Ted Stevens: Innocent Despite Conviction?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the implications of Ted Stevens' conviction on his eligibility to serve in the Senate, particularly in the context of the upcoming election and the potential role of Sarah Palin. Participants explore legal interpretations, political ramifications, and the broader societal perceptions of conviction and eligibility.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that Stevens claimed he had not been convicted, raising questions about the legal status of his conviction pending appeals.
  • There is a suggestion that in Alaska, a felony conviction does not fully apply until all appeals are exhausted, leading to speculation about Stevens' ability to vote for himself.
  • Several participants assert that Stevens was tried and convicted in Federal Court in Washington, D.C., which some argue diminishes the legitimacy of the conviction in the context of Alaskan identity.
  • Discussion includes the idea that a governor, such as Palin, could appoint herself to the Senate if Stevens were removed or resigned, though there is disagreement about the legality of such actions.
  • Participants express confusion about the implications of felony convictions on eligibility for Senate service, with some citing examples of individuals with criminal backgrounds who can still hold office.
  • There are references to varying state laws regarding voting rights for felons, with some states allowing voting even while incarcerated.
  • One participant highlights the contrasting views on when a conviction is considered final, noting the difference between public perception and legal definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the implications of Stevens' conviction on his Senate eligibility and the role of state laws in determining voting rights for felons. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the legal interpretations or political ramifications.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of legal definitions regarding convictions and the varying interpretations of state laws, particularly in relation to voting rights and eligibility for office. There are also references to differing perceptions of legitimacy based on geographical context.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,252
Reaction score
2,664
"I have not been convicted of anything," he maintained during a Thursday night debate in Anchorage, only days before Tuesday's election.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/31/stevens.debate/?iref=mpstoryview

What is this business that I heard about Palin? She could remove Stevens if he wins, and take his place in the Senate? Is that right?

Of course, Stevens was indeed convicted of multiple crimes, but he still arrived to a cheering crowd at home, in Alaska! Hmmmmm.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems that in Alaska, if you have been convicted of felonies, you aren't REALLY a felon until you have dragged out the appeal process as long as possible, and lost. I'd love to see Stevens try to cast a vote for himself Tuesday to test that theory. (Add voter fraud to the list of charges.)
 
He was tried in Federal Court, in DC, not in Alaska. He was convicted.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
What is this business that I heard about Palin? She could remove Stevens if he wins, and take his place in the Senate? Is that right?

It could well be, though I don't think she can remove him. She can appoint herself if he is removed or he resigns. That would be one way for her and Todd to get a new addition to their house for the Piper and the Trig to run around in.

I trust she understands that the US Senate doesn't offer per diems to stay at home and act like a queen.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
He was tried in Federal Court, in DC, not in Alaska.
That's the point - Washington is not 'the real america' (tm) so it doesn't count!
 
Ivan Seeking said:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/31/stevens.debate/?iref=mpstoryview

What is this business that I heard about Palin? She could remove Stevens if he wins, and take his place in the Senate? Is that right?

Of course, Stevens was indeed convicted of multiple crimes, but he still arrived to a cheering crowd at home, in Alaska! Hmmmmm.

I don't think the governor can remove a Senator. Being a criminal doesn't bar someone from serving as a Senator. If he wins the election, the Senate, itself, would have to boot him out of the Senate. If they booted him out (or if Stevens resigned during the process), then Palin could probably replace him with someone else. Each state is different, but most allow the governor to appoint at least a temporary replacement, either to serve out the old Senator's term or until a special election can be held.

Sometimes, I just don't get why a politician has to cling to the possibility of continuing in office no matter what. It amazes me how they claim innocence right up until the day after they lose the election, then accept a plea bargain. The threat of losing an elected office is worse than the threat of prison.
 
mgb_phys said:
That's the point - Washington is not 'the real america' (tm) so it doesn't count!

Ugh, I need to get a "Sarah Palin's Real America" map. I don't what is America, and what's not!
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't what is America, and what's not!
Anywhere that ATF is a shopping list rather than a government agency.
 
Last edited:
wait a minute...being a convicted felon does not form an impediment to serving as a senator?. ... am i missing something here? there is a guy in georgia from an abusive home, who was accused of a sex crime against his sibling when he was 14, currently a responsible family man, who can't even live in a trailer if a school bus stops nearby. but he could be a senator? (where would he live?...)
 
  • #10
Actually in Georgia a convicted felon can still vote as long as he hasn't started his sentence yet. There was an article in the paper the other day about rapper T.I. voting in Atlanta even though he's been convicted of felony weapons charges for trying to buy an assault weapon. Maybe other states, including Alaska, having something similar to this?
 
  • #11
mathwonk said:
wait a minute...being a convicted felon does not form an impediment to serving as a senator?. ... am i missing something here? there is a guy in georgia from an abusive home, who was accused of a sex crime against his sibling when he was 14, currently a responsible family man, who can't even live in a trailer if a school bus stops nearby. but he could be a senator? (where would he live?...)

Yes. Believe it or not. Of course, he would have to leave the Senate Chamber every time a school bus stops near by...
 
  • #12
There are several states that do not strip voting rights from felons, even while they are incarcerated. I think the one exception in VT would be a conviction of voting fraud.
 
  • #13
I don't believe that he has exhausted his appeals as yet, in which case his conviction is only pending at least through the election.

Edit:
ADN said:
Still, Stevens is able to vote in Tuesday's election according to a state Department of Law ruling this week that his conviction isn't final.

That's because there's two ways to view the law: The popular interpretation that you're convicted when a jury declares you guilty, and a competing legal precedent that says the official conviction comes at sentencing.
http://www.adn.com/politics/story/574952.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

News DOJ Drops Charges Against Ted Stevens
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
  • · Replies 1K ·
34
Replies
1K
Views
98K