February 3, 2010, - 2:39 pm

When Will the U.S. Senate Seat Scott Brown?

By Debbie Schlussel

**** BREAKING: Scott Brown Likely Sworn in Tomorrow (Thursday) ****

When Al Franken was named the elected U.S. Senator from Minnesota, after a long, contested recount, he was seated within a week.  Yet, Republican Senator-Elect Scott Brown–who trounced his Democrat opponent Martha Coakley and has been the decided victor for some time now–remains unseated.  Why are we allowing liberals to do this?  Votes continue to be cast illegally by temporarily-appointed Senator Paul Kirk.


He Did It, Now Seat Him

Reader Karl writes:

Hey Debbie,

Anything you can dig up on Brown not being seated yet?

Or how about the Senate taking the votes when the temp in the position has no legal right to vote since the election?

They have raised the debt and who knows what else will be forced through, while they delay and keep taking the illegal votes to pass whatever they want.

Seems the MSM is silent as usual.  Franken got seated in less than a week.

Just think it needs some attention, and attention from you does crash web sites by your readers’ response.

Today, Scott Brown finally demanded to be seated. But don’t hold your breath yet. You may die waiting for the Democrat machinations designed to continue pushing through as much big government as possible.  The Dems are now telling him to wait until February 11th.

But, why must he wait a month?  He won, fair and square.  SWEAR. HIM. IN.  NOW.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

15 Responses

I’m no constitutional scholar, but it sounds like “taxation without representation.” The state of Massachusetts should withhold all federal taxes and immediately sue the U.S. Gov.

Rick on February 3, 2010 at 2:49 pm

Scott Brown says he’s going to go to be sworn in tomorrow. The certification of the election is done. I’m disappointed in the spinelessness of the Senate GOP. He could have been seated within 24 hours of his election if they had taken a stand. There is no legitimate reason to delay his taking the office to which he was elected.

NormanF on February 3, 2010 at 2:54 pm

Deb, I am with you on this one. The independents decided this matter and they need to be heard, not a bunch of drug dealing zombie crooks like the Democrats. THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS DECIDED THIS ELECTION! SEAT BROWN NOW HYPOCRITES!

Bob Porrazzo on February 3, 2010 at 2:59 pm

Reid said he would be seated without delay.That was then, this is now. Typical democrat.

Harry Reid Lied on February 3, 2010 at 4:19 pm

Not directly related to Scott Brown, but in a way, it is:


Steve Harkonnen on February 3, 2010 at 4:27 pm

Ms Schlussel: Without discounting the genetic thuggery of the Senate Dems, I find fault with both the Senate Republicans (I called Cornyn’s office a few days ago, and they DEFENDED the delay!), but, also, I am disgusted with Scott Brown, who — face it — kicked back and ran the late-night talk-show circuit with no visible signs of angst over a swearing-in date. Seems like someone may have given the Massachusetts Moderate a well-needed “pep talk” and kick in the butt.

man_in_tx on February 3, 2010 at 4:41 pm

Al Franken once told me he could win any seat in Minnesota with the right body politic(winkwink).

Real Men don't like Voter Fraud on February 3, 2010 at 6:57 pm

Well, I would expect them to seat Franken sooner. AFter all Congress is a big joke, so of course Franken would get seating preference.

Not surprised about Cornyn. When the Republicans get 41, they will really have to put up or shut up; given their reluctance to confront the Dems in the past, I can see where they’d want to avoid responsibility as long as possible. Sad, sad, sad.

Little Al on February 3, 2010 at 7:29 pm

I think he will be seated soon. If he is not, Mr. Brown should take the matter to court.

Worry01 on February 3, 2010 at 8:59 pm

saw this on another blog comment:

Based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.

The Senate subcommittee and committee concluded, based on its hearing and review, that “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.” 1939 Congressional Record, p. 998. There was evidently no controversy among either the subcommittee or full committee regarding this legal conclusion, and the committee then presented a resolution to the Senate for adoption, expressing the view that Berry’s term of service expired on November 8, 1938, the date of the special election. As Senator Connally, a member of the subcommittee, explained to the Senate, the fact that the Tennessee statute purported to extend Berry’s term until the qualification of his successor was of no force because the statute was “plainly in conflict with the provisions of the seventeenth amendment.” Accordingly, the Senate adopted the proposed resolution without dissent. 1939 Congressional Record, p. 1058.

Based on this authority, it would appear that a valid point of order could be raised as to Senator Kirk’s participation in Senate proceedings after January 19, 2010.

of course as long as a dem is doing it, it is ok.

ender on February 3, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    It would be a good thing for Republicans to bring up, but Democrats have such an overwhelming majority that one lost vote would not mean much in most cases.

    Worry01 on February 3, 2010 at 11:12 pm

Maybe he should have just bum rushed himself in like Roland Burris.

CaliforniaScreaming on February 3, 2010 at 10:03 pm

Feb. 11? That’s a day I’d be careful about. Achmedinejad had “promised” the World something spectacular that day to commemorate the Islamic Revolution. Now it comes up a second time. I’m supposed to go to Haifa that day for a medical test. Maybe I’ll change my appointment. Maybe I’m being silly. If I comes up a third time I take back the second statement.

mk750 on February 4, 2010 at 1:56 am

I heard on the news today that Scott Brown wanted to take two weeks to get things in order before being sworn in but changed his mind, or maybe someone changed it for him.
Looks like the -man_in_tx on February 3, 2010 at 4:41 pm- comment was right.

Makes you wonder if either party really wants to take up resposibility and shoulder the burden of being a majority. No one to blame that way for their own unpopular agenda and screw-ups. Unless you’re O’boomboom of course, than you just simply blame “the previous administration” for everything!

Actually, come to think of it, with Brown in office, there might be some democrats breathing a sigh of releif.

theShadow on February 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm

My apologies to – Little Al on February 3, 2010 at 7:29 pm –
who said:
“Not surprised about Cornyn. When the Republicans get 41, they will really have to put up or shut up; given their reluctance to confront the Dems in the past, I can see where they’d want to avoid responsibility as long as possible. Sad, sad, sad.”

I sort of aped yor comment but it’s one that deserves repeating.

theShadow on February 4, 2010 at 8:11 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field