month — or they cave to Brown and seat him, infuriating Democrats who watched Franken sit in limbo for seven months while Republicans blocked vote after vote after vote.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Categories & Tags: | | |

Comments

6 Comments

uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted February 3, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TWI_news: What’s the Franken Precedent for Seating Scott Brown? http://bit.ly/9vENeX...


sherifffruitfly
Comment posted February 3, 2010 @ 3:39 pm

How about pissing off republicans for once? Just once?


Mr. Xyz
Comment posted February 3, 2010 @ 5:44 pm

“We’ve told so many lies, young scientists are totally confused”

http://climaterealists.com/?id=4960
(a video spoof of climate science)


desertwind
Comment posted February 3, 2010 @ 9:48 pm

Dems should've fought harder for Franken, but now that's water under the bridge and they should just seat Brown.

Dragging it out creates a story Brown & Reps will exploit & does Dems no good.


IngsocUSA
Comment posted February 4, 2010 @ 8:02 pm

What a stupid commentary. Consider that you spend your closing paragraph apologizing for the comparison that was the centerpiece of your argument.


IngsocUSA
Comment posted February 5, 2010 @ 1:02 am

What a stupid commentary. Consider that you spend your closing paragraph apologizing for the comparison that was the centerpiece of your argument.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.