Even before President Joe Biden’s long-speculated withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race, allies of former President Donald Trump floated the possibility of suing to block Democrats from having anyone other than Biden on the ballot in November.
But election administration and legal experts said the timing of Biden’s exit on Sunday makes it unlikely that any Republican ballot access challenges will succeed, with some calling the idea “ridiculous” and “frivolous.” Democrats are on safe legal ground as they identify a new standard-bearer, they say, because the party hasn’t officially chosen its nominee. That typically occurs with a vote of delegates at the party’s convention.
“It’s ridiculous for people to talk about ‘replacing Biden.’ He hasn’t been nominated yet,” said Richard Winger, a leading expert on state ballot access laws and the longtime editor of the “Ballot Access News” newsletter.
They absolutely have no legal basis, my only worry is that they have activists in SCOTUS which showed us multiple times that they don’t care what the Constitution says.
Exactly.
It used to be the case that sane people with a modicum of understanding of our government/legal system, or even the ability to do a bit of research, they could just laugh this off.
But uh, nope, now we live in corrupt/activist Supreme Court era, which throws out decades of precedent and functionally invents new laws as it pleases.
What I love about Clarence Thomas is he is giving us the road map to oppressive systems we have to take down. He has observed the unspoken rules and has codified them into law with his rulings. When Clarence gets exorbitant gifts for his influence it’s not because he’s greedy, we’ll it is, but it’s also him saying, “these are the rules, I get rewarded because I have the seat of power.”
Clarence is not a secret freedom fighter but he might as well be because he is shining a light and exposing the ugliness that is our judicial system.
Historically speaking, we Americans usually ignore what the SCOTUS says. Virginia was practically segregated into the early 1970s, for example, well over a decade after Brown v Board of Education.
That’s the hilarious part of the SCOTUS. They kind of don’t matter.
The response to an unjust SCOTUS is to ignore them. Like what are they actually gonna do about it?
Step 1 of the plan is to at least make people aware of the plan.
There’s more options available than expanding the court or whatever. Ultimately, the reigns of power largely rest in Congress and the President. Supreme Court is the moral center, they’re only effective if people believe their judgements to be moral and just. Otherwise, their statements are just fancy words on a piece of obscure paper.
Supreme Court has no ability to write laws or enforce them.
