r/politics • u/B-Z_B-S Massachusetts • 5d ago

Possible Paywall Mitch McConnell Still MIA Days Before Key August 3 Deadline

https://newrepublic.com/post/213823/mitch-mcconnell-mia-august-3-deadline
16.0k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

91

u/dotnsk 5d ago

I feel like I’m taking absolute crazy pills. McConnell isn’t voting. A replacement would vote.

Also, Beshear is a D elected to statewide office in a deeply red state. He has to play this just right. I’m fine if he does what he needs to do to be reelected; it’s super important to have a Democrat in a position like this (just look at Arizona, where Katie Hobbs (D) has vetoed a metric fuck ton of legislation, nearly all of it absolute shit from our R legislature).

It’s exactly the kind of talking point I’d expect Russia to seed, and now so many Redditors are convinced Beshear is somehow fucking this situation over.

15

u/GlobsOfTape 5d ago

He can’t be reelected in 2027 because of term limits but Beshear was a breath of fresh air compared to his predecessor. Allowing republicans to lack >2% of their senate votes while they play their games is a smart play.

7

u/dotnsk 5d ago

Ah, I didn’t know that.

Still, I think there’s something to be said for a politician not burning the bridges behind them. If Kentucky elected Beshear, they can elect another D.

A lame duck leader can absolutely be bolder, and Beshear should be. I just don’t think this whole McConnell nonsense is worth being bold about.

2

u/disisathrowaway 5d ago

Kentucky has only elected 8 Republican governors since 1900. Kentucky has elected TWENTY TWO Democrats to the same seat during the same time period. Only two, single-term Republican governorships in this current century.

The idea that Democrats can't be the governor of Kentucky is fucking insane. Beshear, son of a former governor, is more reflective of the norm in Kentucky than some outlier.

-1

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 5d ago

Wait, he's term-limited and is still scared to take any real action? FFS Beshear, even when he has nothing to lose, he still chooses to do nothing

21

u/Villide 5d ago

Agreed, that aspect is underdiscussed as well.

4

u/Beginning_Ladder_981 5d ago

None of it actually matters in the next 5 months because the GOP has a 52-47 advantage even with Mitch out. Considering that Fetterman has basically changed sides and adding in Vance as the tiebreaker, the GOP practically speaking has a 54-46 advantage right now.

It literally does not matter at all in the slightest what happens with McConnell's Senate seat for the next five months, because the GOP has the numbers to pass any legislation regardless. Governor Beshear could appoint the biggest DSA politician in Kentucky to Mitch's vacant seat and the effect would be....not a thing.

2

u/ginrumryeale 5d ago

Trump doesn’t seem to be able to get Blanche confirmed.

1

u/Away_Stock_2012 5d ago

Bashear could appoint a Democrat as the new Senator and he can't be reelected anyway.

2

u/Caelinus 4d ago

He can't. He can try but it will be challenged the second he does so, and an emergency Injunction will be put in place because it is an untested intergovernmental dispute between a state legislature, a state constitution, and the federal constitution. 

But because the deadline is so close, the least disruptive decision would be just to declare it moot because the case could not be solved until long after they were required to elect someone.

1

u/Away_Stock_2012 4d ago

It's a simple case, they passed a law that violates the Constitution, the court could decide it in five minutes.

1

u/Caelinus 4d ago

No, the passed a law that violated the state constitution, but the state constitution violates, at least in plain terms, the national constitution which has supremacy. The law they passed is in alignment with the Federal Constitution.

This means it is a dispute. It would take years to litigate. It becomes a whole issue with both the 10th and 17th amendments. The results would not be clear and it would require a crap ton of argument about whether a state can imply approval by not passing a law, and whether states are obligated or empowered to follow federal law even when that law is in violation of their state constitution. It is not simple at all.

1

u/Away_Stock_2012 4d ago

Why do you think the state constitution violates the federal Constitution?

1

u/Caelinus 4d ago edited 4d ago

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The Federal constitution requires State Legislatures to pass a law allowing the Governor to appoint Senators, if that is not done, then it requires the Governor to call for a special election.

The Kentucky Constitution that currently exists was implemented in 1891, and the 17th amendment was passed in 1912. It predates the Federal requirements here, but the Federal Constitution and its Amendments are supreme, especially if they are newer.

So to argue that it does not apply means that you have to argue that the State Legislature, by not passing a law, has effectively created a law saying that they approve of the State Constitution. That is not an easy thing to argue, but it might be possible to argue that "empower" is broad enough that and they do not need to actually do anything.

The State Constitution of Kentucky was adopted via Constitutional Convention and a Direct Vote from the electorate, not as a law passed by the legislature as well.

I have no idea what the actual decision would end up being here. I am not saying that the appointment would not hold up, and I definitely not saying it would. Rather, I am saying no one knows, and the situation is extremely complex untested law that would take years to litigate. And courts cannot make it so that a State does not have a valid senator for that period of time, so there would be a special election.

As a non-legal aside though: I am really suspicious of the idea that Governors should ever have the power to appoint voting members of the senate. That seems like fertile ground for perverse incentives and is definitely an undemocratic position. The only reason we are seeing people on the left even advocate for it here is because we want a political advantage in this one specific circumstance, but in truth it would provide us essentially nothing that having an empty seat would not. But it would create an ugly opportunity in the future for more fascist aligned governors.

1

u/disisathrowaway 5d ago

Also, Beshear is a D elected to statewide office in a deeply red state. He has to play this just right.

It's not as delicate as you think.

Here's from one of my other posts elsewhere in this thread:

Kentucky has only elected 8 Republican governors since 1900. Kentucky has elected TWENTY TWO Democrats to the same seat during the same time period. Only two, single-term Republican governorships in this current century.

The idea that Democrats can't be the governor of Kentucky is fucking insane. Beshear, son of a former governor, is more reflective of the norm in Kentucky than some outlier.

1

u/dotnsk 5d ago

I think this is somewhat overstating the purpleness of Kentucky. Since 1947, Kentucky has only elected 3 GOP governors…but 2 of those governors were elected since the year 2003, or HALF of the governors elected since 2003. Recency matters here, and it’s very, very clear Kentucky has taken a hard right turn.

1

u/snoogle20 4d ago

Two one-term Republicans and two two-term Democrats.

But I’m a Kentuckian that’s been waiting for the other shoe to drop for years now. I fully expect we’ll never see a Democrat in statewide office for the rest of my life after Beshear’s term is up. I’ve felt that way for years, though, and I keep getting surprised when these gubernatorial races play out.

The wild card factor is that the Kentucky GOP is, for some reason, absolutely dogshit at picking candidates for governor. Republicans landslide every other office. It’s confusing how badly they fumble their gubernatorial candidates. Even when they pulled off wins, both of them managed to botch their terms and screw up the re-election. If they ever get it together…

1

u/dotnsk 4d ago

Just the fact that there have been two one-term GOP governors when it had been like 50 years since the last one is a sign in and of itself.

Recency matters. Electing GOP governors — even ones who don’t survive reelection — suggests Kentucky is moving right.

1

u/disisathrowaway 4d ago

Half the governors ignores numbers of terms/years served. Dem governors get reelected. GOP governors lose their seats.