Kentucky lawmakers gave final approval Thursday to a bill stripping the state’s Democratic governor of any role in picking someone to occupy a U.S. Senate seat if a vacancy occurred in the home state of 82-year-old Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.
The legislation calls for a special election to fill any Senate vacancy from the Bluegrass State. The special election winner would hold the seat for the remainder of the unexpired term.
I’m shocked… that it took them this long. They’ve been threatening this for like half a year I think.
This wouldn’t even fucking matter if there weren’t 2 senators per state. The only reason anyone gives a shit is because senators in the US hold an insanely disproportionate amount of power in the government.
Yeah and for good reason.
Out of curiosity, what’s the reason?
I should have said and been more clear. I mean it’s good that we have a bicameral legislature with an upper and lower chamber. Bicameralism is good because it acts as a check and balance to the problem of a unicameral legislature being more susceptible to corruption as well as more existential threats, such as being dissolved by a president or taken over by the military.
Having a second chamber allows one to act as a revising body to the other, creates a back and forth that ultimately results in better legislation. Further, in America, I subscribe to the idea that the Senate–with its longer terms, smaller size, and equal distribution among the states–acts a cooling saucer to the more directly elected House, which comes in with hot ideas and mandates that have a two-year shelf life. The House is supposed to be more nimble and responsive. The Senate is less nimble but with more power vested in each seat. I’d be fine with expanding the sizes of both chambers, but they would need a new office building. I think unicameralism or even bicameralism in which both chambers have equal power would cause more problems than it solves.
I get that everyone hates the Senate but seems to love their Senator, and that certain senior senators end up locking up a seat until they are senile dinosaurs that die in office. My magic wand idea is that if there is a government shutdown or failure to fill a cabinet or Supreme Court vacancy, it should trigger a snap recall election of the senior senator’s seat. They can run in it, but so can anyone else. I like the idea of six year terms, as a matter of consistency, for that cooling saucer factor, but if they can’t do their jobs they should face the voters promptly. I also like the idea that the upper chamber has overlapping terms so as to operate continuously, instead of, as in our lower chamber, having all the members up for reelection every two years.
People hate the Senate because it’s undemocratic, not because they hate bicameral legislature.
Thank you for elaborating. That sounds better reasoned than the first comment. I suspect the original comment you had replied to was lamenting that there were only 2 per state and not proportionate to population. I learned a new word today: Bicameral. I appreciate your reply!
How dare you question slave-holders from the 1700’s?!
Once the latest generation steps up and votes, I plan on listening to the crying and gnashing of teeth by the GQP when the Dems do everything the GQP has been setting precedent for.
I have zero faith neoliberal Democrats would be anywhere near that ruthless (unless they needed to stop some leftists, maybe).
It certainly doesn’t help that the left-leaning ones are told online that voting is pointless and that it doesn’t matter.
Self-fulfilling prophecy.
I always remember that Bernie suspended his campaign in April and RFK was shot in June, and I wonder if Bernie had survived Super Tuesday, if he would have survived June.
That’s what every generation says. Problem is that by the time a generation actually does step up to vote, they’ve become more conservative than when they were younger. Maybe it’ll be different this time.
I’m looking forward to reading Fareed Zakaria’s new book. He argues that we are at the beginning of a new age of revolutions.
My only complaint is that “liberal” in the US is absolutely not the antithesis of conservative.
It’s not a binary scale. There is no “opposite” of conservative. There are moderates to the left of conservatives, liberals to the left of moderates, progressives and social democrats to the left of liberals, and socialists to the left of progressives.
Yes, notice how many of those you yourself say are further left than liberal? That’s the point.
I agree with you, but I think it’s understood what information the graph portrays and it isn’t productive to argue over the labelling semantics.
It’s not “arguing semantics” if the words mean very different things… The false notion that liberals are the opposite of conservatives NEEDS to die. Don’t keep it around over, “arguing semantics”. That’s insanely pathetic.
Unfortunate that this graph starts in 1972, when the oldest baby boomers were already 27. If you compare that first section of the boomers’ line to the corresponding section of the millennials’ line, boomers were to the left of millennials around the same age.
Now, I find it hard to imagine that millennials will have the “Reagan moment” that boomers had in 1980, but this data shouldn’t convince anyone that millennials are some shining ray of hope for the future. Today’s non-voting, politically apathetic millennials could easily be swayed to the right by the time they’re the age of today’s boomers. I see this sentiment repeated a lot lately, but it’s pure foolishness to think that conservatives will die with boomers.
It remains to be seen. The world generally trends leftward over time, but progress has to be fought for.
Just two hundred years ago, republicanism in Europe was viewed as extreme as Americans view communism today. Six hundred years ago, capitalism was viewed as extreme.
I think people who are wealthy live longer, thus the “people get more conservative as they get older” meme.
That’s an interesting hypothesis. I think of it more in terms of human development over the lifespan rather than an artifact of survival bias. In my opinion, the relationship between age and conservatism is mainly because of three reasons:
-
As you get older, you tend to accumulate more wealth, responsibility, children, etc. so you have more to lose than when you are younger, which means that you tend to value the system that protects what you have.
