this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
109 points (100.0% liked)
politics on db0
157 readers
61 users here now
don't start no shit
won't be no shit
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah it's pretty cut and dry - but until it's established that there is a vacancy, Bashear can't appoint someone. Hence the importance of a proof of life video.
Where is this from? It seems pretty damn well established to me that there's a vacancy. If Mitch wants to come and sit in his seat, he's more than welcome. Hell, he doesn't even have to do that. Meeting with Beshear for ten minutes and telling him "Yeah, I want my seat and I'll return" would be plenty. Doesn't even have to stand up.
There's a fucking vacancy. What do you need, Thune to tell you? Trump? Fox News?
Republicans make up cards that don't exist. Dems won't play the cards they have. This is some spineless, do nothing bullshit. And for some reason social media endorses all of it.
Vacancy is not defined in law for a Senate seat and it's not the first time this has come up.
The House of Representatives removed a member in a coma once, but the Senate has not removed a member like this. Spellman was incapacitated before re-election, and therefore hadn't taken an oath of office for the new term.
I want to ask: What's the value in insulting people like this? Something can be "common sense" but it doesn't mean it is reflected in law. Being angry on the internet because things aren't the way you think they should be isn't going to make them better. And it's certainly no reason to lash out.
Literal Nazis are taking over our government and seemingly everyone's okay with it. Some people online seem to believe they can be stopped with strongly worded letters.
In a week the "consensus" will shift to "why didn't Beshear do anything?" But it's too early to agree on that while he still can do something.
Respectfully, did you read and understand my reply? The seat is not vacant. You were snapping at the other reply saying it was and that it is obvious. But it is not. What can Beshear do then? He could of course say a certain individual is McConnell's replacement but so could you or I. It has no legal bearing.
All he can do, which he indicates in his letter, is ask the Senate to replace him.
Being angry at the wrong people also does nothing to better your situation.
I guess it's just a difference of opinion.
You think the Republicans should fully get away with playing Weekend at McConnell's. You're satisfied with them effectively stealing another seat in government just like they did for the Supreme Court. Or with the Ohio redistricting map. Because you don't believe a seat is empty until the Republicans tell you it's empty.
I'm sure if situations were reversed, the Republicans would also be okay with standing silently by and doing nothing. They certainly wouldn't play the cards given to them out of an overabundance of decorum.
After all, the Republicans put out two proof of life images! Totally a normal and believable way to handle this. I'm sure everything's on the up and up.
I asked you "What’s the value in insulting people like this?" and you are returning to if what is happening is good or not.
It is a difference of opinion, but not on the topic you think it is.
I'm going to use this situation as an example to illustrate my point, but I want to be clear my point is much broader than this specific situation. I'm not doing this because I want to be "right". I am hoping this effort can encourage people to ask questions and better understand how government works.
Is the seat vacant?
I think we all agree the seat is vacant if McConnell is dead. Let's move past that.
You are lashing out at myself and others when we are trying to tell you that the term vacant has specific legal meaning and does not include being incapacitated. I linked a report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared by a Legislative Attorney specifically titled "Incapacity of a Member of Congress". It was written in 2011. I know there are a lot of lobbying groups that call themselves "think tanks" or "research groups" but this is Congresses own research branch.
As an aside, I work with (municipal) governments on interpreting legal matters, specifically related to contract law and environmental law to prepare for litigation but I am an engineer, not a lawyer. I am adding this to emphasize how normal it is to have staff lawyers review these situations and provide their opinion to help elected officials make decisions. Politicians often need gentle nudges towards what they do have power over versus wasting money and effort on doing something that will be immediately overturned.
No one is saying this seat isn't vacant because the Republicans say so. None of this is a difference of opinion on what vacant means. The seat is not vacant.
What can the Governor do?
Gov. Beshear, the person you are suggesting can "do something" also knows the seat is not vacant. He has expressed concern that McConnell is unable to serve in his capacity as Senator, but understands that he cannot exercise his constitutional power to fill a vacancy that doesn't exist. His only power in this situation is to publicly shame McConnell and the Senate into using their own power to make the seat vacant.
This is an incredible irony. The Governor is effectively saying "Look, we all know this is legally okay and no one can stop you. But it's wrong and you shouldn't do it. I'm telling the public what you are doing in the hopes that this will put pressure on you." and yet despite this, your conclusion is that he can actually declare the seat vacant and fill it.
I am open to hearing why you think this if you want to share. Again, not why you think he should be able to but why you think he is able to. I am not mocking or shaming you. You clearly believe this to be true and would like to understand what I am missing.
There is nothing wrong with realizing you didn't have all the info (i.e. didn't read the actual letter). I'm not asking you to publicly admit that. It serves no purpose. If this is the case, I hope it helps highlight how easy it is to get worked up about a situation that doesn't exist in reality and what tools can be used to determine the facts.
How can the seat be made vacant?
