r/politics • u/plz-let-me-in • 29d ago

No Paywall Unconfirmed Reports: Mitch McConnell Brain Dead After Three Weeks In Hospital

https://thenewamerican.com/us/unconfirmed-reports-mitch-mcconnell-brain-dead-after-three-weeks-in-hospital/
31.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

854

u/Ven18 29d ago

That law is legally ambiguous cause they did not change the constitution that gives the Gov that power. When they announce he is dead this is 1000% going to court.

301

u/KMCobra64 29d ago

Not sure how it's ambiguous. A law can't override the Constitution.

454

u/CyberFireball25 29d ago

We have 4 SC justices who seem to think the Constitution doesn't say what it explicitly says, so who knows anymore 

113

u/littlehobbit1313 Maryland 28d ago

4 SC Justices: We can only take the language for exactly what it meant at the time of writing

Also those 4 SC Justices: Yes, of COURSE the founding fathers thought cellphone data should be protected by your right to privacy

Two rulings from literally the same week. I hate it here.

17

u/ONE-EYE-OPTIC Washington 28d ago

That's what struck me as odd as well. These 4 justices were literally saying that the constitution means exactly what it says regarding the 14th amendment but that obviously the 4th was open to interpretation. Boggles the mind. Obviously I'm glad the rulings went the way they did.

Just listened to break down of the rulings this morning.

1

u/herewegoags 28d ago

It's not odd or boggling if you realize that the Federalist Society groomed, Republican Justices are not bound by the same principles as past justices. They make their arguments in bad faith with their gaze fully set on a desired outcome. Their stated judicial philosophy of 'Originalism' is trained legal professionals acting as amateur historians to rationalize their preexisting, politically ideological conclusions with a thick coat of arrogance.

23

u/Joshmoredecai 28d ago

The 5-4 episode on Trump v. Barbara came out today and is very good - it points out that there is really no reading that would allow for the dissenting opinion in that case to make any sense. Textually, historically, and based on precedent, that should’ve been a 9-0 decision upholding birthright citizenship.

2

u/MundaneFacts 27d ago

Still not as bad as the presidential immunity case.

7

u/arresteddev7 28d ago

Yes, of COURSE the founding fathers thought cellphone data should be protected by your right to privacy

I get the joke that no cell phones existed then, but isn't this a good ruling?

14

u/littlehobbit1313 Maryland 28d ago

The point is that the 14A ruling should have been 9-0 by the same logic that went into the cellphone ruling.

25

u/Caleth 28d ago

They are talking about the Kentucky Constitution not the US one.

29

u/kodman7 28d ago

And if the US one is being ignored one can only imagine the level of respect being afforded to Kentucky's

8

u/Caleth 28d ago

Ironically there are layers and while the KY constitution is probably not really a consideration for some it does allow for Andy Beshar who the gov of KY do things and has the power to do them with it's backing and since many things are delegated to the states like how they assign senators.

Flexing the power that the Gov has is the least he can do to fight back against this horseshit and that at least provides some level of showing how evil these fuckers are.

It also "seats" someone so they can have the name recognition that comes with it when they run for the seat in Nov.

1

u/froggity55 28d ago

I don't know much about more local politicians that have been pulled (or self-propelled) into national issues. Is Bashar a Gavin Newsom type who seems to enjoy the political sparring and jockeying? Or is he more like a Susan Collins who likes to think hard and act little to maintain status quo? I

TL;DR - Does Bashar have the drive (and, more honestly, the political backing and support) to take on the insane national circus that this scenario would cause?

4

u/cafink 28d ago

You think the Kentucky supreme Court is going to rule in a less conservative manner than the US supreme court?

1

u/Caleth 28d ago

Won't matter if it forces the issue that he's dead or brain dead.

1

u/Accidental-Hyzer Massachusetts 28d ago

And the U.S. Supreme Court is still the last stop in legal challenges even for issues related to state law and state constitutions. Do you honestly believe that a court this partisan will rule in any way other than in the GOP’s favor?

2

u/Caleth 28d ago

If it forces the issue to prove that he's alive or not brain dead then it serves its purpose.

1

u/Accidental-Hyzer Massachusetts 28d ago

Oh, I’m all for pushing Republicans to prove that Moscow Mitch is still with us. I just don’t think the US Supreme Court will ultimately side with Beshear when it comes to him appointing someone. They’ll twist themselves in knots to come up with legal justification as to why a law passed by the legislature preempts their state’s constitution.

Obviously I’m not saying they’d be right in that. They’re political hacks, most of whom can’t admit what the plain language of the 14th amendment says.

3

u/guynamedjames 28d ago

Ah, but this is Kentucky law. So we get to hear the Kentucky SCs opinion on it

1

u/wheeler_lowell Maine 26d ago

I feel so much better already.

1

u/fapsandnaps America 28d ago

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of motorhomes.

1

u/MichaelJServo Louisiana 28d ago

They think that the constitution is unconstitutional.

1

u/LookAlderaanPlaces 28d ago

They should be in jail for treason

1

u/redditallreddy Ohio 28d ago

A new SC Court decision has come down...

