politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Why not replace McConnell anyways and let them prove otherwise?
Because Kentucky law says Beshear would have to call an election so a Republican would get in anyway. But that law might be unconstitutional from what I've read. But also is it a fight worth spending political capital and legal fees on when realistically it won't change anything and there'll be a new Republican Kentucky senator in 6 months?
That Republican might be Thomas Massie, though, which they REALLY want to avoid at any cost.
Hmm, now that's an intriguing explanation.
Absolute best case scenario.
I thought special elections were trending less MAGA these days.
Its still Kentucky.
Which has a Democrat for a governor. Senators are up for statewide elections just like governors.
Cross party governors are a very different thing than cross party senators. Massachusetts and California have both had Republican governors and at no point did that indicate the state was turning red. Cross party governors can be seen as outsiders that will pump the brakes on a single party establishment legislature.
Beshear has been in office through a couple Senate elections and they were still Republican blowouts.
Scott Brown though. That moment wasn't altogether dissimilar to this one.
The reason they want to stop a Special Election, is in one of those Maise can run despite losing the Republican primary
He might not win, but he'd suck up enough votes from the other Republican to give it to a Dem
So I've heard this said before, but I don't really get it.
Massie is a current Kentucky House representative, he lost his primary so his term will end in January.
McConnell's seat is up for election in November, so his term also ends in January.
If a special election is held, it's just to fill out his term until the end of January.
So in a scenario where a special election is held and Massie wins, he has to resign his House seat to take the Senate seat, but the term still ends in January.
Does that really change anything?
Yes, it changes the balance of the senate on the interim by adding a spoiler vote to the republican side. Which could make it harder for them to pass anti-voter laws between now and November
Thought is it may give him incumbent advantage.
He can't be the incumbent.
The race for McConnell's seat is already underway and the Republican nominee already picked. Additionally all other deadlines to run as an Independent have passed.
Ok rereading this I think you missed the whole shenanigan the last few weeks. If McConnell is declared dead before Aug 3, then there is a special election/appointment (because that's debated). If McConnell is declared dead on or after Aug 3, then there is a rule that kicks in that because it's only 3 months until the midterms, then there is no special election/appointment and McConnell's seat election gets rolled up together with the midterms.
The GOP is concerned that if McConnell is declared dead before Aug 3, then there will be an appointment/special election to replace McConnell before the midterms. That will make Massie/whoever wins/is appointed the "incumbent". Yes that will be short lived because the midterm election will happen anyway. But they still don't want it. Their thought process is that if Massie wins/is appointed, then it will give him an "incumbent" advantage in the midterms (in scare quotes if you want). So they are keeping McConnell on life support until Aug 3 so that it gets punted to the mdterms.
So I don't think I've missed it.
As you said,
But I don't believe Massie can run in the midterms.
I admit I am wrong that he can't be the incumbent, because technically being the incumbent just implies holding the office, not running for the office they currently hold, but in a world where a special election happens (or an appointment), and Massie takes McConnell's Senate seat, he can not run in the midterm election.
Per Ballotpedia the deadline to file as a unaffiliated (independent) was in June.
Any special election would only cover the remainder of McConnell's term and not the term after, which is a whole separate election that is happening in November.
My guess, after reading more about it, would be that a special election could include the two current midterm candidates AND Massie (as an independent), and that election could result in a Democrat winning. Then because the Democrats "just won" it would lower Republican voter turnout in the midterms. (Although I suspect in this scenario the midterm and special election would both take place in November, so it wouldn't be two separate elections, but Massie would get more air time to ensure the Republican doesn't win.)
Republican is a Republican is a Republican. The corpse is probably still a better option.
The corpse is basically in a permanent "present" vote, or even less then that? Because it can delay quorum?
McConnell's absence is not affecting quorum, but it is one less R vote for as long as he's out.
I heard the bigger "issue" is the comitties that he is on may tip towards the Dems.
Plus new Senators need to be sworn in which I'm sure if a dem won the special election the republican controlled senate would just simply not swear them in.
