Looks like S.D. law requires a special election:

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.

12/14/2006 10:30:42 AM

oops

12-11-4. Temporary appointment by Governor to fill vacancy in United States Senate. Pursuant to the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Governor may fill by temporary appointment, until a special election is held pursuant to this chapter, vacancies in the office of senator in the Senate of the United States.


12-11-5. Special election to fill senate vacancy. The special election to fill the vacancy of a senator shall be held at the same time as the next general election. The general election laws shall apply unless inconsistent with this chapter.

so, all this means is that the special election to fill the vacancy must be held at the next general election (2008) and the the Gov must appoint someone to the position until then. Oh well, no special elections anytime soon..

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 10:34 AM. Reason : more info]

12/14/2006 10:32:15 AM

i think its highly unreasonable to suggest that this scenario was never considered by the people who ultimately decided that a governor should be vested with this authority

besides, you have a popularly elected official making this decision. people dont like it? they can remove him (governor or senator or both) from power in 2 or 4 years...but until then, they have to live with his decision...it's the compromise between dictatorship and constant unstability via military coups

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 10:35 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2006 10:33:27 AM

yeah, they can remove them from power over this!!!... in 2-4 years
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, AMIRITE?

gmafb

more responsive democracy != constant unstability via military coups

also, unstability is not a word

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

12/14/2006 10:49:01 AM

our version of democracy values deliberateness more than responsiveness

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 11:11 AM. Reason : instability, whatever]

12/14/2006 11:05:38 AM

^
winn4r

(besides, South Dakotans elected Jon Thune to the Senate more recently than Tim Johnson, so surely that indicates the people want Republicans in the Senate!!! )

this whole debate is pointless. i hope Johnson gets better; short of him dying (which i doubt will happy) he's not going anywhere...

12/14/2006 1:13:20 PM

Slow news day, I see.

50-50 Senate!?[/scroll]

12/14/2006 2:44:35 PM

Quote :

"more responsive democracy != constant unstability via military coups also, unstability is not a word"

wow you sure didnt read that correctly...

a compromise is the fine balance between two competing ideas, extremes, interests

so democracy is the best thing we can come up with lying in between the spectrum of instability and permenant dictatorship

12/14/2006 2:57:30 PM

Quote :

" What's unethical (or a violation of legal ethics) for a Republican governor to appoint a Republican Senator? Has any Democratic governor, given the opportunity appointed a Republican Senator? Of course not - Democrats appoint Democrats, Republicans appoint Republicans. What's so hard to understand about this?"

Instead of spewing forth retarded republican vitriol, why don't you actually look shit up.

When Sen. Heinz (R) died in the plane crash, Gov. Casey (D) instead of appointing anyone to office had a special election in which the people voted for Sen. Wofford (D) over Gov. Thornburg (R)

Prior to that election, PA law required for Gov. Casey to appoint someone, but since the job was turned down by every republican Casey asked including Lee Iocoaca and Gov. Thornburg, Casey appointed Wofford.

12/14/2006 4:00:12 PM

So would they have to replace him? In the House they just leave......no replacements. If he does leave it would just be 50-49.

12/14/2006 4:15:27 PM

^^and then John Kerry married his widowed wife. Small world huh?

12/14/2006 4:18:29 PM

Quote :

"nutsmackr: Instead of spewing forth retarded republican vitriol, why don't you actually look shit up. When Sen. Heinz (R) died in the plane crash, Gov. Casey (D) instead of appointing anyone to office had a special election in which the people voted for Sen. Wofford (D) over Gov. Thornburg (R) Prior to that election, PA law required for Gov. Casey to appoint someone, but since the job was turned down by every republican Casey asked including Lee Iocoaca and Gov. Thornburg, Casey appointed Wofford."

?

12/14/2006 4:46:18 PM

I think he was saying that he went about trying to appoint a republican before appointing the democrat.

I hate to agree with nutsmacker, but this is one particular instance in which he tried to follow the voters' intentions.

Doesn't mean it happens everytime or even most times, but it is one instance of it.

12/14/2006 4:47:40 PM

Quote :

"it's deciding the balance of power. no one man should have that type of authority."

You sure didnt bitch when one Jim Jeffords did it. And unlike Ted Kennedy, where the issue is in some debate, sources close to the Senate confirm that Jim Jeffords is, in fact, one man.

Quote :

"If I were the governor, I would appoint a moderate democrat. "

Again I maintain that you would appoint someone of your own party. First, it is unlikely that you would get to be Governor without fairly strong party loyalties. Second, a Governor has political favours to pay back. Thirdly, if you were up for re-election, and you are the one who ensured your party's loss of control of the United States Senate, your party would not back you for re-election.

If the people wanted the governor to have to appoint someone of the same political party as the former Senator, they would have passed a law requiring it.

