Yes, in general, if your enemy really doesn’t want you to do something, that means it’s probably a good thing for you to do. (Unless they’re Brer-Rabbit-ing, but that’s not the case here)
I wonder if the plan is to wait until after the Democratic National Convention, then have him step down; this leaves the choice for his replacement to the Democratic National Committee instead of the convention delegates. The two main problems with this are, one, it’s cutting things close to the election, and two, by doing it this way, the replacement will be seen as “the party leadership’s choice” rather than “the party membership’s choice” - something the party clearly wants to stay away from, with its “superdelegates cannot vote on the first ballot for President if they would have any effect on the result” rule. (IIRC, the whole point of superdelegates is to put some sort of damper on choosing an extremist.)
I really want to see some reliable fact checking here. Currently, and until the convention votes, both Trump and Biden are presumptive nominees. They are not nominees yet.
It makes zero sense to have the laws they say are state laws.
Generally I do, too. But until the debate it was Biden they most feared. So in this case, it’s a consideration. Either way, a lawsuit will not be good for Dems.
…the country was extremely close to having one in 2016, to the point where she was leading in all polls and her defeat was a huge surprise. The aversion is not as strong as you think.
With that immunity ruling, this SCOTUS has clearly demonstrated that they fully intend to rig the election in favor of Trump in every way they can. There’s no stretch too far. So while we mentally masturbate about replacements for Biden, it will be important to consider how this weapon can and will be deployed in the run up to November.
Does that mean that in the eyes of the Heritage Foundation were Biden or Trump to die before the election the Democratic and the Republican parties could not present another candidate instead, at least not in certain states?
Absolutely. In the best case, such a candidate switch will be messy and unprecedented. Lawsuits like this would only complicate it (which is at least part of the point of them).
I have no idea what their theory of the law is. I have no idea if the SCOTUS would ultimately agree with them. But I am confident they will do all they can to get the issue in front of the Supreme Court – and that this Supreme Court will take it up, with or without precedent, standing, necessity, Constitutional or ethical concerns.
Is it even something that SCOTUS would have any purview over (if real), or is it by state law?
I’d imagine the latter unless there was a claim that such laws preventing them from being able to replace a candidate are impermissible.
If Biden is truly going to drop out then he needs to resign and give Harris the boost of four months of being President.
Doesn’t SCOTUS have jurisdiction over all American laws - federal, state or municipal?
I disagree. I think not running as the incumbent president lets her put some distance between herself and whatever unpopular policies (Gaza, for example) are dragging President Biden down without completely changing the current administration’s course on said policies. Being an incumbent wouldn’t give her many advantages.
Now that Trump will not be sentenced July 11 but only maybe (we hope) in September, we don’t even get to see soon whether his punishment might give Biden’s campaign a bump.
Not promising.
No.
They do not.
Only to a limited extent. For example, some town could not make slavery legal.
Which is to say that:
- The Supremacy Clause gives federal laws and the Constitution greater authority than state laws
- In the case of a state law that contradicts the Constitution or federal law, the Supremacy Clause allows the Court to rule the state law to be unconstitutional or superseded by the federal law, and order it to not be enforceable
- Other than that, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction regarding state laws
So for example, the recent Grants Pass decision was a dispute between a homeless person and a city, which the Supreme Court could only weigh in on because the homeless person made their case based on the notion that the law being sued over was an Eighth Amendment violation, which gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
I agree with @MulderMuffin. Let Biden continue his excellent work as president (and take all the flak for it), while Harris delivers a vision of the future. If she had to take over as POTUS, every stumble would be a campaign blunder, too.
Yes, I think if Biden does drop out, the timing of it will be critical. Too soon after the poor debate performance, and it looks like he’s just giving up, too late and it can turn the who process of replacing him into a chaotic mess.
But I think they would have to have an open convention, and let the delegates have an actual say in who becomes the nominee. This heads off the accusations (that you know will happen) that the DNC is “forcing Harris down our throats”. I think it would also promote party unity. Whoever wins will have to show that they can wheel and deal to win enough support to become the candidate. I think a robust convention campaign could do a lot to energize the voters to back whoever wins.
Have multiple rounds of open voting, with the last place candidate dropping out on each round. Keep going until someone gets a solid majority, maybe 60% of the vote. If the vote stalls at a 49-51 split, make the 49er the VP nominee, and declare victory.
Practically speaking, because of her access to the campaign warchest, Harris is the only alternative to Biden.