Cool, let's fuckin make them do that bullshit then.
I'm tired of going "well if we fight back, they'll just fight back". Like yeah, they are actively fighting us. We are in a fight. We're being punched in the face. If we punch them, they will punch us. If we don't punch them, they will still punch us.
I'm tired of being punched. I want to punch.
So is the logic that it's best if the seat remain vacant and not risk a younger more alive republican to be elected in a special election and sworn in, where as if a democrat won the seat, they'd basically not be sworn in anyway and it'd be as if the seat were intentionally vacant?
Republicans are stalling so the governor can't appoint an interim senator. There won't be a chance either way for a younger more alive republican. The rest of this term is basically a wash for that seat.
Ohh I see, so the governor would be able to appoint an interim senator if the seat is vacant before Aug 3rd or whatever day, but unlikely that they'd ever get sworn in or do anything more productive than an empty seat?
yes, because otherwise Beshear looks like a total do-nothing tool, and the dems REALLY need to prove to their voters that they actually do something, or people wont get off their couches again.
Wasting time and money of a guaranteed loss is WORSE than being a "do-nothing tool". Why do people automatically assuming "doing" is automatically good? You can DO bad things.
If Democrats want to help elect Republicans because they're too stupid to see that, we're fucked anyway.
I thought Kentucky law said Beshear could appoint a replacement. And that's why the GOPers are dragging their heels till August 3.
No. Kentucky law specifically says Beshear cannot appoint a replacement. But he can call a special election, which might have different candidates than the general election for his seat in November. The August 3 date is floating around as the deadline after which Beshear can't call that election.
From what I understood, there are opposing laws in conflict with one another, one stating Beshear can appoint a replacement directly, and one stating he cannot. What he could do is go forward with an appointment, but then he will be caught up in legal proceedings anyway until the litigation on which law is binding can be made. So it will be a bit of a stalemate anyway.
I am likely to be incorrect in my understanding, but I remember reading that somewhere.
I think the state house passed the special election law, but didn't change the constitution, which still says 'appointment by governor' - maybe for "state offices" though?
This is part of it. Constitutionally, the governor can only appoint for state offices, but there was historical precedent for the governor to appoint federal offices. And you are right that the state had passed some laws requiring a special election, but it also had some crazy length like 56-days required between the call and the election taking place to let all counties be notified. (As best I can remember reading. It's all a bit of a mess.)
https://www.lex18.com/news/state-of-the-commonwealth/kentucky-law-requires-special-election-to-fill-vacant-u-s-senate-seat-not-appointment
The more annoying thing is the two rulebooks. McConnell has tended to make up his own rules (and justify them with legalese) and ignore the ones he doesn't like. Beshear is trying to play by the rules, and not recognizing the actual power shifts that have happened. And so, here we sit in sending-angry-letter mode for the time being.
Edit: Comment below has better details https://lemmy.world/comment/25004076
K
The Kentucky constitution says that. Which supersedes the law the Republicans rammed through, despite their lies to the contrary.
This is misinformed. This is what the Kentucky Constitution says.
Note that when it's discussing appointments versus elections, it's specifically talking about "city, town, county, district or State officers".
When we get toward the end (not having mentioned the US House or the US Senate):
This leaves the KGA complete leeway to prescribe how replacements are appointed to the House and Senate, including holding an election first, functionally reducing the appointment to one choice.
Edit: And in case you think "offices for the State at large" is ambiguous enough to include the US House and US Senate, please see sections 69 to 96 of the Kentucky Constitution.
That law is unconstitutional. The Kentucky constitution says the governor can just appoint a replacement.
As I pointed out in another comment: the Kentucky Constitution does not say this.
Any vacancy not covered (which in the Constitution's case are city, town, county, district, State) is filled as "prescribed by law".
Look, I'm no expert in Kentucky law, but I do know you're not representing this fully. The consensus among lawyers when interviewed on this matter in the press is that there's legal ambiguity, and good case can be made for both points. I don't understand it fully myself, but it's obviously not as cut and dry as you're pretending.
