US Senate: Massachusetts

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm
Location: RIP, my friend. - Foggy

US Senate: Massachusetts

#51

Post by TollandRCR »

There is a dull bright side. If, as most on TFB expect, the Republican Party suffers a crushing defeat in the Presidential election and perhaps in some Congressional elections, the Republican Party will seek to "rebrand" itself. It could do worse than seek to return to its Northeastern roots. Scott Brown is a very different choice than is Elizabeth Warren, and Warren would be my choice. However, the nation would be healthier with a reformed Republican Party. I wish that it did not have to start with the defeat of Elizabeth Warren, but that may be the case.
“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#52

Post by esseff44 »

We absolutely cannot recover and get out of our mess if the Senate turns Red with a solid GOP majority. We really really need to get to 60 in order to progress and overcome the obstructionism. It's still a very long time until November. In politics, anything can flip a race in an instant. Elizabeth Warren does not strike me as the type to misspeak or make bozo mistakes. Steady she goes.

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#53

Post by Joseph Robidoux III »

Highlighting mine.It's still a very long time until November. In politics, anything can flip a race in an instant. Elizabeth Warren does not strike me as the type to misspeak or make bozo mistakes. Steady she goes.With a long seven months to go before Election Day, the survey shows Brown with 37 percent of the vote and Warren with 35 percent, while 26 percent said they are undecided. That amounts to a statistical tie, as the telephone poll of 544 randomly selected likely voters, taken March 21-27, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.Both candidates appear to be faring well among the voting blocs each needs most: Brown outpaces Warren by three to one among self-described independents, voters Republicans depend upon in this heavily Democratic state. Warren holds a better than three-to-one lead among those who identify themselves as conservative and moderate Democrats, a group of voters who helped form Brown’s coalition two years ago, when he first won office.In one area that could prove significant as the race moves forward, Brown has a clear lead. Brown was viewed as more likable than Warren by 57 percent of voters, compared with 23 percent who said she was the more likable candidate. Even a plurality of Democrats said Brown was more likable.So far, the campaign has been relatively low-key. The candidates have yet to mount full-on advertising assaults, and neither has absorbed significant attacks.[/break1]boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/04/01/brown_warren_deadlocked_poll_shows/]http://www.boston.com/news/local/massac ... oll_shows/The article also noted that Warren is viewed by Massachusetts voters as more partisan than Brown.I agree with Loh's statement about having a favorable opinion of Brown. I would prefer Warren be elected but I don't dislike Brown.

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6263
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

US Senate: Massachusetts

#54

Post by June bug »

Sorry, I don't see Scott Brown or pretty much any other Senate Republican as a "moderate". I see him as nothing more than a good con artist.Take the Blunt Amendment for an example. "Bi-partisan" Susan Collins and Brown voted for it - in fact, the only Republican to vote against it was Olympia Snow, and only after she announced her retirement. (Lisa Murkowski later said she'd "made a mistake", only after she got an earful from Alaskan women.)Remember the [link]controversy,http://www.masslive.com/politics/index. ... ted_b.html[/link]?Warren said the amendment would have allowed employers or insurers to claim a vague moral conviction to deny contraception or any other health care coverage."This (amendment) threatens[highlight]women's access to contraception, mammograms, even maternity care,[/highlight]" Warren said in her ad. "It's just plain wrong."The amendment was defeated by 51-48 vote margin.Democratic U.S. Sen. John Kerry voted against the measure.Kerry said that while he agrees it's not right to force religiously affiliated institutions to pay for contraception if it violates their beliefs, the defeated amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., would have instead opened up a Pandora's box."Its overly broad and vague exceptions could allow [highlight]children to be denied immunizations, companies to object to mental health services, health plans to deny HIV screenings, and the rejection of maternity care for single mothers[/highlight]," Kerry said. "It's dangerous."esseff had it right:We absolutely cannot recover and get out of our mess if the Senate turns Red...If you think things are bad now, just wait till you see what happens if the Repubs remain in control of the majority of state legislatures and governorships and also get control of the Senate and/or the Presidency.

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#55

Post by Joseph Robidoux III »

This race should keep the makers of antacids happy.
US Senate MA 2012-04-13a.JPG
[/break1]realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -2093.html

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16261
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

US Senate: Massachusetts

#56

Post by Reality Check »

Warren is headed in the right direction. I think the last set of polls had Brown up significantly. Hopefully, she will be able to tie Brown to the Republican War on Women.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 18112
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#57

Post by Suranis »

That would certainly be part of my strategy if I was her. But I doubt it would be a central one. Brown is a nice guy and in a sane Congress would be an excellent senator. Basically she has to focus on proving that first that she would be a good senator too and then prove she would be a better one than he has been. Going negative always hurts you.
The difference between the Middle Ages, and the Age of the Internet, is that in the Middle Ages no-one thought the Earth was flat.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46708
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

US Senate: Massachusetts

#58

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Ms. Warren should also remind her fellow citizens that a vote for Brown is a vote for Mitch McConnell and the lunatic wing of the Republican Party. I'm sure she will. She's no Martha Coakley.