[Edited on December 14, 2006 at 5:04 PM. Reason : add]

12/14/2006 5:03:03 PM

Let me try this again. I, Byron Mims, would have appointed a moderate democrat. You saying "Well if you were governor, you wouldn't" is stupid, because it is quite obvoius I can't even BE the governor of South Dakota anyhow, so maybe THAT's a good reason I wouldn't appoint anyone.

The point is that I am not the governor, and I don't have the party loyalties he has. The reason that I would rule from what I considered correct and fair rather than what some base tells me to is precisely the reason I won't run for office. I would have appointed a moderate democrat. The end.

12/14/2006 5:23:54 PM

The point is that you have absolutely no idea what you would do in that situation, because you are not even slightly aware of the political realities that come with 1) getting into that position, 2) serving in that position, and 3) being re-elected to that position.

12/14/2006 5:49:31 PM

And that makes it right!

12/14/2006 6:03:41 PM

Of course it does. If the people thought that the governor should appoint someone of the party of the old senator, then they would have passed a law that said that.

12/14/2006 6:11:56 PM

The current laws are always a reflection of what's right, because people would have passed laws already if they weren't.

Flawless logic from our top law student, Perry Mason.

12/14/2006 7:30:37 PM

I guess all those old missionary position-only laws are a reflection of this fundamental principle.

12/14/2006 8:15:51 PM

If you say so.

12/14/2006 9:12:49 PM

That is the logic represented by your argument. You're using an evidence of absence argument to justify the absence of evidence, i.e. an extant law saying a governor must appoint someone of the same party as the old senator. It's laughable.

In another context, the same argument would label you an atheist--which I know you aren't--rather easily.

12/14/2006 9:36:06 PM

so the senator has AVM. just like nate from six feet under.

12/14/2006 9:41:14 PM

If the tables were turned and if this were a Republican Senator and the Governor were a Democrat I suspect that some on this thread would wholeheartedly defend the Governor's right to choose anybody he likes.

12/14/2006 9:59:21 PM

and? people on this board talk about the holocaust not happening and 9/11 being a vast zionist conspiracy.

12/14/2006 10:21:57 PM

whats funny is all you liberals will become conservatives when you get older

12/14/2006 10:27:52 PM

tell me more oh wise 21 year old.

12/14/2006 10:28:43 PM

Quote :

"The people did not approve any law requiring the Governor to name someone from the party of the deceased Senator."

LOL! Well, I expect that statement from you.

If government ran by the spirit of the law instead of the letter of the law, attorneys wouldn't make a lot of money, would they?

12/15/2006 2:50:33 AM

Hahaha burn.

12/15/2006 3:36:11 AM

Quote :

"whats funny is all you liberals will become conservatives when you get older"

that's funny, I'm becoming more liberal as I get older.

12/15/2006 4:12:59 AM

Certainly not every liberal will become a conservative as they age, but there is a general trend that has been seen.

And nuts, hate to break it to you, but you need to be at least 30 to talk about trends as you age.

12/15/2006 7:47:32 AM

^

I don't think this trend really exists.

Consider, say, Northern California. Do people here not age? Because I don't see some sudden influx of Republican victories on the horizon anytime soon.

Don't you think this whole notion contradicts the "red state v. blue state" paradigm that dominates modern politics?

12/18/2006 5:07:49 AM

Smoker, the trend surely exists, but it also isn't the only trend affecting people's choices of political affiliation.

Some areas are inherently more liberal than others for social reasons, and therefore the general population trend of getting more conservative isn't observed.

Consider crazy hippies. Even if they get pretty conservative compared to their 1970s selves, they're still going to appear to be liberals to the general population.

12/18/2006 7:45:33 AM

once you make money and the gov takes it all, you become more conservative......if you are a Walmart employee 4like(or starbucks, Food Dawg, Burger King) you will stay liberal because you will never have anything, just a poor bum.

12/18/2006 2:23:46 PM

^I love arguments like that that are so easily destroyed, yet parrotted again and again.

and also, who gets to set the arbitrary age in which we are old enough to tell a trend in our political leanings?

12/18/2006 2:31:48 PM

Well nuts, if you're referring to my saying you need to be 30, then you're correct in that I chose an arbitrary line. But I think most people will agree with me that between the time of 18-24 you haven't very well had time to have an age-based progression in your political views. More likely is your educational changes and lifestyle changes, rather than simply aging.

12/18/2006 2:39:18 PM

Well, personally, that is the way it is with my family

Sisters graduated from college liberals, as the made money(HR Director one, owns own company other) they have become more conservative...when i was in college, people told me once i left i would become more conservative, I laughed....but it has slowly happened...(still am mostly Dem, havent found a GOP candidate that I could vote for)


First time ever last year I owned taxes, and didnt make that much...I figure this year, since I made MORE than last year, I doubt I will see much of it.


nutsmacker has always been one of the lunatic fringe posters on tww.

[Edited on December 18, 2006 at 2:43 PM. Reason : w]

12/18/2006 2:40:06 PM

I think the trend you see is fairly widespread. I think its sad, though, that people don't understand what a burden taxation is until it hits them directly. It seems downright selfish (although, I know it is human nature) to think high taxes on the middle class and wealthy are fine until they become middle class or wealthy.

