this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
109 points (100.0% liked)
politics on db0
157 readers
68 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
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.