Senators Kennedy & Kerry must yield their 'Senatorial courtesy'

Senators Kennedy & Kerry must yield their 'Senatorial courtesy' objections as to President Bush' nomination of Reed Hillman for US Federal Marshal in chief of the Federal District of Massachusetts. While part of the approval process of the US Senate's prerogatives as to assenting to US Presidential appointments of particular rank; ie Federal judgeships; Senatorial privilege can be overcome by the vote of the full Senate; and is usually a lesser privilege, often disregarded, when the President and objecting Senators are of different parties. In those cases, the President usually informs or seeks recommendations from senior members of Congress or elected State officials of his political party in the state.

In the Massachusetts case, the Mr. Hillman nominated by President Bush for US Marshal, is a Republican, and a past election candidate for Lt. Governor with GOP gubertorial nominee Kerry Healy. While no immediately known past judicial marshal or sheriff's experience, the nominee has excellent qualifications in law enforcement (as a past careerist in the Massachusetts State Police, including State Police Supervisor); and is degreed also in law.

Mr. Kennedy's objections are as expected by his tradition of hard-core partisanship ... Mr. Kerry's siding with him on the same basis is a grave disappointment to expectations of objetivity & independence and lately no surprise.

The full Senate should overcome thir objections; reduced as partisan only, and let us be on with a good US Marshall for Massachusetts as commended by the President. The Democrats will have their turn when or if they elect a Democrat to the White House.

WIKI link to 'encyclopedic explanation of Senatorial courtesy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatorial_courtesy

Further local commentary at the Letters to the Springfield Republican (Springfield Mass.) here http://www.masslive.com/letters/republican/ & more on Senatorial courtesy at the WIKI link above.

Massachusetts Wampanoag Indian Casino Gambling Approval

Massachusetts Wampanoag Indians Casino gambling approval in Middleborough will cost the state as much as $250 million in government revenues. While aiding and abetting the Wampanoags and the local community of Middleborough, that sum is the approximate amount of the sweetner payment negotiated by the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts to dissuade the State of Massachusetts from pursuing its own casino gambling initiative. The sum was the estimate of that figure which might cost Connecticut's approved casino gambling industry, and/or the State's revenue? share, if Massachusetts established, or the native Americans in Massachusetts established their own casinos.

For Massachusetts taxpayers and the state budget, in the effective fiscal year, that creates an instant $250 million budget/revenues shortfall; and, albeit affecting Connecticut's casino revenues, a state savings for Connecticut taxpayers of the same $250 million.

Blogging for RSS Newsfeeds Is In the Lead

Blogging for Newsfeeeds is in the lead, whether for your self, your friends, or cell phone, or addicts with RSS readers, the blogger can capsulate his headline and lead sentence into one; so that the computer editor for news alerts (SMS or E-Mail -- ie YAHOO) will recapitulate your headline - usually chopped off - if it is in the lead sentence!

Electing Judges ?

Massachusetts voters and residents may wish to reconsider their constitutional processes as to judicial appointments and amend the state constitution to permit an entire election of the bench; as is done by Washington State. A reminder, that Washington became a state in the ere of great political reform in the United States; and that state which planned a governemnt with character and integrity of President George Washington, placed that in the new state's constitution.

This blogger has lived and voted in past years in Seattle Washington; and the entire judicial slate from sub-county to Supreme Court Justice are nominated -- seek election and elected to the bench for a term, with very good results.

Link to Washington State Constitution referencing the election of state judges.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/other/WA_CONSTITUTION.htm see Article IV Sections 3 & 5

Margaret Botsford's Hubby's 'bribe' to Governor Patrick

Governor Duval Patrick, in another chapter in his campaign contributions and gifts ' un-accountabilities (see earlier blog posts here as to post-election gifts); has seriously erred in accepting a suggestion of his friend Mike Dukakis' recommendation of State Superior Court Judge Margaret Botsford as a nominee to the State Supreme Court bench.

While not yet expressed as such, her husband's triple times legal contribution to Patrick's gubernatorial campaign, almost exactly poses an acceptable jury question of 'bribery' by Federal prosecutoral standards.

Margaret Botsford should withdraw her nomination herself, and personally, or with her husband, correct the illegal campaign gratuity; and /or the Governor should withdraw the nominee's name!


News sources for the illegal campaign contribution came from the sources below

Boston Herald

Worcester Telegram

WWLP Channel 22 NBC Springfield Mass. (Friday night? Saturday night?)

A Governor elected by and for the people - casts that duty aside unlawfully for the entire time he considers the execution of his duties in service to a payor of bribes -- ie an illegal contributor. When such an event occurs, such as that distraction by gratuity, the people have lost their elect's detached objective duty.