Category: Knowledge

Three possibilities:

If Mitch keeps the seat, the GOP will be missing a vote until (and if) he can return. This could affect, for example, confirmation hearings.

If Mitch dies or resigns more than 56 days before his term expires, the governor must call a special election to select a temporary replacement to serve out the remainder of the term. A Republican victory would be overwhelmingly likely,

If Mitch dies or resigns 56 days or less before his term expires, there is insufficient time to legally set up a special election. In this scenario, the seat would remains vacant until the winner of the November election is sworn in.

Kentucky is one of five states where the governor cannot name a replacement.

————-

A fourth possibility: Democrats take the 2024 succession law to court and win.

In case a court voided the 2024 law in its entirety and treated the 2021 statute as controlling, Governor Andy Beshear would regain a tightly limited appointment power, but in no case could a Democrat get the seat.

Because McConnell is a Republican, the Kentucky Republican Party’s state executive committee would submit three names. Beshear would be required to appoint one of those three. The appointee must have been continuously registered as a Republican since December 31 of the preceding year. Beshear would have 21 days after the party submits its list to make the appointment. The statute does not clearly impose a deadline on the party committee for submitting the list.

——

If Mitch can’t return to work:

For Republicans, the best scenario is for McConnell to resign now, with the effect that, assuming the same candidates run in the special election as in the main one, the GOP would be able to replace McConnell in November rather than January.

For Democrats, the best scenario is Zombie Mitch – for McConnell to remain alive without resigning, but unable to cast his votes. This could cost the GOP a vote in some crucial upcoming votes.

Overview from The Hill

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 controversial part is underlined.

By the reckoning I use, they upheld it by a 3-1 decision. I say that because there are five justices whose votes I can predict 100% of the time, even though I know nothing about constitutional law. As soon as I know what the issue is, I know how Thomas, Alito, Jackson, Sotomayor and Kagan will vote. I don’t know need to know what the legal issues are because I know they will find some legal pretext to vote they way they want to. In this case the four remaining justices split 3-1, with Gorsuch dissenting.

I know that the legal reasoning of Alito and Thomas will be sophistry, so let’s see what Gorsuch had to say:

“At the heart of today’s dispute lie two competing views of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. On one account, the Clause incorporated the English common law rule of jus soli (literally, the ‘right of the soil’),” he noted. The other account, he said, “adopted a distinctly American settler’s view of citizenship … that promises the full ‘dignity and glory of American citizenship’ to any child born in this country to parents who have made this Nation their permanent home **, regardless of their race, religion, or national origin.”

(Gorsuch went on to agree with the latter interpretation. The majority obviously did not.)

I know that the legal reasoning of Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson will be sophistry, and Kavanaugh sided with the majority for a completely separate reason, so let’s see what Roberts and Barrett had to say:

Roberts wrote:

“The Court exhaustively canvassed the text and history of the Citizenship Clause and at no point identified any evidence that the ratifiers thought themselves to be imposing a domicile limitation.”

Amy Coney Barrett did not write a separate opinion, so we presume she agreed with Roberts’ reasoning. I don’t know the history he’s citing, but assuming he is correct, that sounds like a reasonable position to me.

Kavanaugh flew solo, and went in his own direction. He opined that birthright citizenship could be further* limited, but not in this case. It would require an act of Congress, not the simple declaration of one man (Trump in this case). Even if such a law were passed, the other five in the majority would presumably deem it unconstitutional.

——

Footnotes:

* There are exceptions now.

1. Children born in the USA to foreign diplomats are NOT entitled to birthright citizenship, while children of American citizens assigned overseas ARE.

– John McCain is a famous example of the latter.

– The cleanest example of the former is Amany Mohamed Raya. She was born at Walter Reed in Washington, D.C., in 1981 to an Egyptian embassy attaché. When she applied for a U.S. passport in 2004, the State Department denied it, saying her father had diplomatic privileges and immunities at her birth, so she “did not acquire U.S. citizenship” and was “not entitled to a U.S. passport.” The federal courts agreed.

