Talk:List of United States senators in the 111th Congress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joe Biden[edit]

Shouldn't Biden still be listed and his replacement removed? He may well continue to serve into the 111th Congress since he doesn't have to resign until January 20th, 17 days after the congress begins. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can pretty much guarantee he will. Should he step down any time before the 111th conveines then the Republicans would take control of the Senate.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, as discussed elsewhere (I can't remember where), the Republicans cannot take control of the Senate without a reorganizing resolution, which the Democrats would filibuster. The 2001 change was allowed by the original organizing resolution which permitted such a change.—Markles 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I at least put that he probably will stay in the seat without getting into specifics. Surely The democrats don't want to have to spend the last days of this congress in filibuster... also, are there implications regarding Biden having been re-elected to the term that starts on Jan 3. For instance, is he required to make an attempt to show up. I wonder if starting a 7th term puts him into a higher pay/pension grade.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose Biden would want to show up so he can get sworn in. But there's no reason to say "probably" because that's not what Wikipedia is about- it's an encyclopedia, not a political suggestion box or crystal ball.—Markles 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I've already said my peace about this page and crystal ball. Thanks for the input.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again about the Republicans & the Senate: It's not gonna happen. It can't happen without a reorganization resolution which would not happen because it's well understood that the Democrats would block it with a filibuster. As it is now well understood, it becomes like other filibuster threats in the Senate: the threat is enough to stop the action so a filibuster would not actually have to be performed. Think of all those cloture votes that have failed in the last few years… they aren't actually trying to stop an active filibuster, they're just test motions and then the party leaders take the action off the agenda to prevent a filibuster.—Markles 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.--Dr who1975 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Ball[edit]

This page is completely crystal ball. We didn't do it like this 2 years ago. Even after the new Senate conveines... this page really shouldn't be made until somebody in the new Senate steps down (most likely Joe Biden). Before then... it's repetative.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not crystal ball. It's not crystal ball to say Obama and Biden are gonna leave the Senate, along with all the defeated/retiring members. Moving everyone is quite logical, and makes for a useful list. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For starters... Biden won't be gone right away. More importantly, you're not just addressing Biden and Obama... the page addresses the fate of a at least a dozen Sneators (and technically... it address the fate of all of them). For instance, how do you know Hillary Clinton will still be there. As another relevant example: Stephanie Tubbs Jones dropped dead two months ago and that changed everthing on the house of reps pages. Stuff happens.
      Everything you're talking about is addressed in Seniority in the United States Senate... and as I said before... it won't be necessary to spawn this... what will be the historical listing... until somebody steps down from the 111th Senate or the 111th Senate ends.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a crystal ball any more than 111th United States Congress is a crystal ball. Some assumptions can be made very safely with explanatory caveats for the others.—Markles 18:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case... it's still redundant and unecessary... everything is already covered by Seniority in the United States Senate... please note that I didn't create List of United States Senators in the 110th Congress by seniority until Craig Thomas died... waiting until then was by design back then too.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoguht of something... the two pages may differ now... but come January 3rd... this page will be nearly identical to Seniority in the United States Senate and it will remain so until Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden resign. That's basically what I was getting at.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure. Between 1/3/09 and changes, the 111th article can redirect to the Seniority article. But that's the only time.—Markles 23:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I probably won't even do that. Thanks anyway.--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So where does it leave this article? You said (earlier) that it's WP:Crystal Ball, and I disagreed (along with User:LtNOWIS. Have you changed your mind, or do we need other people to weigh in?—Markles 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can leave it unless somebody objects. I'd probably prefer to wait until it actually starts but don't feel strongly either way. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed my mind about anything, as I said above, I'm just agreeing to disagree.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering[edit]

