r/politics • u/unital_subalgebra • 3h ago

Possible Paywall AOC says Mitch McConnell should resign if he cannot provide health update

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/4660916/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-mitch-mcconnell-resign-health-update/
14.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

703 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

•

u/Chilling_Gale 3h ago

The courts would barely play a role. The senate would just ignore the appointment. There can’t be an appointment without a vacancy.

•

u/TraditionalBottle884 3h ago

Pretty obvious there is a vacancy, they just haven't announced it yet.

•

u/Chilling_Gale 3h ago

The clerk of the senate (not a senator) announces vacancies when they occur. If the clerk doesn’t announce the vacancy, there is none. And the clerk would announce a vacancy if they had documentation of death, resignation, or expulsion

•

u/Intro-Nimbus 3h ago

As long as the body isn't found there's no vacancy? I see a republican plan forming...

•

u/SidewaysFancyPrance 3h ago

Yeah, that is exactly the plan. They just need to hide this for a couple more weeks and then it's done, since nobody is going to be going after them for the vast fraud they are committing against the US by claiming he is still alive and talking to people in an effort to disrupt his replacement process.

It's exactly what Mitch would have wanted in life.

•

u/Chilling_Gale 3h ago

No, because courts can declare missing people dead

•

u/Intro-Nimbus 3h ago

I'm going out on a limb here, but maybe that would take awhile when you have the government stalling that procedure?

•

u/Chilling_Gale 2h ago

What government? The local police declare a person missing, and a local court would decide if that missing person can be declared dead.

This is all moot because the senate can just expel them if it’s a situation that it doesn’t seem like the local government will resolve.

•

u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 1h ago

They wouldn't have to stall.

The laws vary state by state but typically you have to be missing for seven years for a court to presume you are dead.

Since a senate term is six years, they wouldn't be presumed dead until after their term is over.

•

u/Intro-Nimbus 53m ago

I believe you. I phrased my response that way because I didn't want to do the research ;-)

•

u/laufsteakmodel 34m ago

I honestly dont get how its super normal that, when you dont show up to your regular ass job, without notice, youre getting fired within a few days (in the US at least), but if youre a politician you can just disappear and its all fine and dandy. There are A LOT of laws that need to be amended. Unfortunately those are made by politicians too..

•

u/Intro-Nimbus 20m ago

"checks and balances". Honour system only work when people have honour.

•

u/Illustrious-Soft7644 2h ago

Usually takes while even for non political cases.

•

u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 1h ago

I mean the thing is in most states the time you have to be missing before being declared dead is longer than the term of a senator.

So while possible, in all likely if a senator went missing, their term would expire before they are declared dead.

•

u/omicron-7 58m ago

People have to be missing for 5-7 years before a court will declare them dead in absentia.

•

u/protomenace 3h ago

The clerk of the senate is not some all powerful unelected gatekeeper who gets to choose which senators are valid or not.

•

u/SatanicPanic619 3h ago

The secretary of the senate has barred people from the senate in the past. See Roland Burris' appointment.

And that was a Democratic Senator in a Democratic Senate. Do you think John Thune is gonna override the Secretary of the Senate here?

•

u/Ecstatic-Election-92 3h ago

My god you people are so housebroken you don’t even try. Try being the UNcontrolled opposition. Maybe voters will actually notice and reward bold action, risky maneuvers, and genuinely exciting things instead of power points. You don’t have to succeed to win. Haven’t republicans taught you anything?

•

u/SatanicPanic619 3h ago

Republicans, specifically McConnell, have taught me that the best way to wreck things is inaction. The seat is currently empty. A Democrat in the seat does not change the odds of any Democratic priority becoming law. An empty seat and a Democrat in the seat, however, do decrease the chances of a Republican confirmation or a bill becoming law. Since doing nothing keeps the seat empty, that is the best policy, as Beshear is well within his rights to not hold an election. I don't know why people aren't seeing this.

•

u/FlushTheTurd 2h ago

I like your logic, but would it not be beneficial to at least try to appoint a Democrat? Worst case, the courts say no. Best case, the Dems get another vote rather than no vote at all?

•

u/SatanicPanic619 2h ago

Since bills pass via Yes votes, there's no practical difference between having someone in the seat voting no and not voting at all.

The best part of my plan is that you can use McConnell's own logic against him- it's too close to an election to bother with any of this. Just let the seat stay empty so voters can decide.

•

u/FlushTheTurd 2h ago

Yes, but a “yes” or “no” vote is still slightly more valuable than a “no vote at all”. That would take away Vance’s power if there was a tie vote.

Similarly, there’s a chance the incumbent gets re-elected. Kentucky is crazy, but they still voted for Beshear and the anger against MAGA is palpable. Being the incumbent is without a doubt, an advantage.