McConnell can die, resign or be expelled by a vote of the Senate. Others have been removed if they accept an office "incompatible" with Congressional Office even if they do not formally resign. This is not automatic, and needs to be initiated.
Any Senator can initiate a resolution expel a member for any reason. It needs 2/3 of the members to pass. To my knowledge, no Senator has initiated this process in the case of McConnell. No senator has been successfully expelled since 1862 (14 expelled for supporting the Confederate Rebellion), but in more recent years folks have resigned when it was recommended that proceedings be started.
Either house can refuse to seat a member-elect if they cannot take the oath of office, but this does not apply to McConnell. The House of Representatives took this approach with Gladys Noon Spellman (D) who was in a coma when she was re-elected. Spellman's seat was declared vacant because she did not take the oath of office and therefore was not seated. It also came up when two Representatives were re-elected despite having gone missing when their airplane was lost (1972, both D). In this case however, they were declared dead by the end of the year and the seats were vacated that way.
Is this a new situation that requires someone take the stand of interpreting what vacancy means and do something?
No.
Similar situations where people could not serve as a result of poor health have occurred in the past, including Senators being comatose for years. These are listed in the report I linked, I want to highlight that these occurred in the following periods and the member belonged to the party indicated in brackets: 1942-1946 (-D), 1964 (-D), 1969-1972 (-R) and 1986 (-R). It happened in the House of Representatives once, in 1980 (-D).
As you can see, this isn't new and isn't confined to one party. The Senate has decided not to address the situation despite it happening time and time again. Here is an article about the situation in 1986. It seems rolling out frail elderly people to cast votes is a time honored tradition:
The question of what to do in these situations has been asked over and over and the decision has been made, over and over to do nothing. Elected officials of any party will change what they care about. They do not care about this.
So what's your point again?
Lashing out at people who are trying to help you understand the facts of the matter is harmful to the collective power of the working class. It is likely harmful to yourself as an individual because it can be isolating to feel like you are alone in your concern, or that the situation is hopeless and the bad guys are going to win because others don't care enough or they secretly support how the Republicans are handling this.
I think our difference of opinion is that you believe this is illegal or should be illegal and I believe a choice has been made to refuse to address this situation and that no one in power now, or since the first time in happened in the 1940s has interest in making capacity to serve a condition of remaining in office.
It's okay to not like this situation and be angry. It's okay to vent about it. I'm not going to sarcastically and smugly suggest you channel that anger into action to prevent it from happening again. The one thing I do want to suggest is that you look at this as part of the bigger picture.
This stuff is obscure and complicated on purpose and you are kept tired and uneducated on it on purpose. I have observed that people get angry when they think the government is doing something illegal or that they think is illegal. I don't think that's really a useful distinction because the government makes the laws and legal doesn't mean morally or ethically correct.
What I do think is really helpful is when people understand the laws in the context of understanding how the government seeks to legitimize its actions, and how the theater of Republican vs Democrat give the illusion that things will get better this time.
I wasn't going to respond to your baseless accusations about what I am or am not okay with but I will say this: every day I hope for the people of the United States to achieve class consciousness and dismantle their settler colonialist state. I recognize saying this probably means you are going to ignore everything I wrote but that's your choice. I have no skin in this game. It just upsets me when I see people doing the work of the imperialist and fighting each other instead of the state.
Republicans bend laws well past their believability point in order to keep nazis in power.
Do nothing Dems refuse to take the word "vacant" at face, dictionary value in order to keep democracy intact while fully believing that the person "occupying" the seat has most likely passed.
You understand the farce and you're wringing your hands in intentional helplessness while we let them get away with it.
Yeah, I'm offended. I'm also furious that I know this narrative will change right after the deadline passes. Only then the consensus will be "why didn't Beshear do something?!?" while right now the consensus online is that he can't or shouldn't.
Help me understand.
No one is talking about the "dictionary value" of the word. I have tried to be clear that this situation has occurred many times in the past and it has been decided that even being in a coma for 4 years does not make the seat vacant. This also doesn't mean nothing can be done. A Senator could start the expulsion process. This is a path that does not depend on the seat being vacant.
Okay so I can see it was not explicit in my last paragraph - I am not american. I have nothing to do here but to encourage americans to stop fighting their comrades and start organizing, the same I do in my own country.
I happened upon the post, saw how this was a path to eroding sick leave for other people, made a comment on that and though I could drop some relevant info to help people understand the other aspects of the situation. That's it.
What can he do?
He can argue to use the dictionary definition of the word "vacant" when it strains credibility that McConnell has the capability to ever return to his seat. He can make the appointment now, before the deadline, and let Republicans try to argue against it.
It's not much of a stretch.
It's certainly less reaching than the other side who is pretending McConnell is alive.
It is true. The man can say "I appoint [x] to be Senator". It is not possible to argue against that. I still don't see what it will achieve. It seems like wishful thinking.