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 12936
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

US Senate: Massachusetts

#59

Post by Whatever4 »

Ms. Warren should also remind her fellow citizens that a vote for Brown is a vote for Mitch McConnell and the lunatic wing of the Republican Party. I'm sure she will. She's no Martha Coakley.And a vote for Brown is a vote for another Alito/Scalia/Roberts.
"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (I-ME)

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#60

Post by Joseph Robidoux III »

Update:


These polls continue to show what most already know. It's going to be a close race.

US Senate MA 2012-05-10.JPG

[/break1]realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/senate/ma/massachusetts_senate_brown_vs_warren-2093.html]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -2093.html

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#61

Post by esseff44 »

Rachel had an interesting segment on Brown making a big, big deal out of Warren's having claim of having Cherokee ancestry and ragged on Harvard for counting that as part of 'diversity' figures for faculty. He asked for her 'papers' by challenging her job application be shown along with her pedigree.As Rachel pointed out, she's just as much Cherokee as the man who was just elected chief of the Cherokee Nation.It's hard to know how voters will react to this. It's really tacky on Brown's part, IMHO. But then, I very biased in Warren's favor.[/break1]msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47381174]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#47381174

Joseph Robidoux III
Posts: 5619
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:02 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#62

Post by Joseph Robidoux III »

Ms. Warren should also remind her fellow citizens that a vote for Brown is a vote for Mitch McConnell and the lunatic wing of the Republican Party. I'm sure she will. She's no Martha Coakley.I believe these two polls indicate Stern is correct and Warren needs to remind voters she will work to pass Pres Obama's legislation and confirm his nominees. Sen Brown is campaigning on his independence from Republican leaders. Warren needs to remind voters where Brown followed the GOP line and voted against the President.
Massachusetts Prez & Senate Poll.JPG
[/break1]realclearpolitics.com/elections/]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/

User avatar
BillTheCat
Posts: 4496
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 4:25 pm

US Senate: Massachusetts

#63

Post by BillTheCat »

I keep forgetting that despite his "progressive" stances on gun control and american obesity, he's just another rich Wall Street shill who'd just as soon vote GOP because they favors the rich:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/g ... own/NY'ers will be so much better off when Bloomy is termed out.
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'
-Lewis Carroll

A Legal Lohengrin
Posts: 10415
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm

US Senate: Massachusetts

#64

Post by A Legal Lohengrin »

I keep forgetting that despite his "progressive" stances on gun control and american obesity, he's just another rich Wall Street shill who'd just as soon vote GOP because they favors the rich:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/26/g ... own/NY'ers will be so much better off when Bloomy is termed out.Bloomberg is a joke.The recent bizarre large soda obsession may turn out to be Bloomberg's "ferret moment."Ghouliani had a meltdown because someone called in to his radio show who just wanted to have a pet ferret.Here's the freakout. It reminds me of Bloomberg.

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10360
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

US Senate: Massachusetts

#65

Post by GreatGrey »

Today's attack on Elizabeth Warren seems to be something about her practicing law without a Massachusetts license. "They" have found a bankruptcy proceeding docket in Pacer in which EW was listed as [NTC Retained].I dunno what NTC is about. The case was in the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, case #00-1517, Cadle Company, et al v. Schlichtmann, et al.Warren get's listed on August 8th, 2001, "ATTORNEY Elizabeth Warren, Arthur R. Miller, Charles Nesson for Appellee Jan Richard Schlictmann added to case. [00-1517][SBT]"Now having just been thru Orly law for a couple of days, I suspect she wasn't the lead, never filed/signed anything. My PACER stuff is being processed, so I can't see how she was added just yet.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#66

Post by esseff44 »

It's a federal court, right? Do you have to have a MA license to practice in federal courts as long as you admitted to some state ?ETA: I just looked it up in the Local Rules. An attorney can apply for admission if they have been admitted to practice in another Appeals Court of another district or the Supreme Court of any state.Also, bankruptcy courts have their own requirements for admission.[/break1]ca1.uscourts.gov/?content=rules.htm]http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/?content=rules.htm

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10360
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

US Senate: Massachusetts

#67

Post by GreatGrey »

Here's a link to the docket that "they" think shows Warren practicing without a license.[/break1]docstoc.com/docs/131254361/Cadle-Company-v-Schlichtmann-First-Circuit-Docket-Report]http://www.docstoc.com/docs/131254361/C ... ket-Report.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46708
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

US Senate: Massachusetts

#68

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

Most federal circuit courts do not require an attorney admitted to practice before it to be admitted in a court in one of the states within its jurisdiction. This is a bullshit charge. And Elizabeth Warren could rightfully represent her client along with her two fellow Harvard Law Professors.

