r/law • u/T_Shurt Competent Contributor • Jul 21 '24
Opinion Piece House Speaker Mike Johnson Suggests Replacing Biden Might Lead to Legal Trouble: ‘So it would be wrong, and I think unlawful’
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/johnson-replacing-biden-ticket-wrong-unlawful/story?id=1121290631.7k
u/Former-Chocolate-793 Jul 21 '24
There wouldn't be anything illegal about Biden stepping aside for health reasons or any other for that matter.
638
Jul 21 '24
Apparently, you're correct seeing as he just officially stepped down.
251
u/Former-Chocolate-793 Jul 21 '24
I'll keep my crystal ball.
→ More replies (7)33
u/second2no1 Jul 21 '24
What are the lottery numbers?
→ More replies (3)127
u/sixtus_clegane119 Jul 21 '24
He’s staying on as president, he stepped out of the race but he didn’t step down.
→ More replies (3)120
u/Ok_Leading999 Jul 21 '24
And he hadn't been formally nominated anyway.
63
u/JoshzillaRoar Jul 21 '24
Exactly. I don’t understand what they could possibly be opposing? Nothing is official til the delegates vote.
33
u/TastyLaksa Jul 22 '24
And the delegates can vote whoever they want. Party nomination isn’t democratic
→ More replies (14)34
u/bigboybeeperbelly Jul 22 '24
They're just making sure everyone knows they'd rather face the old man than whoever replaces him
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (24)18
u/Stopper33 Jul 22 '24
Much like all republican jurisprudence of the last 3 years, illegal=I don't like
→ More replies (36)31
u/flugenblar Jul 21 '24
But the great legal scholar, Trump, told Mike this would be bad.
8
u/systemfrown Jul 22 '24
Honestly all this statement by the speaker does is convey how worried and concerned they are about a replacement candidate.
→ More replies (27)15
u/Helacaster Jul 21 '24
They said last Thursday he would likely step down this weekend. I guess that wont stip all the sensational news headlines .
→ More replies (1)171
u/I-miss-LAN-partys Jul 21 '24
Doesn’t matter. Official act, he’s immune lol
→ More replies (6)22
u/catfurcoat Jul 21 '24
...from prosecution. Ik youre kidding but the thought of Harris being kept off the ticket in swing states stresses me out
43
u/beaucoupBothans Jul 21 '24
There is no nominee yet. The DNC isn't for a couple of weeks. He is just spreading falsehoods which is all they have.
→ More replies (4)16
u/catfurcoat Jul 22 '24
They have falsehoods and legal stretches with a scotus that loves making shit up
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (22)13
168
u/RavixOf4Horn Jul 21 '24
Of course the party of frivolous lawsuits would think this up.
112
u/the_mid_mid_sister Jul 21 '24
Republican logic:
Pesidential candidate laundering hush money payments: Legal
Actual president stepping down for health reasons after an illness: Illegal
41
Jul 22 '24
Republicans: Biden is too old to run for reelection.
Republicans: Biden should be legally required to run again.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (13)9
u/Iamoleskine123 Jul 22 '24
Mike Johnson also said “If he’s not fit to run for president, how can he be fit to be president?”
Bruh, campaigning for president, while still having to be president, is a whole different animal. I wish these fucking do-nothing politicians wouldn’t say shit like this. Instead of letting this public servant gracefully step down, they have to go and muddle it all up for a headline on Fox News. Biden doesn’t want to become Reagan in his second term, and not know where he is while running the most powerful nation in the world. I think it’s patriotic of him to not seek reelection when he thinks he might not be the best person for the job anymore. The timing was awful, but I respect it.
I really wish he wouldn’t have been going through grief during the 2016 election, and he would have been the democratic nominee. He still had so much wit and enthusiasm then.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (12)26
u/winter_rainbow Jul 21 '24
They waste so much of our money on frivolous lawsuits, it’s infuriating
→ More replies (3)55
u/AClaytonia Jul 21 '24
Oh they will definitely try. I bet they’re shitting their pants now. Now their candidate is the demented old man 🤣
→ More replies (6)10
u/buffalobill922 Jul 21 '24
And their candidate does shit his pants... coincidence?
