McConnell freezes midsentence. Stroke?

If im not mistaken, the law provides that Republican would give him 3 choices and he would select from that list. This would only apply until they could enact a special election at which point the winner would assume the office. I would not see it as likely that a Democrat governor in a mostly Republican state harming his perception in order to have his guy in for a few months.

 

It will depend on what the Kentucky State constitution says about it, if it says anything at all.

 

The new Kentucky law requires the governor to pick from 3 selected by a special committee dedicated to the task, who are all Republicans. I forgot what the name of that committee was, you'll have to google it.

We're not hanging on to Feinstein. Feinstein is hanging on to Feinstein.

 

He took a bad fall prior to these two episodes. It's probably post-concussion syndrome which one can take awhile to completely heal from. He's clearly more mentally fit than Feinstein and Fetterman, and probably more engaged than Biden, except during an episode.

I'm sure he is getting top quality care, but pcs can be frustrating because when you aren't in an episode you feel just fine. I think he should step back from majority leader while he recovers, but continue as a senator.

 

Again you are probably right. I live a long way from Kentucky and haven't taken time to research the process.

 

Fake News Wish casting.

The GOP won the Congressional elections by 3 million votes and 9 seats (it would have been more seats but Dems out gerrymandered them) and the GOP is 4 points ahead of where they were at this point in the last election.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2024_generic_congressional_vote-7969.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html#polls

Trump is ELEVEN points ahead of where he was at this point in the last presidential election. And while there may be a party imploding, it's certainly not the Resurgent GOP.

 

It's the greatest show on earth watching the GQP/GOP implode.
A spectacular implosion trying to out-cray -cray each other.

 

And yet, it's not us reduced to election rigging because you know that the Electorate rejects Dems.

Ex-CIA Agent Who Signed Propaganda Letter About Hunter Biden Laptop, To Rig The Election For Bribed Biden, Tried To Conceal Twitter Job

"People trained to overthrow foreign governments have no place meddling, influencing or putting their thumb on the scales to sway outcomes of our elections at home..."

And you wonder why Trump and the GOP are leading in the latest polls?

'Newly uncovered #TwitterFiles email reveals one of the CIA agents feat. on the
@NYPost
cover for signing the laptop letter was also in charge of Policy enforcement at Twitter & appears to have kept their job a secret from Congress & the public until now…'

They are lying, rigging elections and suppressing speech because the American People are embracing their agenda.

 

Your suggested diagnosis-- while I wouldn't say it wasn't possible-- doesn't seem to jibe with what is described, at least, at the website for this medical treatment facility:

<Snip>
Post-concussion syndrome (PCS) occurs when a patient experiences persistent symptoms three months or more after a head injury. Those symptoms could include headaches, brain fog, fatigue, sleep problems, memory issues, vision problems, and more. PCS can develop after a concussive event (falls, car accidents, contact sports, etc) or another closed-head injury. It doesn’t take a direct hit or loss of consciousness to constitute a concussion; many patients suffer concussion symptoms after whiplash or jostling of their brains.
<End Snip>

https://www.cognitivefxusa.com/blog/post-concussion-syndrome-and-post-concussion-symptoms-pcs?utm_source=google-ads&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=GC-Symptoms&utm_agid=142836900862&utm_term=post concussion syndrome symptoms&creative=646075035511&device=m&placement=&gclid=Cj0KCQjw9MCnBhCYARIsAB1WQVVuQ6AeazFwY2-Yoq7RwNOmewhtOMyxl-OEysq5YPckCaZ2gtWwRx8aAjJ8EALw_wcB#post-concussion-syndrome


I recognize, however, that the general description, above, may not fit every case, and perhaps McConnell's is worse than most. There are, however, other, more serious, potential consequences, from a head injury, such as bleeding within one's brain. One would like to think that doctors would have discovered this, before now, but I have witnessed enough gross incompetence, in my own experience, so that I seldom discount the possibility of unsatisfactory medical care. Such brain bleeds, by the way, could well be hard to detect, at first; so if McConnell hadn't been re-examined since March, this speculation is not far-fetched. But he will be now seeking medical answers, which hopefully his doctors will be able to provide.

Of course-- just to be thorough-- there is also the chance that his malady was not brought on by his first fall-- two more McConnell falls have been reported, since-- but that it caused all 3 falls. Again, if McConnell had something like, for example, a brain tumor, one would expect that this would have been found, during his hospitalization, in March. But expectations of those in the medical field-- no disrespect intended-- can often be unrealistic.

 

In that instance they would not be perusing the state constitution. They would be looking solely at the law as written and determine whether the governor followed that law.

