Hey Mitt, what about “let the people vote”?
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was quick to say things like “[w]e must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect” when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples had equal rights to marry.
As the law currently stands, Romney would appoint an interim senator to replace Kerry. The appointee would not face an election until 2006, when they would be able to run as an incumbent after having been in office for almost two years; that election would be to fill out the term until January 2009. In other words, for a third of the 6-year term, the seat would be held by an unelected gubernatorial appointee. You know, like the SJC judges.
I’m absolutely certain that the crowds of pro-amendment folks who came in for the Constitutional Convention will soon be outside Mitt’s office chanting “Let The People Vote”…won’t they?
The truly ironic quote is at the bottom of the article, though:
“You really don’t want to create a monopoly that has so much power it is going to change the law in such a blatantly partisan way and at a time when people are really looking to have fairness and equality on Beacon Hill,” Romney said.
Yes, Mitt. People are looking for fairness and equality, and you’re the one trying to deny it to them.
February 20th, 2004 at 20:56
Two-faced Mitt Romney
Chris doesn’t understand why the Mittster is all about the election thing when it comes to gay marriages, but when it comes to a possible…
February 23rd, 2004 at 09:37
But didn’t the people already vote to establish that the governor appoints senators in this situation? The only inconsistency here is your argument.
February 23rd, 2004 at 15:11
The law’s been in place for 82 years according to the Globe article. Very few, if any, of the current voters were involved in that decision. (By that argument, we don’t need any more constitutional amendments, either; voters decided on the ones we have, already, right?)
February 24th, 2004 at 10:45
All that free speech stuff was written up 200+ years ago. Very few, if any, of the current voters were involved in that decision. Yet we seem to like that one. Perhaps you wouldn’t if it would keep a Republican out of the Senate?
A constitutional amendment would be new law, so by definition votes have not been cast on the issue already.
Eventually, everyone has to settle on some rules and just stick to them unless there is a truely compelling reason to change (extending rights to same-sex couples, i’d argue, is one such compelling reason). The alternative is a very unstable society. The appointment power of the governor is something that has been settled for 82 years and is being proposed for change only for political reasons. It seems reasonable to oppose such a change. I’d even say it is the right thing to do.