2. Another exception would be a baby born on a foreign ship in US territorial waters. They are technically in the USA, but not legally subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

** Note that one interpretation of the Gorsuch definition could allow citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants living here and trying to make the USA their permanent home, but would not grant citizenship to children born of visitors. I think I actually agree with that position. It doesn’t seem to me that the USA border is like the touchdown line in football. A pregnant woman crossing the line on “vacation” shouldn’t score the TD. But that’s just my opinion, not a legal position.

I don’t care about the reflecting pool nonsense, but this is some good reporting. These reporters cut through all the bullshit explanations and found the actual scientific cause.

Along the perimeter of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, devices called nanobubblers have been used to combat algae blooms. But officials removed them on June 12. By the next day, the water had turned from blue to green with algae before officials re-installed the nanobubblers.

John D. Rockefeller. It happened on Sept. 29, 1916, and newspapers made it a big deal, just as modern media have done with Musk.

The first millionaire and multi-millionaire was John Jacob Astor.

Here is a question where I was too lazy to do all the research and math, so I asked ChatGPT.

In the history of America since the country was founded, who has been the richest American … as a percentage of the country’s economy? (I think Anderson Cooper’s book suggested it was John Jacob Astor, but I have not verified that in any way.)

Here is the answer it gave:

By pure CPI calculation, Rockefeller’s fortune only amounts to $30 billion in today’s dollars, but that is deceptive. CPI inflation does not grow nearly as fast as the overall economy, stock market, population, or national wealth. It’s pretty obvious that Rockefeller, with wealth at 1.5% of GDP, was far wealthier than a man with $30 billion today. To illustrate the point, consider the logical extension ad absurdum. Clearly a man with $30 billion when everyone else has nothing is richer than a man with $30 billion when everyone else has $29 billion. Rockefeller is closer to the former, but was still not as rich as Musk. No matter how you do the calculation, Musk comes out on top.

Here are some variations:

(1) Business Insider calculated, “What would a fortune of the same relative economic weight be today?” by using a variety of factors. They calculated that the weight of Rockefeller’s wealth would be equivalent to $499 billion today, still leaving Musk twice as rich.

(2) If you use the gold standard, Rockefeller had enough wealth to buy 43.5 million ounces of gold. That would be worth some $180 billion today. So he was still nowhere near Musk’s league. Musk would be about six times as rich as Rockefeller by that measurement.

(3) Another interesting measurement is the ratio of the wealthiest man to the nearest contender, Musk is now 3.6 times as wealthy as Larry Page, who is in second place. As far as I can tell, none of the historical tycoons ever reached that ratio between them and their nearest rival. Astor made it to 3x. Bill Gates made it to 2.5x at one point. Rockefeller and Vanderbilt were approximately 2x.

No matter how you shake it out, Elon is now the top dog. Elon is not just rich because of inflated dollars. He is the richest American in history. He is at least twice as rich as John D. Rockefeller or JJ Astor ever were. To use an old-fashioned term, he is the ultimate tycoon.

Semi-related:

I was curious about where such a strange word came from.

Also from AI:

The word tycoon comes from the Japanese word taikun (大君), which literally translates to “great lord” or “supreme commander.” Its journey into the English language is a fascinating historical shift:

The Japanese Origin: During the Edo period, Japanese officials used taikun as a diplomatic title for the shōgun (the supreme military dictator) in communications with foreigners. They wanted to convey that the shōgun held the ultimate power in Japan, independent of the emperor.

American Adoption (1850s–1860s): Following trade negotiations in the 1850s, the term made its way back to the United States. During the Civil War, aides to President Abraham Lincoln adopted it as an affectionate nickname to highlight his supreme leadership authority.

Modern Meaning: By the 1920s, the term evolved to describe exceptionally wealthy, powerful, and influential leaders in business and industry