It seems to me that if their intent with the law was to make it so that a governor had to elect a person from the same party, they would have been adequately able to accomplish that in their language.

 

No, because the new law might not be constitutional per state constitution.

 

While possible, surely that is a long shot. Most laws that are written do not run afoul of their respective constitutions. At this point you are truly grasping at straws.

Why?

This doesnt make any sense. Every bit of this is a figment of your imagination. Can one imagine a scenario where the governor of an opposing party does not appoint a Senator from the same party as the outoging Senator as per state law and then on top of that the governor beats it in state court and prevails? Sure. Would I or any logical person bet on that happening for a Senate opening? Not in a million years. That is a highly unlikely set of circumstances.

 

A mere suggestion is not grasping at straws.

But characterizing a mere suggestion as 'grasping at straws' could be a strawman, ya never know.

What makes perfect sense is a republican legislature preventing a democratic governor from doing his job via power grab legislation.
it will also affect Repub governors because the choice are 3 dished up by a committee, and not necessarily the choice of the governor, and it should be his or her choice. The governor was elected by the will of the people so whomever he chooses is part of that will.

If that doesn't make sense to you because you are looking at it from a partisan lens.

 

While I dont pretend to know the laws in every state, in the big picture, I dont believe that this is an unusual rule.

The reason this is "grasping at straws" is that you are fabricating it whole cloth for no apparent reason. Nobody has said one thing about the governor even opposing that common sense rule. A Democrat governor in a mostly Republican state is not likely to rock the boat just so that you can put in a Democrat Senator for the few months that it would take to hold a special election, especially when that Senate seat doesnt chage the balance of power to any substantive degree. For you to sit here and muse that the governor is first going to go down this path, and then further will be able to overturn this law in their state Supreme Court can be described as a long shot at best.

Why are you going down this path? It just seems so silly and pointless. It is bickering just for the sake of bickering.

 

Not unusual for Republican legislatures to usurp an incoming democratic's governor's authority and power, not unusual at all.

There have been several instances where Republican-controlled legislatures have passed legislation to limit the power of incoming Democratic governors. Here are some examples:

• In North Carolina, the Republican-led legislature passed laws in 2016 to curb the authority of incoming Democratic Governor Roy Cooper. One law subjected the governor’s cabinet appointments to approval by the state senate and stripped the governor’s ability to appoint members to the influential University of North Carolina board of trustees, among other measures. Another law gave Republicans and Democrats equal control over North Carolina’s state and county elections boards, changing a 1901 law that allowed the governor to pick a majority of the elections boards’ members.
  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...re-tried-strip-power-new-governor-will-states

• In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers held an unusual lame-duck session in 2018 to consider bills that would undercut the power of Governor-elect Tony Evers and Attorney General-elect Josh Kaul, both Democrats. The proposals included preventing the incoming governor from withdrawing Wisconsin from a legal challenge to the federal Affordable Care Act, sidestepping the attorney general’s power to represent the state in litigation, and rescheduling a 2020 election to boost the chances of a Republican state Supreme Court Justice, among others.
  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-states-idUSKBN1O22GS

• In Michigan, Republicans introduced legislation in 2018 to strip some powers from the offices of the state attorney general and secretary of state, which were both captured by Democrats, along with the governorship in the November 6 elections.

"Common sense" he says. Listen to you. Your partisan lens is so thick you don't see it's partisan.

Oh, someone has, for certain. I didn't make it up, I got the idea from an article I read, but I forgot who said it first or the article.

A dem gov in a red state is a purple state and that dem most likely a moderate slightly conservative, and such a gov would likely appoint moderate/conservative dems, which is, at that juncture, the WILL of the people.
I stand by my comment,.

I stand by my comment. You're just looking at it from a partisan lens, you're an apologist for legislative power usurping, which isn't that uncommon in Republican legislatures

 

Im looking at it from a partisan lens?

That is funny.

Do you realize this law exists in Democrat states as well? You seem to be implying this exists only in Republican states. I have no problem with the law whether it be in a Democrat or Republican state. The law is common sense. A Senator dying or something similar should not be an opportunity for the opposing federal party to gain an advantage due to a governor who typically has no bearing whatsoever on federal governance. That is not a partisan position even slightly. In this particular situation, with a split house and Senate, there is not any legislation that is going to pass regardless of what party were to fill his seat. To call it a nothing burger is an overstatement.

For the same party to hold that temporary Senate seat is simple fairness. It would be a travesty if there ever were a situation where a governor changed who is in control of the Senate, no matter if that helped the Republicans or the Democrats.