-
As you get older, you get weaker and slower and lose the physical confidence and recklessness of youth. That feels vulnerable, so you tend to worry more about things like violent crime and disorder. You start to value stability and order more.
-
When people are young, they tend to be more prone to simplistic and radical thinking, simply due to lack of life experience. This is both a strength and weakness. It makes youth passionate and energetic, but also more prone to believing that there are simple solutions to complex problems. I say that recognizing that nowadays most Trump supporters are older and are very much embracing Trump’s simplistic solutions, but I think we all recognize that something very radical is happening on the right wing.
I note also that these are general trends across the lifespan, not deterministic or true for every individual.
I think your first point is probably the main one that affects this. People are in a good position generally as they get older so they don’t wanna rock the status quo. But with all the warning bells going off about how Millennials and Gen Z are never gonna be able to afford houses or be able to retire that is indicating the shift might not happen. Cause if they don’t have anything to maintain then why would they shift conservative?
Very true. In his new book (which I’ve only heard except from so far), Fareed Zakaria argues that the left/right split as defined since WW2 is being re-defined and I think we can all see that. It used to be that the left had the “radical” ideas and the right supported the status quo. Now, the left (the Democrats or their equivalent in other countries, not what Lemmy considers the left) is the status quo and the right is adopting radical reactionary ideas to destroy the new status quo and return to the 1950s.
So, yes, I agree with you that if Millenials and Gen Z are not able to generate wealth for themselves, they will not support the status quo. Whether that rejection of the status quo will correspond to what we today call “left” and “right” is uncertain since there is a major shift underway right now as we speak.
A lot of this resonates. I feel it has a lot to do with having kids, as well. They change your brain. I could feel it happening. When they were born, I had nightmares about forgetting them in cars or losing them in a store, or to school shooting. And that was just my subconscious brain rewiring itself for such intense love, and for preparation and protection. I’m not sure yet where the changes lead, but I can feel myself concerned much less with what my neighbors are up to and more on what’s happening at my house. I am not describing this well. Maybe someone can help out a finger on it, if it resonates.
Huh, with my kids I also felt the fear and would do anything for their safety but it was the safety of their future. To have reason to hope and dream, to have a comfortable environment, to benefit from all the science may develop, to live in a peaceful and prosperous world. To not be saddled with student loan debt. To have a safety net even when I’m no longer around to provide that. There’s definitely a big slide to the left
I couldn’t have gone further left, already basically a Maoist.
Yes, I hear what you are saying about having kids for sure. I remember how my brain changed after having kids. I started to experience fear in way that I didn’t before I had kids. Also, abstract notions of “right” and “wrong” are far less important to me than what will be beneficial, or at least not harmful, to my children. It simplifies certain issues. For example, I have daughters. Having daughters, I couldn’t care less about abstract debates about when life begins or the morality of abortion or what’s best for society as a whole. Fuck that. My much simplified perspective is now this: Any motherfucker that wants to infringe on women’s rights in any way is my enemy. That’s some primate dad logic right there, but it is what it is.
-
Couldn’t the governor veto this bill?
They can override his veto.
If they have the votes to do it then, well, democracy in action.
If the parties were reversed people would be crying foul from the other side of the aisle and cheering (respectively).
I don’t think you are quite right.
If the parties were reversed this wouldn’t happen in the first place. Proof: all the blue states where this doesn’t happen.
Uh, good? Governors shouldn’t be appointing US Senators, even temporary ones. That’s how Kelly Loeffler grifted her way into office.
Yeah. While it would be funny for Mitch McConnel’s operating to finally crash and be replaced by a Democrat, this is entirely reasonable. We were talking about how the legislatures in MA and VT could do this if Warren or Sanders were selected and the Republican governors at the time tried to pull a fast one.
Any lemmys here from KY? Registered to vote?
Got to register prior to April 22 by 4pm to vote in this May’s primary
Shoot these people with paintball guns until they never return to office.
deleted by creator
The governor can veto this, right?
Republicans have a super majority in KY senate and house
It’s apt that the abbreviation for Kentucky is KY, cuz they’ve been fucking the country for years.
The governor has denounced the measure as driven by partisanship, but the GOP supermajority legislature could override a veto when lawmakers reconvene for the final two days of this year’s session in mid-April.
Pretty sure they have a supermajority?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“So it would be a direct voice of the people determining how the vacancy is filled,” Republican Senate President Robert Stivers said while presenting the bill to his colleagues.
The governor has denounced the measure as driven by partisanship, but the GOP supermajority legislature could override a veto when lawmakers reconvene for the final two days of this year’s session in mid-April.
Rudy refers to McConnell as a “great friend and a political mentor,” and credits the state’s senior senator for playing an important role in the GOP’s rise to dominance in the Kentucky legislature.
Rudy introduced the bill in February and it cleared a House committee a day after McConnell’s announcement that he will step down from his longtime Senate leadership position in November.
In his speech from the Senate floor, McConnell left open the possibility that he might seek another term in 2026, declaring at one point: “I’m not going anywhere anytime soon.”
Beshear — who won a convincing reelection victory last November over a McConnell protege — had already seen his influence over selecting a senator greatly diminished by GOP lawmakers.
The original article contains 525 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 65%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
deleted by creator
