I agree, but I wouldn't even go this far. The fundamental principle at stake here is majority rule. In 2004, a majority of legislators wanted the state succession law changed. The Democrats weren't turned out of office. So, since there is no constitutional provision dictating senatorial appointments, there is no reason not to do this, especially since it would only immanentize the inevitable.Well, look, I sympathize with Sen. Murray and the mixed feelings of her fellow Dems. This is obviously Calvinball, after all. But seriously, ask yourselves this: do you think the Texas legislature would hesitate even a few hours to do the same thing in reverse? Or any other Republican state legislature?
I didn't think so. Now go change the law and let Deval Patrick fill that Senate seat. Don't be chumps.
Seriously, one of the reasons why liberalism has such a squishy reputation is because of people like this senator, who seem repelled by ever throwing weight around and doing something controversial. But we're not talking about something that is illegal, immoral, unethical, or undemocratic. We're talking about a procedural change, in essence. Since that right is reserved to the states for the time being, and most every other state supports interim appointments, there's no real argument for not doing this that holds up.
