Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
In what way could he "commit" that would be legally binding anyway?
Frankly, the Republicans have created such an atmosphere of bad faith that it would be fair to just promise whatever was necessary to get Mitch out, then appoint a Democrat replacement anyway. He won't, because Democrats care more about process than winning, but it would be fair.
If the shoe were on the other foot you know exactly what the GOP would do.
*have done
I seem to remember McConnell specifically whining about how unfair it was for Obama to appoint a replacement Supreme Court justice in the last few months of his term and denying Obama the opportunity, and then ramming his own party's justice through when the tables had turned during Trump's last months.
McConnell being replaced by a democrat against his party's will would almost be poetic justice if he hadn't have profoundly ruined our highest court in the process.
I was thinking the same thing. The Republicans deserve exactly the same respect for the law that they have demonstrated themselves. The governor should appoint whoever he likes and tell the Republicans to suck it.
I'm with you on that. Unfortunately, the reality is that that just means McConnell is going to stay in his post until he literally dies there. Republicans won't make that kind of concession if it means losing that seat.
Also the fake Democrat who switched parties almost immediately after taking office. They don't care about people's choice.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Just saying he would follow the law I imagine? It wouldn't be binding- but still.
What a shitty click bait headline. He refused to comment on an appointment at all because McConnell has no plans to resign.
It should be a new election tbh. Even if that ends up being another Republican, it's the best way to do it. Elections in the US are for people, not parties — at least on paper.
The people of Kentucky also elected a Democratic governor, and at the time they did so (2019), the law that requires Senate replacements to be from the same party did not exist yet. So they voted for him fully expecting that if McConnell keeled over he might be replaced by a Democrat.
It should be, yes. And it would be in any other state. Mitch changed the law in his state so if he dies in office a new rep from the same party has to take his place.
An article I read earlier, it sounds like the Governor has a reasonable chance of winning a court fight to invalidate that law for being unconstitutional.
I hope it gets invalidated. Its obviously a bad faith law.
It's me. Hi. I'm the Republican, it's me.
**
The issue is otherwise the voters are underrepresented in the meantime. Generally, how this is decided(and senators are elected in general) should be up to state law. And the state law as of now says it should be from the same party.
Mitch McConnell's constituency aren't Kentucky voters, they're the oligarchy. He's never voted to protect or benefit anyone other than donors. Kentucky is one of the poorest states, so it's got the cheapestly bought federal positions.
Mitch doesn't campaign much
That's actually not strictly true. I read an expose a while back on exactly how McConnell campaigns. The reason why he has such a long-standing position in the Senate is because he campaigns to appeal to rural folk. Not that he puts out ads for rural folk or anything like traditional campaigning, but that he specifically has a division that keeps tabs on major events in small towns and always sends gifts and his regards and calls people out by name.
Things like graduations, funerals, groundbreaking on new buildings, festivals, weddings, etc. Things that tend to make big news in small towns, he makes it a point to put his name on and endorse. It works well enough that it earns him the vote without having to campaign in a traditional way.
I think the man is ruining our country, but he has his methodology for actually getting elected on lock.
Maybe so, but he doesn't spend as much on flashy advertising campaigns compared to his opponents. At least in the 2020 election he didn't.
Misleading headline designed to provoke Republicans. He didn't refuse to appoint one of the Republican nominees, he merely stated there is no vacancy yet.
In honor of McConnell he should ram though a partisan choice like good ol Mitch would have. Everyone talking about “democracy” didn’t really know the man. Show some respect, do it like he would
If that were to happen perhaps it would be best to let the people decide in the next election in Mitch's honor.
There should be a special referendum, to honor Mitch’s respect for the will of the people. There should even be a same day voter sign up.
"what would Mitch do?"
that's right gov, give em fits, make them keep mitch there, which deflates any attack on biden, and feinstein. good job.
I disagree with feinstein, she needs to go too. If Biden was doing the same.thing as Mitch, I would say he needs to go as well.
100%, but I don't want to hear this from republicans who vote for idiots with no qualifications anyway.
Anything that keeps them off center enough that they can't make their normal hypocritical bad faith arguments is fine in my book.
What? Bitches don’t remember Merrick Garland?
wE shOulD leT thE pEoPle DeCidE
Fr tho it's nice to see Democrats who aren't so dedicated to decorum that they're willing to sacrifice me in an effort to maintain the moral high ground.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Andy Beshear this week declined to say whether he would follow a state law that says Republicans would get to choose a replacement for Sen. Mitch McConnell if the Senate GOP leader leaves Congress before the end of his term.
Kentucky state law previously permitted the governor to appoint a replacement for a vacant Senate seat until the next general House election, which occurs every two years.
In a veto statement, Beshear cited the state Constitution in suggesting that the bill “improperly and unconstitutionally" restricted the governor’s power to fill Senate vacancies.
McConnell's first on-camera freeze up took place in July during a news conference on Capitol Hill, with the senator abruptly pausing, with a blank look, until he was briefly escorted away.
A similar episode occurred in Kentucky on Wednesday when he stood motionless and did not speak for more than 30 seconds after a reporter asked whether he planned to run for re-election in 2026.
In a statement Thursday, Brian Monahan, the U.S. Capitol's attending physician, said that McConnell is "medically clear” to continue to work after conferring with the senator's neurology team who was treating him for a concussion after a fall in March.
The original article contains 532 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
What would stop him from appointing a democrat who changed parties to be a republican?
IIRC, Republican party leadership chooses three options and the governor appoints one among them. No way would the party include someone who just switched over.
What would happen if he just left the spot open? Or left it open until they picked someone suitable?
In theory that could happen, but one would have to weigh the consequences of that vs not allowing your state to have its due representation in Congress. Those are pretty bad optics.
I think that depends on how popular the nominees are, no?
Certainly a factor in weighing the consequences.
Gotcha. That seems much less open to interpretation then.
This is some clickbait bullshit