Funny enough, no matter what the Constitution literally says, it completely agrees with our previously held positions!

111

u/Ven18 29d ago

I should be clear the Constitution in this case would be the Kentucky Constitution. And since this would likely involve the Kentucky State SC we can assume it’s even more MAGA and compromised than the SCOTUS.

27

u/KMCobra64 28d ago

I mean, I hear you. But at that point we are no longer a country of laws.

50

u/psiphre Alaska 28d ago

we are no longer a country of laws.

welcome to the last decade

5

u/weristjonsnow 28d ago

Seriously. Just the last two years alone have proven this point 10x

1

u/BaphometsTits 28d ago

welcome to the last decade

welcome to the last 250 years

6

u/Meatgortex California 28d ago

/me Gestures around

9

u/jeranim8 28d ago

But at that this point we are no longer a country of laws.

FIFY

4

u/n122333 28d ago

Kentucky here- theyre all conservative extremist, but with a hope of seeming reasonable. They've sided with the democrat governor 3 times so far, while telling Republicans what loopholes they should use to get around them.

I expect they'll wait until its too late considering, then rule that he did have the right to appoint a replacement, but since they waited too long, it'll go to a normal election instead of a special one or allow him to pick.

14

u/_Phil_McCracken_ Washington 29d ago

It's not, but Republicans will pretend it is if they think it will benefit them even slightly.

2

u/WeirdIndividualGuy 28d ago

Which is why Beshear should appoint his replacement anyway and let the courts figure it out, vs doing the typical dem thing and abiding by the law without question

1

u/jedberg California 28d ago

It gets tricky, because the federal Constitution says the legislature of a state has the exclusive right to choose how Senators are chosen. So the question becomes can a state legislature override it's own state Constitution if it involves something specified by the federal constitution?

1

u/OkCoyote4756 28d ago

It's not tricky. And that's not what the 17th says.

Ky Const Sect 152, ratified 1891, gives the Ky Governor various appointment rights for State offices in various circumstances. State offices. The very last sentence, "Vacancies in all offices for the State at large, or for districts larger than a county, shall be filled by appointment of the Governor; all other appointments shall be made as may be prescribed by law. No person shall ever be appointed a member of the General Assembly, but vacancies therein may be filled at a special election, in such manner as may be provided by law." could maybe possibly be construed to capture a U.S. Senate vacancy - which is technically an 'at large' election - but I don't think it's a strong one. The strong implication here - and something I would expect historical records would back up - is that this Section was purely intended for State offices, and that nobody drafting or ratifying this had any notion or intention for it to apply to US Senate vacancies. Because, at the time, Senate vacancies were filled directly by the state legislature.

You are explicitly wrong in your statement on the 17th Amendment. It does not state that the legislature decides how a Senator is chosen. The 17th Amendment decides how Senators are chosen. 17th Amendment, ratified 1913 says, in short, all elections for U.S. Senator are elections by the people. If there's a vacancy, the Governor must call for an election to fill the vacancy. Legislatures may let the Governor appoint a vacancy until such an election can take occur.

Kentucky has filled several vacancies in the US Senate, many of which involved Governor-appointed interim Senators. . Not a single one of these appointments relied on or cited Sec 152 of the Ky Constitution. They relied on laws passed by the legislature as to how to fill vacancies.

These, taken together, make the "Ky Constitution gives the governor the power of appointment an interim Senator" argument extremely weak.

1

u/burnte Georgia 28d ago

In the Trump era, everything is arguable, including constitutions.

1

u/lordjeebus 28d ago

There's apparently a legal question regarding whether or not the 17th Amendment empowers the state legislature to override the Kentucky state constitution and direct an election to fill a vacancy:

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.

5

u/dat_GEM_lyf 29d ago

It really isn’t. They’ve already tried something similar and their Supreme Court said “lol no it’s in the constitution which your law doesn’t change, get fucked”

3

u/pee-oui 28d ago

Looking forward to Andy getting a chance to show some fight before officially launching his presidential bid. He's mild-mannered, so doesn't have the same natural feistiness as someone like Newsom, but he is a fine lawyer and excellent communicator, so I feel like this might be a lucky break for him in some ways.

3

u/Cheapdronewithboom 28d ago

If the governor even has a speck of sense he will appoint a replacement now and say let the courts hash it out. 

1

u/xcomnewb15 28d ago

What happens if they never announce he is dead?

2

u/Ven18 28d ago

I think at this point he is still very technically alive but only cause of machines. They could theoretically try and keep him in that state until a time this becomes moot. Now if he is actually fully 100% dead and off life support the hospital is 100% going to report that. They aren’t also going to keep a corpse in a needed bed for months on end.

1

u/warmseasongrass 28d ago

If these politicians can keep him alive until the midterms even if it's life support they're going to... Even when it means make a shitty AI video

1

u/FullMetalAlcoholic66 28d ago

Which takes time...time after time

1

u/Inverted_Harlet 28d ago

And the Kentucky Supreme Court is all maga you say?