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10360
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

US Senate: Massachusetts

#69

Post by GreatGrey »

The link that's being passed around in RWNJlandia is from American Stinker[/break1]americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/gamechanger_elizabeth_warren_practiced_law_in_massachusetts_court_without_law_license.html#.UGY0m5raApE.twitter]http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... pE.twitterNow to spare ya the pain of those idjiots, the article there links to "Legal Insurrection", which is just about as bad in their accuracy [/break1]com/2012/09/elizabeth-warren-represented-massachusetts-client-in-massachusetts/]http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/el ... achusetts/
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#70

Post by esseff44 »

Of course, Breitbart and Fox News are in full swing propaganda mode saying that because she used an address in MA when when she acted as a consultant on several cases in federal courts and in amicus briefs for the SCOTUS, that she broke the MA law by not being licensed in MA. They are ignoring the fact she was acting as a consulting legal expert on bankruptcy law and was not practicing based on the laws of MA.The people who do this are injecting even more toxins into an already poisoned system. :evil:[/break1]breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/24/Does-Elizabeth-Warren-Have-a-Law-License-Problem]http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... se-Problem

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

US Senate: Massachusetts

#71

Post by Piffle »

If this has legitimate legs to it, it might be because she held forth a Massachusetts address as her primary (and only) legal "office" for a period of years.If she had maintained a practice elsewhere -- in a state in which she was licensed -- and the cases in question were entirely federal matters, there would probably be no problem.From what I gather from the Google machine, there's a lot more disinformation out there at present than reliable facts so I'm withholding judgement for now. IMO, it's entirely possible that she has a "problem".This is tricky stuff. In the past several decades, more and more law firms have offered so-called "multi-jurisdictional" services. Depending upon state rules, it does not necessarily constitute unauthorized or unethical practice for a firm to have members that practice full-time in an office within a state wherein they are not licensed. Typically, someone at the office must be licensed in the state and members who are not licensed there must either restrict their practice to providing advice pertaining to state law where they are licensed or to federal matters that are not state-dependent.If Warren's "practice" scrupulously avoided advising on matters arising from Massachusetts law (i.e., were essentially federal, including bankruptcy) and if she was affiliated with Massachusetts practitioners, there may be no problem at all, depending on the nuances of Massachusetts interpretation of UPL.I dunno. But one thing I do know: the simplistic allegations I'm seeing in the RW blogosphere come up far short of a competent analysis.

DrIrvingFinegarten
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:11 pm

US Senate: Massachusetts

#72

Post by DrIrvingFinegarten »

[/break1]bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view/20220930stick_to_your_guns_scott/srvc=home&position=1]http://www.bostonherald.com/news/column ... position=1Big surprise, Howie Carr thinks the "phony Indian" strategy is a legitimate attack.

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

US Senate: Massachusetts

#73

Post by mimi »

The debate is being live-tweeted. hashtag is #masen. Note that's the hashtag for Massachusetts Senate Race, not just the debate.idunno if this link will work.[/break1]com/i/#!/search/%23masen]https://twitter.com/i/#!/search/%23masenThe debate is also on the CSpan. I'll watch the highlights later. :P

User avatar
Slarti the White
Posts: 7051
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 2:52 pm

US Senate: Massachusetts

#74

Post by Slarti the White »

Here's a link to NBC's live feed of the debate:[/break1]msnbc.msn.com/nbcnews.com/49246370/#49246370]http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbcnews.com/ ... /#49246370
"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
---Sun Tzu (quoting Thomas Jefferson)
nam-myoho-renge-kyo---Thomas Jefferson (quoting Slartibartfast)

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10360
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

US Senate: Massachusetts

#75

Post by GreatGrey »

Here's a link to NBC's live feed of the debate:[/break1]msnbc.msn.com/nbcnews.com/49246370/#49246370]http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbcnews.com/ ... /#49246370David Gregory is apparently still Karl Rove's fall back date.
I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

Post Reply

Return to “U.S. Senate”