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
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 Kentucky 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, 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 don't know what to do 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.)