Johnson: Replacing Biden on ticket would be 'wrong,' 'unlawful'

SatansMaggotyCumFart , 4 hours ago

House speaker should have an IQ requirement.

SuckMyWang , 3 hours 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.

partial_accumen , 4 hours 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 , 2 hours 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.

Emperor , 4 hours 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.

SnotFlickerman OP , 4 hours ago

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

BlameThePeacock , 4 hours 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.

cheese_greater , 4 hours ago

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

tal , 2 hours 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.

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 , 1 hour ago

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

toast , 1 hour ago

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

FlyingSquid , 4 hours ago

Too bad it’s a state-level thing and not up to him or that would matter.

SnotFlickerman OP , 4 hours 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.

FlyingSquid , 4 hours 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.

SnotFlickerman OP , 4 hours 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.

FlyingSquid , 4 hours ago

Remember that Roberts didn’t go for Trump’s election lie.

SnotFlickerman OP , 4 hours 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 , 3 hours 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.

Carrolade , 4 hours 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.

spujb , 4 hours 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.

superkret , 4 hours ago

like do we live in a democratic republic or not?

That’s the trillion $ question.

queue , 4 hours 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.

camr_on , 4 hours 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

dogsnest , 3 hours ago

Mike Johnson adopted a black son who’s never in Johnson family pictures.
Sounds cool.

FlyingSquid , 2 hours 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?

Yawweee877h444 , 4 hours 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.

morphballganon , 4 hours ago

Johnson doesn’t decide policy. He decides which matters to bring up in the house.

800XL , 3 hours 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 , 3 hours 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

magnetosphere , 3 hours ago

Is this actually illegal or just “stir the shit” illegal? I’m leaning towards “stir the shit”, because the Democratic presidential nominee isn’t officially announced until the convention, and that hasn’t even happened yet.

WatDabney , 3 hours ago (edited 3 hours ago)

I actually hope that you’re right, because that would mean that the cabal that intends to overthrow democracy in the US is much more stupid than I had thought.

In the first place, the whole idea that a candidate might be prohibited from dropping out and/or that the party would in that event be prohibited from choosing a replacement is farcical on its face. Beyond that, the SC explicitly ruled after the 2016 race that the DNC is essentially entirely free to do whatever the fuck they want. Additionally, they recently ruled regarding Trump’s removal from ballots that states are not free to do whatever the fuck they want.

What that means is that in order to rule in such a way as to deny a replacement would reveal the complete and utter corruption of the system almost four months before the election, which would be an exceedingly stupid thing to do.

The far better strategy would be to just bide their time, let the democrats do whatever they choose to do, then implement the coup after the election (and preferably as close to the inauguration as possible) so they can accomplish it all at once, then hide behind the president’s newly granted dictatorial powers.

Kraiden , 2 hours ago

You're assuming they care about keeping their corruption hidden. They want absolute power! Who cares if the people know the system is corrupt if there's nothing they can do about it. Most dems are already aware that this is a fight for democracy itself, and the reps will just say they're "using the corruption to their advantage so they can fix it" or something.

The strategy you've outlined relies too heavily on their winning the election fairly. Don't get me wrong, it's not impossible, but it's far from a sure bet.

WatDabney , 1 hour ago

Who cares if the people know the system is corrupt if there’s nothing they can do about it.

Because for the moment, there’s not “nothing they can do about it.”

Most notably, the dictatorial power they established for Trump’s benefit is not yet in Trump’s hands - it’s in Biden’s. And particularly in light of the fact that he’s withdrawing from the race, he’s entirely free to do whatever he pleases. Like, for instance, haveTrump and every single other person who’s a part of this planned coup executed. Or, for instance, pardon any and all private citizens who might take it upon themselves to do the same.

The fascists aren’t going to be safe until that power is in their hands. And that won’t be until after the election.

The strategy you’ve outlined relies too heavily on their winning the election fairly.

Not at all

The only difference I see between him winning fairly and him losing is whether the act that will mark the moment at which the autocrats fully and publicly play their hand is the attempt to get him into office in spite of his loss or whatever they put the highest priority on after his win.

In either event, the time for them to play their hand is later - not now.

soratoyuki , 3 hours ago

Biden is still the President? He can just Officially Act on House Republican leadership until he gets an answer he likes.

tal , 2 hours ago

So it would be wrong, and I think unlawful,

I mean, I can’t speak as to Mike Johnson’s personal sense of ethics, but if he’s making a legal claim, what law does it break?

This is a party-internal process.

The Democratic Party didn’t participate in the primary election, based on the expectation that Biden would run. But as I’ve pointed out here before, there’s no legal obligation for an American political party to hold a primary election or even if they do, for that primary result to bind them. We historically – and for most of American history – didn’t hold primaries at all. Parties decided that they wanted to do them and participate, but they don’t have to do so. The Libertarian Party does participate in primaries, but under their party rules, the results are merely advisory – the party can theoretically choose someone else. The Green Party policy varies based on state: in some, they participate in primaries, and in others, they caucus, have the state party internally select the party’s candidate.

For about half of the ~150 years that the Republican Party has been around, no states anywhere held primary elections. If it’s unlawful not to go to the primaries, was the Republican Party breaking the law all that time?

baronvonj , 2 hours ago

The Democratic Party didn’t participate in the primary election, based on the expectation that Biden would run.

Uh … There were 8 candidates for President on the Democratic primary ballot in my precinct in Texas. Every state held a Democratic primary.

ralphio , 1 hour ago

Florida and North Carolina did not. I’m not sure if there were any others.

www.wral.com/story/…/21202708/

www.cnn.com/…/democratic-presidential-primary

baronvonj , 55 minutes ago

Both states’ Democratic parties held a primary,.with every relevant race other than president on the ballot. The original claim was that the “Democratic Party didn’t participate in the primary election.” Which is not accurate as every state’s Democratic party did hold a primary election. It wasn’t qualified to the presidential race, and even if it was a blanket statement would still be incorrect given that there were states who did have a choice for presidential nominee on their primary ballot.

mozz , 1 hour ago

If it's unlawful not to go to the primaries, was the Republican Party breaking the law all that time?

The law of "Hey Mr. Supreme Court can you just say we won the election? I mean if not it's all cool, we can wait and try to do it the other way I guess, but it'd be really cool if you just could say out loud, you know what, fuck democracy we pick the winners now. Wouldn't that be pretty hot? If you just did that, just said it out loud?"