All I've done is link to the relevant section of the Kentucky Constitution and (in my other comment) explain what it says. If you think any part of that section is ambiguous, if you think my interpretation is wrong in some specific way, if you'd like to cite some other relevant portion of the Kentucky Constitution I'm not considering, or especially if you'd like to provide any citation to the counterarguments of "lawyers interviewed on this matter", I invite that.
But right now, I'm looking at the section of the Kentucky Constitution that provides for replacements of vacant offices, and not only do I see nothing that would bar the KGA from making this law, but I see broad, affirmative, plain-English authority given to them to do exactly that.
I'm not trying to hoodwink you with half-truths; I know of literally no other information that would weigh on whether or not the Kentucky Constitution enables the General Assembly to prescribe the means of appointment. I can't do anything with "you're not representing this fully" and a vague allusion to some alleged legal consensus when I'm representing it as fully as I know how.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/andy-beshear-threatens-legal-fight-over-mitch-mcconnell-senate-replacement/ar-AA27UPl2
I'm not sure how you haven't head about this.
Again, you're clearly missing something here if the governor himself is claiming the power to fill vacancies by appointment.
Until Beshear sues and wins (or at least until he files a suit), I'm going to be bold enough to challenge that. The wording clearly does not support what Beshear's saying. First, I'll note preliminarily that the section covers all elective offices*, so this is all we need to read from:
* Notably, the "except as otherwise provided in this Constitution" is referring to the section on judicial vacancies. To my knowledge, these are the two sections that cover vacancies (show me I'm wrong if I am).
Next, we have a bunch of stuff covering city, town, county, district, and State offices. We can safely skip that (skip down if you think we can't). This brings us to:
First, "State at large" is defined in the KY Constitution (sections 69–96) and does not mean federal offices. And then it says all other appointments shall be made as may be prescribed by law.
Microanalyzing that sentence in case you think there's room for doubt: "as may be prescribed by law" means that the law can prescribe how the appointment is made but that a law doesn't have to exist – where "may" is opposed to "shall". I.e. if there is no law, which there doesn't have to be, do whatever the fuck you want, but if there is one, follow it.
The obvious reason other governors were appointing their choices is because there was no law in place to say otherwise, and "may" meant there didn't have to be one until Republicans decided to ratfuck Beshear.
Lastly, if he's trying to assert that "state offices" cover federal ones, I mean, good luck, I guess. That's a dumb, ad hoc argument that's likely to fail given there's literally a section that differentiates between State office and Federal office.
If the governor himself(TM) actually sues, then fair game, and we'll see who wins. Otherwise, dead serious: I think he's completely misreading the law and Republicans are correct on this – not morally, of course, but legally. I invite you to read the linked section and point out where I'm wrong.
TL;DR:
I'm going to be ballsy enough to say this: if you can read this plain English and still take Beshear's word on it, that's fine, but it's strictly an argument from authority. Andy Beshear's word is not a legal consensus that there's ambiguity. Please, read it for yourself and try to challenge me based on what it says.
(Didn't downvote you, btw; I appreciate you linking this.)
And the election requires 63 days' notice to the sheriffs in each county. And two elections a few weeks apart is going to annoy and confuse voters.
And (extrapolating the process for vacancies in primary elections) Beshear isn't the one who formally recognizes McConnell's absence for the purposes of the election; his Republican SoS is.
And if Beshear calls up an election without having properly verified only for McConnell to show real proof of life, the Democratic governor of a deeply red state with two more years left is going to have a scandal on his hands.
They're basically asking Beshear to snatch a Democratic scandal from the jaws of a Republican one.
We need to crucify any Democrat that thinks this way. Oh, no, a scandal! Anything but that! Cowards, the lot of 'em. Never willing to take a chance on anything. No desire to throw something at the wall and see what sticks. Meanwhile Republicans try a dozen things hoping a quarter of them stick. This is why Republicans deliver for their base, while Democrats don't do shit. Democrats are sniveling cowards.
because hes bluemaga like all the parties that arent maga in america, its just a performative dance
🙄