In my two previous pieces detailing the intrigues afoot in the New York State Senate, I was puzzled by the vehemence of the State Senate Democrats in mindlessly and repeatedly chanting their mantra insisting that the Republican attempt to stage a coup had failed, because the vote had been illegal.

What if it were true? Unless one could manage to come up with 32 votes, the Republicans would eventually take over anyway.

I interpreted the Democrats’ talk of a lawsuit as nothing more than an effort to buy some time while they tried to get their majority back by any means necessary. I mean, except for stopping the clock, what was the point in overturning the results of a vote and obtaining a do-over when it would only lead to reliving again the agony of defeat?

Malcolm Smith didn’t look Egyptian, but he seemed to be in Da-Nile. And now the Party Line, at least for the moment, is that there never was a vote and therefore nothing to overturn. Let the Republicans file the lawsuit. What were the Democrats really thinking?   

Now Malcolm Smith is hoping that after first causing his colleagues to bleed profusely, Hiram would now be decent enough to get them the necessary attention they require to restore themselves to good health.

By contrast, the Sen Dems believe that no matter how loudly Pedro Espada protests that he occupies a home in the Democrats' humble philosophical turf, they are sure that Espada's real beliefs, such as they are, actually reside at a tonier address.

But, re-obtaining Hiram only gets them to 31, which would leave the Senate tied. What good would that do?

[And, yes, I am of aware of Joe Bruno's unique and legally untested theory that as Acting Lieutenant Governor, the Senate's President Pro Tempore would be constitutionally authorized to break ties, and therefore, could vote twice.

Good luck with that one. All the party without the Preident Pro Tempore would need to do is keep a member off the floor at all times. The vote would all be 31-30, and there would be no ties to break, but 31 vote would still not be enough to pass a bill.]    

This is where any Court case to either void Monday's vote as illegal, or to mandate that its results be recognized, comes in. If the Democrats were capable of getting to 32, whether or not the vote Monday was legal would not matter all that much--with 32 votes they could overturn Monday's vote any time they wanted.

But with 31 votes, neither party could pass a resolution to force a change of power. As such, whoever held the Majority would continue to do so until someone else obtained 32 votes. Hence the importance of to the Democrats of not having Monday’s vote judicially recognized, and then getting to 31.

But what good would that really do? With 31 votes, one cannot pass any legislation. It would be a hollow victory indeed.

Except in one aspect.

If the status quo (or if you are a Republican, and insist, we can call it the status quo ante) is maintained (or, if you insist, restored), then all the staff, all the plush offices, all the lulus, all the internal resources remain as they were on Monday Morning.

In the words of the immortal Governor William J. Le Petomane, “We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen. We must do something about this, immediately.”