Something has bothered me about how these Congress-specific lists are numbered for some time, and the current situation in Illinois helps explain why. The question is who, if anyone, is number 100 if Kaufman takes his seat before a new Illinois senator takes his or her seat. It wouldn't make sense to number Kaufman 100 because we do not number the third (or greater) senator from a state. It wouldn't make sense to have Kaufman before the 100th senator, either, because we don't normally have an unnumbered senator before a numbered one. Ending at 99 would convey the impression that the Senate was down a member for the entire Congress. I would recommend renumbering so that a senator who leaves mid-Congress would not have a number, and the replacement would have one. For old Congresses, that would change the numbering from reflecting the first day of the Congress to the last day. For the current one, it would change the numbering from the first day of the Congress to the current one. Any thoughts? -Rrius (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the difference between "current" and "111th." The Current article should only have 100, labelled 1-100. If there are vacancies, then that 100 will be 99, 98, etc. The 111th article should have as many Senators as served (which will be 100 or greater), and labelled 1 through that number. I believe there should not be blank numbers in either article.—Markles 14:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the difference in the tables, but the current one does what I said it does, which is less preferable than showing the active senators (or senators active on the last day of the Congress) with numbers. Having no numbers is intriguing, but I wonder if that would make it too hard to place where any individual was in comparison to everyone else.
I'm not sure how you are answering the problem I initially pointed out with what could happen in this Congress. Let's say the Illinois vacancy isn't filled until after the Delaware seat becomes vacant and is filled. Begich would be 99, Kaufman would be blank, and Illinois would be either blank or 100. I pointed out what I see as problems with either eventuality, but I don't see why you think going with the blank option is better. I also don't see what the value is of preserving the day-one rankings. Merely differentiating the numbering from the Current article does not strike me a particularly strong reason, especially for the 109th and early articles. -Rrius (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regular terms beginning[edit]

Unless a Senator came in mid-term or early, her/his seniority starts on the beginning of Congress (January 3) not the beginning of the session (sometimes January 4-7, the day they are sworn in). The oath does not begin their service, but the oath is necessary for them to serve. It's subtle, but seniority goes to January 3. Does anyone have reliable sources to contradict this?—Markles 14:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate's chronological list contradicts it, but it also contradicts itself. -Rrius (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So... What do we do about Franken and Coleman?[edit]

Now that we have a result, sort of, what do we do about having both Franken and Coleman on the Seniority list? Do we keep them both, delete them both, or just keep Franken? There are plenty of historical precedents for senators voluntarily showing up late, such as Rockefeller, who waited until after his term as governor ended before appearing to take the oath. However, does anyone know of any precedents since direct election where a senator was elected, but the senator was delayed by the state legal process from presenting credentials? I know there was that New Hampshire incident where the Senate declared a vacancy, but I think that case involved multiple certificates rather than a late one. -Rrius (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, the list provided by the Senate is the reference, let's see what they come up with. Hekerui (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more clear. I actually have two sets of questions. The first concern what we do between noon tomorrow and the time the inevitable election contest ends. The second concerns where Franken will go on the list assuming he ends up certified. I assume Hekerui's comment addresses the latter point. Obviously when the Senate gets around to publishing an updated list we can work from that, but what do we do until then? If there is some precedent that we are aware of, we can make a choice before the list is issued. If there is no precedent, or we can't find one, how do we handle it before a list comes out? -Rrius (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
109th, 110th, it all runs together. So if we cut Coleman and put in Franken, what do we do when he isn't seated tomorrow? Does he stay above Begich, or does he move to the bottom? Should he even be listed before the oath? If he's listed later, can we really list him if we are not sure where the Senate puts him? -Rrius (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He goes in with everyone else who was elected in November. If Coleman wins after, say, six months of litigation, then I don't know where to place him because of discontinuous service. But let's cross that bridge when we come to it.—Markles 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure of that or are we guessing? When Rockefeller showed up a couple of weeks late, he went to the end of the line. I'm not trying to be difficult; I just want to make sure we get it right. -Rrius (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing, actually. This is so annoying. Let's hope Stuart Smalley gets there in time to be sworn in tomorrow.—Markles 01:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a chance. Pawlenty won't sign a cert before then, and they can't very well keep Burris away for not having a secretary of state's countersignature if they let Franken in without a governor's signature. Of course, Coleman could all of a sudden start handling this like a grown up. Nah. Not a chance. -Rrius (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. I agree that for now, we include Fraken, but with a note. I'm not entirely sure where he would fall in Seniority if he is sworn in a week lake. I read an articles[1][2] that the Democrats want to use the 1980 Pell precedent (barring senators from being appointed early to gain seniority over other freshman) that anyone elected in November has their seniority start from January 6 (date quoted in the article). They would also apply that seniority system to any other appointees to take over for Obama, Biden, Salazar, and Clinton. Whether that plan flies with the Senate Parliamentarian, who decides these sort of things, is anyone's guess. I don't know if anyone would make a big deal out of it, since it wouldn't necessarily affect current seniority rankings all that much from where they'd be if the VP and 2 cabinet nods stayed in the Senate.

