• 2 Posts
  • 813 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle





  • Actually, Kentucky is a special case, as the heavily Republican legislature passed a law (over the Democratic Governor’s veto) specifically removing the right of the Governor to pick a replacement. Now, in the case of any vacancy, the Governor’s only role is to schedule the special election.

    But, if it’s too close to the General Election, then the governor is obligated to fold the special election in with the General. The current theory on the Internet is that Republicans are stringing this out so that happens, because they are afraid if there is a special election then Thomas Massie would win it.

    After some thought, that seems unlikely to me. Even if a special election is held, it would only be for the remainder of McConnell’s term, which is up at the end of the year. So, that would mean that Republicans are more comfortable leaving the seat vacant (and reducing their majority) for a few more months rather than risk Massie getting the job for a few months. (And although Massie is an anti-Trumper, he is still a Republican, and will likely be a reliable vote on all sorts of evil shit for them)


  • The primary elections for the normal election cycle have already happened. Massie did not run for a Senate seat in those because he ran for his House seat, and lost.

    This special election would be a different electio under different rules, and now that he knows he’s not going to his old seat he is available to run.

    So, if they delay, they leave no opportunity for that special election, and Massie has nothing to run for. It definitely seems fitting that Republicans would scheme to leave a seat vacant, rather than there be a chance of it going to a Republican that Trump doesn’t like.








  • “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way,” Alito wrote. “Instead, the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

    Hmm, let’s look a the actual text of the 14th amendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    The word “solely” doesn’t appear there once. There is absolutely nothing there that states that being a citizen of another country disqualifies you, or your kids. (If it did, it would be impossible to be naturalized as a US citizen without first renouncing your original citizenship). It’s obvious that this clause was meant to apply to diplomats and other people who get some forms of immunity from local prosecution.

    What an asshat…