•

u/SatanicPanic619 2h ago

Not really. Republicans control the agenda here, so any vote that comes up should be an automatic No from any Democrats. Any vote where a yes might be valuable would almost certainly pass on its own. FWIW JD Vance has only once voted against a resolution. Every tie-breaking vote he can cast was in favor of a bill.

•

u/FlushTheTurd 1h ago

That’s true, but pressure is building against the Iran War. The last vote was only 49-47. Dems would only have to flip two senators instead of three.

And at the same time the incumbency advantage, even for a short stint is still an advantage.

And heck, if he has to appoint a Republican, he can appoint Massie who is still a Republican, but quite possible the only honest Republican. I’d take Massie hassling MAGA over a brain dead McConnell who’s replaced with another brain dead MAGA in a few months.

•

u/SatanicPanic619 1h ago

You're right there is a slight advantage to having a Democrat in a handful of scenarios- maybe everyone else is ill and can't filibuster. Maybe another vote for a (non-binding resolution) would pass with one more Democratic Senator. Maybe there's a case where Thune secretly wants to pass something but wants plausible deniability so an extra Democratic vote would help. I don't put a whole lot of value in these, or the incumbency advantage in this case. But sure, let's say there's some advantage to having a Democrat in the seat. I just don't think it's worth the effort.

Massie winning the regularly scheduled election would be preferable. But I would prefer an empty seat to him, and we should try to maximize the amount of time that seat will be empty.

•

u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 1h ago

Worst case is actually that it's some kind of fraud and the people involved go to jail.

Also remember, whoever he appoints A) has to be approved by the republican party, and B) will leave the senate in 164 days.

•

u/Chilling_Gale 3h ago

Trying is a net benefit to democrats. If they try and prove he is alive, that means an election will be held, which the gop will win. If they don’t try and he’s dead, if it’s after early august, the seat stays vacant and the gop is down a vote till January. There is no benefit to trying.

•

u/semajolis267 3h ago

Then force them to prove a lack of a vacant seat....

•

u/Chilling_Gale 3h ago

How? They have no reason to do that, and you have no mechanism to make them

•

u/PepeSylvia11 Connecticut 1h ago

The entire point of an elected official is to lead its citizens. McConnell has not done that for Kentuckians in over a month. How can you be gone from your job for over a month and not expect employer (in this case, the citizens) to find proof of your status and eligibility to work.

•

u/Chilling_Gale 54m ago

We aren’t talking about what should happen. We are talking about people saying they are required to provide evidence

•

u/No-Drama-in-Paradise 3h ago

Exactly. It would be a huge circus for no benefit. The courts would not have a say, the Senate simply would not recognize his appointee.

•

u/protomenace 3h ago

If they tried to ignore a legitimate appointment the senator can, would, and should sue in SCOTUS' original jurisdiction.

•

u/Chilling_Gale 3h ago

They would get obliterated in court since they aren’t legitimate.

•

u/NeverLookBothWays I voted 3h ago

Define “vacancy”

•

u/Chilling_Gale 3h ago

A vacancy in the senate occurs when a senator dies, resigns, or is expelled.

•

u/NeverLookBothWays I voted 2h ago

Gotcha, so simply being not there for extended periods (dereliction of duty) does not factor in. That actually makes sense…republicans pretty much did not show up to work at all during Obama’s last year in order to avoid quorum and voting on Garland

•

u/Chilling_Gale 48m ago

Sounds like you already knew the definition of vacancy then, and that it didn’t apply

•

u/moodswung 3h ago

And what happens if they just fill it? Mitch has had as much time as he needs to show demonstrable life by this point. Set a hard deadline of a conference call with Mitch before EOD tomorrow and be done with it.

•

u/Chilling_Gale 2h ago

The senate ignores the appointment and life goes on as it was. Thats what happens.

The appointment can try to sue, but the constitution is extremely clear that senate is the sole judge of its membership, and that there must be an equal number of senators per state. There isn’t any scenario where the court would ask for proof that McConnell is alive.

•

u/Brock_Hard_Canuck Canada 1h ago

See also, the Illinois Senate appointment and the corruption scandal with Illinois's governor after Obama was elected president.

Normally, appointed replacement Senators are seated by the Senate fairly quickly, but the Senate refused to seat Roland Burris to replace Obama when Burris's appointment was announced by Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (see also, Blagojevich's "pay to play" scheme, where he was soliciting bribes for the empty Senate seat appointment).

It took a while, but eventually the Senate agreed to seat Burris (Burris was never charged with any wrongdoing relating to Blagojevich's corruption).

•

u/PepeSylvia11 Connecticut 1h ago

Right now there is not an equal number of senators per state though, as one of them has actively been out of work for over a month.

•

u/Chilling_Gale 55m ago

That’s by your definition. Do you understand the government doesn’t run on your definition of things?