Todd's Mischief Blog

Yesterday I responded to an article that quoted heavily from the Washington Post on the subject of whether Rep. Gabrielle Giffords would lose her congressional seat. Let me it make clear that I was responding to claims made in the article, not attempting to interpret Arizona state law. More accurately, I was responding to the sentiments expressed in the claims. The Washington Post was getting worked up over nothing. It seems that the statute brought into question regarding whether Giffords’ congressional seat is considered vacant does not even apply to federal offices. Had the reactionaries who were so agitated by the statute bothered to investigate, they would have maybe held their tongues. Instead, their inner workings were partially revealed, displaying a preference to see American citizens unrepresented rather than risk losing a Democrat seat in congress. How’s that for ugly politics? Furthermore, they reveal their contempt for the rule of law first by not bothering to understand i

Giffords could lose seat because of obscure statute Follow the link to read the story if you like. I think the astute observer of the media can guess without looking what the hubub is all about. I haven't listened to the radio today, but I expect this to be the talk all over by tomorrow if it wasn't already today. While I am filled with compassion for Ms. Giffords and the other shooting-spree victims and their families, my observations on the story will be to-the-point: First of all, in this case "obscure" means "a law Democrats don't like." Second, the Washington Post (see the article) proves how obtuse it can be in wondering whether not casting votes for three months can actually constitute a vacancy. Third, my response to Governor Symington: The provision was put in place precicely for cases such as this. If it weren't, there would be an exception for illness or injury, which would render the provision stupid. Also, in this case "injusti