I never thought that the rules some states have requiring a successor from the same party as the one leaving the office or dying in it was constitutional as political parties aren’t even mentioned in the Constitution. What really should happen is a special election within say 90 days of the incumbent leaving or dying to determine who finishes off the term. Maybe the voters like one particular Republican but that doesn’t mean they would be happy with every Republican as opposed to any Democrat. Let the voters decide who finishes McConnell’s term if indeed he is to resign or die.
You know, from there, one could argue that the Senator could be the one who decides who’d provide an until-the-voters-can-weigh-in successor list; and, from there, I’m pretty sure a party could ask that of them…
I disagree with all of this. Governors replacing opposite-party Senators with someone from their own party has been the norm since the 17th Amendment was passed. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance where a Democratic Governor appointed a Republican to the Senate or vice versa. And that’s fine, because the constituents who voted for those Governors did so knowing that they may be called on to appoint a replacement Senator. An appointment made by a Governor elected by the people of his or her state has much more democratic legitimacy than one made by the executive committee of a political party who were elected by the most strident partisans of their party.
Which gets to my other point, I disagree that someone appointed by the party “better represents” the needs and desires of voters who elected the previous Senator. The state party is often dominated by its most extreme members. Who ends up on the list is more likely to reflect the factional politics and career ambitions of party leaders than any attempt at continuity with the predecessor.
I agree with others that the solution is to have a special election in short order that lets the voters directly express their desires. Which is an option that the 17th Amendment specifically allows.
I think this would be entirely appropriate. He can call this the “Merrick Garland Rule” and say that it will be up to the voters in the next election to select a Senator.
Why would it be unconstitutional? The Constitution doesn’t have to describe everything it allows. What specific part of the Constitution precludes a legislature from creating such a law?
Ah. Thank Og. The Congressional Physician just cleared Mitch for duty (lightheaded, dehydrated, blah, blah, blah).
I thought Ronny Jackson had left for a professional career in alcohol abuse, no?
Huh.
Which is what the Constitution mandates for replacement of a member of the House of Representatives.
The replacement process for a Senator is however left to each state to determine by law.
This is because of carryover from the original constitution as in effect for the first century of the republic, wherein US Senators were elected by the state legislatures or as they saw fit to provide. When this was changed to mandatory popular election in 1913 (and a slight majority of states had switched to that method already on their own) there was no modification of the provision that the vacancy-replacement method would be legislated by each state.
Didn’t find it tough at all. I LOVE the look of fear on his face, and can only hope that he is also in horrendous pain. He deserves all the mocking and criticism conceivable - and not one jot of sympathy.
Old people (and their enablers) can be really stupid about their infirmities. My FIL was having absence seizures, yet insisted on continuing to drive. As I asked him, if he was so irresponsible as to keep driving, that he let US know when he was behind the wheel so we could stay off the road! 
Two things are virtually certain. One, if he’s glitched like this twice in public, he’s undoubtedly done so more times out of the public eye. Two, if he leaves Kentucky voters will most likely pick someone worse to replace him.
I don’t know if there is anybody worse than Mitch.
Rand Paul?
This doesn’t surprise me, though; in the ER we often wind up knowing more about what isn’t going on than what is.
I’m not saying he shouldn’t, if he hasn’t already, get a thorough neuro work up*, but that’s probably beyond the scope of practice of the congressional doc (I don’t know anything about him).
*Of course, if he was just an old guy having senior moments in a harmless environment I might say ‘why bother’.
The one good thing about Mitch is that, while he is a power hungry Machiavellian SOB, he is also sane. So along with his desire for power comes a desire to keep that over which he has power intact. So he is unlikely to want to do anything that would go so far as to drive the country into chaos and civil war. Some of the newer breed of Republican are motivated by spite, and hubris, and would rather see the whole thing burn to the ground rather than be seen as giving in.
Hate to bring this up, but if what’s going on is that he’s having absence seizures (which isn’t clear, but seems possible): it’s possible to have absence seizures for years and years but be fine the rest of the time.
Seems to me the question (medically at least) is why he’s having absence seizures (or whatever he’s having that looks like them.)
Right. We can just say he really should have (or should have had) some in-depth neurological evals, just to make sure.
The release from the Attending Physician of Congress does mention the concussion aftereffects, though, from his fall earlier this year:
Capitol physician says McConnell “medically clear” to continue duties (msn.com)
Which is something some posters commented upon earlier in the thread.
Now…
Notice that the statement released was only to the effect that MitchMac "is medically clear to continue with his schedule as planned". He did not give him a glowing bill of general health and physical fitness. FWIW, according to Wiki, Dr. Monahan is “the Attending Physician of the United States Congress and the United States Supreme Court … selected by the leadership of the Congress and nominated to the position and rank by United States President Barack Obama in January 2009.” So he was nominated by a majority-Dem Congress and named by a Dem POTUS and has spent 14 years watching over quite a few well-weathered individuals conducting business in both bodies, and knows the standard of function for “continuing your planned schedule” can be pretty minimal for that bunch.
Yabbut…
The list of things that could possibly be wrong with MM includes some pretty serious stuff.
IANAD, but it’s difficult to imagine clearing him for duty without ruling those things out.
Which either means they haven’t been ruled out – that’s bad – or they have been ruled out and people know more than they’re saying.
I don’t really like either option, here.
Agreed.
His staff and now the doctor attribute these spells to lightheadedness.
Sorry, but the symptoms of being lightheaded are dizziness or feeling faint, and maybe weaving back and forth. The symptoms are definitely not a catatonic, speechless state like we’ve seen from Mitch.
As usual, Beau brings everyone back down to Earth.
And the Onion continues with its stellar reporting.
Randy is already a Senator from Kentucky. He is indeed horrible but I’m not sure he’s worse than Mitch. Equally horrible maybe. Not as powerful so not really worse.