I've been pretty fixated on other politicians from the Land of the Grand Canyon, and recent events caught me flatfooted. Can anyone tell me about Governor Ducey of Arizona? I don't ask as to who he's likely to appoint (at this point, who knows?), but I'd like to know about things that are likely to make him jump in one direction or another. I would certainly hope he would take into account the fact that there are over four years left unexpired in the term!

This USA Today story has a list

Link

I know its legal but I don't think its right

Usually we get to vote for a Senator, they call them representatives for a reason

if he circumvents that process, we really don't have a representative, the governor has his own Senator whose done nothing to earn the position

with all that is wrong with Arizona politicians it will be very interesting to see who he picks

I am really hoping its not his wife or daughter - we need to be done with the McCains

There's a lot of factors in play that complicate the decision.

First, Ducey is up for re-election this year himself. So any appointment he makes has potential for political backlash. The Red for Ed movement that orchestrated the teacher's strike this spring does not hide their opposition to him.

Second, we currently have a mid-term campaign for Jeff Flake's seat in the US Senate since he is not running. The democrats have a strong candidate this year and it would not be surprising to see them win that seat. The republicans have 3 candidates on the ballot with another 2 running as write-ins. Appointing a candidate that is currently in that race would have a potential negative impact.

Third, its mid-term election season which means all of our US Representatives are running. Paul Gosar, a current US rep who is running for re-election has stated his interest in the seat. Appointing a candidate out of the US House races could also affect the balance in the house.

So yeah, the timing of this sucks. Thanks for leaving this to us John...

^^^ There was a guy named Salmon who got mentioned who seemed pretty interesting.

Why would the governor name someone running for Flake's seat or the House? I can see nhtagmember's point, but given that the Dems may take the other seat, why not bank a solid vote for conservative justices? Besides, a solid conservative vote might win some hearts and minds by the time the seat comes up for a vote again in November of, what, 2022?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
This USA Today story has a list

Link

I saw that with an attribution to some Arizona newspaper or another. The story had a certain tone (the Mrs. front and center, and all of the bios looked like they were plagiarized from the candidates' websites), and that's what kind of spurred me to start this thread. There's going to be a blizzard of speculation this weekend and on from there, so I figured I'd try to tap the collective wisdom of the hive mind instead.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Why would the governor name someone running for Flake's seat or the House?

That was my point that the timing of this complicates matters.

Kelli Ward is one of the candidates in the republican primary to replace Flake. She ran against Flake in the primary 6 years ago and lost mostly due to being outspent by the establishment. She could be a potential appointee for the seat. However, doing that would have an impact on the current primary.

Couple that with the fact that Martha McSally, the current front runner in the republican primary has a PAC that has been running non-stop brutal attack ads against Ward. I could only imagine if one of them was appointed and the other elected the never ending cat fight that would go on between them.

Like I said, the timing of this now with primary elections going on really complicates matters. McCain really should've stepped down earlier and most of the current complications could've been avoided.

Gov. Ducey will make his appointment after the primary.

He will do that to avoid getting flak for whoever he appoints from one side of his base or the other - and risking his own success in the primary.

He will also have a clear view of who is left (available) for appointment, those who have not won the primary.

I just hope it is not another McCain.

At least the primary elections are this week, so hopefully we’ll see who he’s going to appoint shortly thereafter. Whomever it is going to be, hopefully is a supporter of appointing Kavanaugh.

My fear is if Ducey appoints McCain's wife or daughter, they would feel obliged to continue the McCain bias of opposing anything that is positive for the Trump administration.

^^^^^^^^ This



I believe that Ducey could flop either way on this - he has been weak on 2A issues lately, and caved to the teacher's unions. He still has a lot of Republican support, but I see him wavering lately.

As long as it’s a vote for Kavanaugh.

quote:

I just hope it is not another McCain.

I hear there's a good chance his Senate seat will flip to red this year.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
As long as it’s a vote for Kavanaugh.

That was my first thought too.

How tone deaf would Ducey have to be to appoint one of McCain's family members? Could he really think that this moment in history of all times is the right time to go all dynastic with a senate seat?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
As long as it’s a vote for Kavanaugh.

That is my biggest concern. IMO appointing someone conservative, not another McCain, with ambitions to win the senate seat as a republican when the next election for it comes up would be the safest choice.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I know its legal but I don't think its right

Usually we get to vote for a Senator, they call them representatives for a reason

Actually, they don't call them "representatives" at all. They call them "Senators," and they were originally meant to be selected by state governments. The 17th Amendment changed that. (I think that was a mistake.)

Representatives are elected to the House of Representatives, and we call them "Representatives."

^^^

a difference without a distinction

quote:

a difference without a distinction

To an extent... you are both right.

The House of Representatives was intended to directly represent the people of their district. Senators were intended to represent the State.... which is why their selection process was left up to the States. The 17th Amendment changed that. (I also think that was a mistake.)
Now, the only difference between the House and Senate is that Senators represent more people because there are fewer of them.

The 16th and 17th Amendments weakened the States relative to the federal government.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
To an extent... you are both right.

No. My point was we do not "call them representatives." We call them Senators, because they are Senators.

nhtagmember may regard that as "a difference without a distinction," but call a Senator a representative to his or her face and I'm confident he'll be quickly corrected

It's almost as if the two houses of congress we intended for two different functions with two different masters or something.