This was always the plan. They will contest any replacement and then only Trump will be on the ballot. AOC tried to warn you fucking people. This is why Biden needed to go over a year ago and the PARTY said “fuck you guys” until it was too hard to fucking ignore.

  • ᴇᴍᴘᴇʀᴏʀ 帝@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    ·
    4 months ago

    Election law expert Richard Hasen wrote that there is “no credence” to the notion that the Democratic Party could not legally replace Biden on the ticket, as he is not the nominee yet – the nominating process generally takes place during the Democratic National Convention.

    “Joe Biden is not the party’s nominee now, and states generally point to the major party’s nominee as the one whose name is on the ballot,” he wrote in a piece earlier this month.

    I think I’ll believe the expert.

    • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It seems like everything is litigable so we shall see, I put no new low below these animals currently controlling the judiciary

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        You can file a lawsuit over anything.

        A judge might throw your case out rather than let it go to court if it doesn’t even warrant a case, but something being “litigable” isn’t much of a bar.

        If someone repeatedly files frivolous lawsuits purely for the purpose of harassing someone, they might be guilty of barratry, depending upon locale.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry_(common_law)

        Barratry (/ˈbærətri/ BARR-ə-tree, from Old French barat (“deceit, trickery”)) is a legal term that, at common law, described a criminal offense committed by people who are overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation, or who bring repeated or persistent acts of litigation for the purposes of profit or harassment.

        Although it remains a crime in some jurisdictions, barratry has frequently been abolished as being anachronistic and obsolete.

        If barratrous litigation is deemed to be for the purpose of silencing critics, it is known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP). Jurisdictions that otherwise have no barratry laws may have SLAPP laws.

        United States

        Several jurisdictions in the United States have declared barratry (in the sense of a frivolous or harassing litigant) to be a crime as part of their tort reform efforts. For example, in the U.S. states of California, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, barratry is a misdemeanor. In Texas, barratry is a misdemeanor on the first conviction, but a felony on subsequent convictions.

        • California Penal Code Section 158: “Common barratry is the practice of exciting groundless judicial proceedings, and is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months and by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000).”

        • California Penal Code Section 159: “No person can be convicted of common barratry except upon proof that he has excited suits or proceedings at law in at least three instances, and with a corrupt or malicious intent to vex and annoy.”

        • Revised Code of Washington 9.12.010: “Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.”

        • Virginia laws on barratry, champerty, and maintenance were overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States in NAACP v. Button 371 U.S. 415 (1963).

        • Vermont Statutes Title 13, § 701: “A person who is a common barrator shall be fined not more than $50.00 and become bound with sufficient surety for his or her good behavior for not less than one year.”

    • dhork@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Hah! Do you really think Republicans let experts tell them what to think? Their ignorance is better than anyone’s knowledge!

      • toast@retrolemmy.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Ha! According to the supreme court, Biden could explain all of this to Johnson and the rest of the republicans using guns.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think I’ll believe the conservative stacked court system that will ignore all that and rule against the Democrats anyway…

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not a federal legal matter, party internal politics are not regulated the same way as actual elections. There’s some tangential finance laws, but the democratic party can pick whoever the hell they want however the hell they want.

  • camr_on@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    120
    ·
    4 months ago

    You gonna take Johnson’s word for what can and can’t be done? Biden wasn’t even the official candidate yet until the DNC. Calm down for a second

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That may not be Mike’s decision. Would you want to be in the family pictures of a family where the dad and son let each other know every time they spank it?

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m not Mike’s son, but I send him a detailed email everytime I spank it. I like to address him as “Daddy” and I usually include pictures.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Besides, in a pinch couldn’t Biden step down and make Kamala the incumbent, and then they’d have to very stupidly argue that the incumbent wasn’t a valid candidate?

  • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    4 months ago

    If far right Republicans like Johnson are already playing it this way, it’s because they’re scared and desperate. They can win against biden, anyone else is a threat. Another data point why this was the correct decision, among many others.

    I was not a kamala fan, but I’ll be voting for her fervently on election day. I’m fucking pumped.

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ve seen way too much fuckery that the Republicans keep winning in court on to fully trust that that’s enough to save us.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        Oh I’m sure they’ll try. But I think even SCOTUS would have a hard time justifying forcing a presidential candidate who dropped out before the convention to be on the ballot. They may still do it, but I think it will be very, very difficult. I could certainly see Roberts not going for that.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          Roberts I’m iffy about, he seems torn between his legacy and his legacy…

          The real legacy of being a semi-corrupted court, and the winners-take-all-and-write-the-history legacy of being the bestest court ever who helped Donald Trump secure his win against the evil corrupt Democrats. He seems at least mildly interested in the latter, because it allows him to pretend he’s more serious than he is.

            • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              But he did sit on the immunity decision for months after months of ignoring Jack Smith requesting the same thing. Yet somehow, when a Republican brought the same issue to the court, it was suddenly an important issue… just not important enough to rule on quickly.

              …and then they just did a major power grab by making themselves the arbiters of what official acts are and are not.

              Sorry, but the immunity decision screams Robert could give a fuck less about being in the pocket.

              • AWistfulNihilist@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Dude, absofuckinglutely. Robert’s was never not on Trump’s side, he just bided his time until the right decisions came through, like the one that makes the president a de-facto kingship based in court opinions with a huge amount of freshly minted psychos as judges.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    4 months ago

    Bookmarking this for later when in this crazy timeline we’re in Trump has to be replaced on the Republican ticket before November for some reason.

    • tal@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I am confident that that won’t happen. But I could at least imagine Vance being pulled off the Republican ticket in favor of someone else to counter whatever ticket the Democrats run.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      Johnson is an idiot. This is embarrassing for him and the GOP. Keep up the good work loser. All Biden would have to do is get a doctor to say he’s not medically fit anyway. Which we all know wouldn’t be hard.

  • 800XL@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s just a way to premptively setup another bullshit “election was stolen” crybaby whine from the fascists. This time tho they’re going to start the civil war.

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Alt right is deff going around with that civil war threat.

      I am surprised feds allowing such rhetoric … We already been through this shit. Enough

      But you are also being too partisan. This I’d DnC komissars doing and they did similar in 2016 and 2020… Like wtf

  • spujb@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    bro is just afraid that it won’t be an ez W for MAGA now, and OP is capitulating to that fear

    like do we live in a democratic republic or not? the idea that a candidate who isn’t even nominated yet can’t be replaced is laughable and should be attacked at all fronts, not given lip service.

  • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    Ballots aren’t even printed yet for any state. I do think Biden should have stopped a while back (remember “One term?”) but it’s better than post-convention.

    Now we can have Harris get nom’d, debate, and hopefully not deal with Orange Fucker again. I’m more hopeful with Harris winning than Joe BIden, more due to her age and track record more than anything else.

  • Carrolade@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    4 months ago

    The convention hasn’t happened yet, there has not yet been a democratic nominee.

    But yes, this is part of their plan. Even if it goes to the SC though, John Roberts and Coney Barret would have a hard time finding any legitimate originalist arguments for supporting the challenge, and have demonstrated they are not quite pure conservative ideologues.