What I didn't think about until now when I was refreshing my memory on this "deadline" is that the deadline is to call a special election. The governor of Kentucky cannot appoint a replacement in case of a vacancy.
You can read the laws at the following links:
I noticed you referred to section 152 of the Kentucky Constitution in a different comment. This does not apply to Congress and it is clear in the text of the document. It refers only to "city, town, county, district or State officers". I am not sure who is giving you this information but I would be skeptical of it.
The Senate has always been treated as an "office for the State at large".
I really don't get why so many supposed Dems are arguing to lose.
Is it better to win this argument than the country? What's your motivation here? If there's any doubt as to the meaning of these words and the historical precedent, they lean in my direction more than yours.
Beshear needs to take real action and let his opponents argue it in court. If he doesn't try, there's no argument.
And for some reason you're taking their side, even when it's weaker.
I am not sure how to say this without sounding like an asshole so please take this kindly: Are you aware that the Constitution of a State can only apply to state level government and has no application to the federal government?
Yes, it can be confusing because Senators in Congress are referred to as Senators "at large" because they do not represent a specific part of the state. What you quoted is not specific to senators but offices at the State level that are "at large". That would include offices that serve the whole state, like the Attorney General.
I'm not sure who you are referring to. I'm not really following what the Democrats are saying about this. Therefore I cannot reply. If you want to share an example, I can try.
Maybe you aren't asking me this but I don't follow.
The desire for people to understand how their government works. So that they will be able to clock when people are lying to them and ask themselves what there is to gain from these lies.
I'm trying really, really hard not to respond to these comments because it's a distraction. My whole point has been that it benefits any government for people to fight among themselves rather than turn to collective action. But I am weak so here it goes:
You keep bringing up sides. What sides? Americans have been tricked into treating politics like team sports. How's that working for you? Has anything improved or moved in any way in the last 70 years? Are people more free? Have civil rights improved? Or is it convenient to present complex situations as two parties who constantly blame each other for failure to act while maintaining their positions of power? It's literally good cop-bad cop. How do people fall for that?
All I have tried to do was explain what the law says. I even included what path exists right now to make the seat vacant. What sides are there? Is it "the law does not allow for this" vs "he should do it anyways"? Do you understand those aren't opposites? "The law does not allow for this" does not assign a moral or ethical position. It is the beginning of a discussion, not the end of it.
If I was american I'd be asking myself why the focus is on this one governor and instead of all the senators. No one is questioning if the Senate can expel him. Have I missed why no one has done this? Maybe if they frown enough they can ride this situation to success in the next election and no one will question why they do anything. But sure, let's not try and under how things work.
dae "both sides"?
I'm not sure what the implication of this comment is but I'd be really confused if it is meant as snark as this entire comment is about how there are no sides in what I am saying.
I don't think something being illegal would stop the government. I don't think something being legal makes it ethical. The Governor and the Senator are both imperialist ghouls I'm not concerned with if what they do is legal or not.
Nobody here has even come close to saying this isn't an outright conspiracy, especially not the poster you're replying to. Why are you attacking them for something they didn't say?
There isn't a vacancy, as McConnell has not vacated his seat. That's what still needs to be established (the "meeting with Bashear" part you talk about and that Bashear is calling for), and what the right has been so carefully avoiding establishing. Right now, McConnell has been burning sick leave - he's still employed & sitting his term.
If I'm dead and my work is paying normal sick leave, that's plain wage theft. If you're dead, the accrued benefits should divest normally*.
Asterisk because I don't know local laws, just what should be considered normal.
Nitpick: wage theft is the term used to describe the employer not compensating the employee for work done. Usually through shenanigans like forcing certain tasks be done off the clock
What's the other way around, time theft? That didn't sound right either. Maybe benefits fraud? I don't see why I need to know, if I did I'd ask a lawyer anyway.
It's usually just theft, in some jurisdictions it's a special type of fraud - but colloquially it's used for both employer and employee.
"wage theft" is really a very minor thread in the vast tapestry of "McConnell has died and they're covering it up to further cement their control of the US government" but like yes, if it's true then they 100% are also doing that.
It's so. It's very much his version of the "...and JAYWALKING!" rap sheet bit
I'm looking at his seat and it's pretty empty. What's another word for empty?
McConnell is very obviously dead or dead adjacent. He'll never fill that seat again.
It isnt empty, the only evidence anyone (well, anyone not-a-fash) has is that he's still serving his term. That's the problem.
If you had any proof of his death, this wouldn't be an issue (but I'd worry for your safety) - but the lack of proof being the result of a conspiracy is the whole of the topic here, so I'm a little confused why you're trying to assert vibes as truth.
So anyone who doesn't go along with the GOP's stalling plan for a Senate seat is a "fash" now. Got it.
And during some years we shouldn't appoint a Supreme Court seat either. Makes sense to me.
That isn't even close to what I said.