Moreover, I would imagine that if Coleman prevails, he'd argue for keeping his prior ranking as incumbent claiming continous service, even if if were to be sworn in a month or more down the road. Based on statute and the Constitution, he would be his own elected "successor" and per the 20th Amendment his term would be retroactive to January 3. (Note, I am not a constitutional scholar). Otherwise, he'd be subject to what I call the Lautenberg Rule, which says that previous Senate service does not help you with Seniority. Coleman would have to to all the way down to 100 if the GOP stuck to their guns with the Dems appointments. That's a far cry from 67, and I doubt they'd want to alienate one of the last remaining GOP moderates (sort of) who could provide Democrats with a crucial 60th vote on climate change legislation or other bipartisan issues. My guess is that the Democratic postion will prevail and January 6 will be used for Fraken or Coleman and the other pending appointees.DCmacnut<> 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not counting Coleman, Franken or Burris, so where do you get to 99 senators when there are only 98? user:mnw2000

DC, I agree with you, but I commented out Franken until we have consensus here. Mnw2000, I have no idea what you are asking. Mnw2000, the last two senators were simply misnumbered. -Rrius (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering, again[edit]

Lets assume Franken is seated and his seniority is from February or March when he is seated. Will we number him 100 despite the unnumbered senators? -Rrius (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with "former" senators that were in the 111th Congress[edit]

Why should we keep names like Biden or Clinton in the list when they are no longer in the Senate and, therefore, no longer in its Seniority? Right now we have three senators with no number assigned to them. Why not remove the name and let the numbering be continuous or leave the names on the list but remove the number next to them and continue with the next number? This way, we will only have 99 senators with seniority numbers until the race in MN is decided. user:mnw2000 04:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is meant to be a historical record, not a current tally. There is another article (Seniority in the United States Senate) that lists only current Senators. However, there might be a better way to present the information given in this article... Qqqqqq (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How should be number these? Someone has added 100 to Al Franken, but there are no numbers for the other appointeds. I would argue that numbers here are meaningless. Rank # is inferred by where you fall in list. Here are some options
  1. Delete rank column entirely
  2. Delete just the numbers for the resigned senators, but keep the names in the same order, and renumber current senators accordingly.
  3. Create a new colum called "Current Rank."
Option 1 seems the most logical. 2 and 3 would wind up duplicating what we have at the current up-to-date list elsewhere. Thoughts?DCmacnut<> 17:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't a Senator that is current serving have a rank (1-100), while a former Senator (resigned, or died), have the rank removed (while remaining in the list)? Wouldn't this be more accurate? user:mnw2000 18:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Junior Senator[edit]

With the passing of Senator Kennedy, I believe that Jay Rockefeller is now the senior junior senator in the senate. I have not updated the article itself because I I want someone else to make sure of that and to clarify Senator Kerry's status pending the selection of a new Senator from Massachesetts. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Brown...[edit]

...hasn't been a member of the Senate for some time now. Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.111.33.34 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of United States senators in the 1st Congress by seniority which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_United_States_senators_in_the_111th_Congress&oldid=1208474584"