Not dissing you personally, I just don't like how people don't wake up until they are affected directly. I'm sure I'm as guilty of this in other aspects of political viewpoint, though.

12/18/2006 2:49:44 PM

Quote :

"Well nuts, if you're referring to my saying you need to be 30, then you're correct in that I chose an arbitrary line. But I think most people will agree with me that between the time of 18-24 you haven't very well had time to have an age-based progression in your political views. More likely is your educational changes and lifestyle changes, rather than simply aging."

because clearly, unless you are 30 all changes in your life are strictly dependent on educational changes and lifestyle changes. Nevermind the people who get jobs right out of college, they're just not 30 yet.

Quote :

"I think the trend you see is fairly widespread. I think its sad, though, that people don't understand what a burden taxation is until it hits them directly. It seems downright selfish (although, I know it is human nature) to think high taxes on the middle class and wealthy are fine until they become middle class or wealthy."

first, have this debate in an objective manner. Determine what is high and what isn't high. Secondly, it is selfish of the members of the community to not pay for goods and services rendered to them. As a resident of any city state or country, you a receiving goods and services from the government, you need to pay for them. Thirdly, the wealthy are wealthy because of the current system. They owe the system for providing their wealth. As it stands, the tax burden, stictly speaking in terms of percentage of income is disproportionally directed at the middle and working-class. The rich while they may pay the most, the precentage of income paid is less than everyone else.

[Edited on December 18, 2006 at 2:54 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2006 2:50:53 PM

Ok, well you keep arguing the changes from 18-24 are from aging. Also, keep arguing that 10 years of global climate change are indicative of trends. I wouldn't expect any other logic from you.

12/18/2006 2:55:20 PM

the classic bgmmims one liner of logical fallacy and misrepresentation.

[Edited on December 18, 2006 at 2:56 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2006 2:56:01 PM

So, can you tell me why you think the trend is age-based?

12/18/2006 4:10:41 PM

I don't think that there is a trend. The burden of proof is on you to prove there is one.

12/18/2006 6:33:07 PM

Quote :

"They owe the system for providing their wealth."

Wow.

The system didn't provide my wealth. I provided it by taking risks and working my ass off.

Keep in mind that it is not the gov't that creates jobs, it's the rich. Very few poor people hire anyone. Every dollar the gov't strips from you disappears into the vast wasteland of gov't bureacracy. That dollar is used so inefficiently that it would be laughable if not so sad. Those dollars could've been spent on creating jobs, or purchasing goods and services from the private sector.

12/18/2006 11:57:04 PM

Quote :

" Some areas are inherently more liberal than others for social reasons, and therefore the general population trend of getting more conservative isn't observed."

Like the whole country?

Smoker4:

Quote :

" Don't you think this whole notion contradicts the "red state v. blue state" paradigm that dominates modern politics?"

You do realize there are only a few "swing states," right?

12/19/2006 4:17:11 AM

Quote :

" The system didn't provide my wealth. I provided it by taking risks and working my ass off. Keep in mind that it is not the gov't that creates jobs, it's the rich. Very few poor people hire anyone. Every dollar the gov't strips from you disappears into the vast wasteland of gov't bureacracy. That dollar is used so inefficiently that it would be laughable if not so sad. Those dollars could've been spent on creating jobs, or purchasing goods and services from the private sector."

you are entirely ignorant. The majority of jobs are created by small business, which are typically not owned by the rich. But as it stands, you only believe that you pulled yourself up by the bootstraps because your political ideology prevents you from recognizing the influence of government in providing for you.

12/19/2006 12:13:47 PM

Quote :

"The majority of jobs are created by small business, which are typically not owned by the rich"

Actually the majority of small business owners are considered rich by the standards of the lower class.

Also, you mean to tell us that without the government programs encouraging business, there wouldn't be any business? That's blatantly stupid.

12/19/2006 1:05:34 PM

Quote :

"your political ideology prevents you from recognizing the influence of government in providing for you."

I'm well aware of the influence of gov't. By and large, it interferes in our lives everyday. All the gov't should be doing is protecting us from force and fraud, almost every other function could be more efficiently accomplished by the private sector.

Ask any small business owner if the gov't on the whole helps or hurts their business and, unless they sell to the gov't, the answer will be that it almost always hurts.

12/19/2006 1:44:34 PM

Earthdogg, you can't ask them because they don't see the big picture like nuts does. Only he sees the whole picture, where the government makes people rich or poor, regardless of effort.

12/19/2006 2:26:52 PM

Quote :

"almost every other function could be more efficiently accomplished by the private sector. "

ill name some things that prove you wrong.

UNIVERSAL education
health care
roads/transit

the government does things that private business wont do because it serves a purpose for the public and has little to no personal reward. but then, you already knew what the purpose of government was right?

12/19/2006 2:37:08 PM