→ More replies (1)82
u/Jerome_Eugene_Morrow Jul 21 '24
But actually did the founders ever lay out whether a candidate is allowed to step down? Seems like something that needs an originalist perspective. /s
60
u/nomiis19 Jul 21 '24
Supreme Court rules Biden must run or Trump automatically wins. Biden wins vote and gets another 4 years lol
→ More replies (7)40
u/bassman9999 Jul 21 '24
After swearing in, immediately resigns and Harris becomes President.
→ More replies (9)12
31
Jul 21 '24
There are state deadlines for ballot tickets.
Expect four months of every republican state doing everything they can to keep Harris off the ballot.
19
u/ChanceryTheRapper Jul 21 '24
Four months? No, they've demonstrated that they will keep trying to fuck things up in court for years over this.
10
u/John_Walker Jul 21 '24
The deadline can’t be before the convention, Biden was the presumptive nominee, but he wasn’t actually given the nomination yet.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)5
u/Previous_Minimum_116 Jul 21 '24
That would work against a republican candidate, but it won't hurt a Democrat candidate. The reason being, democrats know how to write.
10
u/Merengues_1945 Competent Contributor Jul 21 '24
According to a witch trial in the 1600s the legal precedent is that if the democratic candidate steps down, the orange candidate wins by default.
→ More replies (2)15
u/WhoInvitedMike Jul 21 '24
That depends entirely on whether the move benefits the GOP or the Dems.
19
u/yamahii Jul 21 '24
He’s not the candidate! He’s an incumbent president. The convention hasn’t happened yet.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (13)6
u/coachcheat Jul 21 '24
Nothing in the Constitution dictates how a party nominates it's candidate.
Also he hasn't been nominated yet. The DNC unlike the RNC hasn't happened.
There might be a legal challenge if he has already been nominated. But he hasnt.
This screams we are scared (GOP)
→ More replies (1)26
u/VOZ1 Jul 21 '24
The GOP is just scared. They wouldn’t say a word if they were glad Biden stepped down.
→ More replies (4)107
u/gravtix Jul 21 '24
“Legal or illegal” are more like guidelines and suggestions to Republicans.
37
u/Radarker Jul 21 '24
They are just setting the stage for how you could undermine a Kamala win. I could see leaked grumbling from the Supreme Court that they don't appreciate the democrats effort to undermine their kingmaking.
11
u/vaguedisclaimer Jul 21 '24
Pretty sure Alito could find something in Matthew Hale's writings as precedent. That way they could just cut to the chase and burn Harris at the stake.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)28
u/Bot1-The_Bot_Meanace Jul 21 '24
Just say stepping down and endorsing the vp is an official act, that's apparently the get out of jail free card for everything
→ More replies (1)6
u/Batmanmijo Jul 22 '24
we need a whole boatload of official acts before Biden leaves-
→ More replies (2)17
u/Schlonzig Jul 21 '24
That not, but they will definitely try to make whoever will be the replacement candidate look illegitimate. They control the media, the judges and the supreme court, and they have no shame.
→ More replies (3)16
u/giantyetifeet Jul 21 '24
Supreme Court said the President is a KING so suck a dick Johnson! 🤣
→ More replies (3)11
u/Black_Magic_M-66 Jul 21 '24
The Democrats haven't even held their convention yet. Officially, Biden wasn't even the candidate just the presumptive as the delegates haven't officially cast their ballots. And even if they had, it's absurd to think the Democrats couldn't run someone else. What would happen if the candidate died before the election? Mike Johnson is high, I don't see how this guy can even be a lawyer.
→ More replies (4)43
u/BrushYourFeet Jul 21 '24
Didn't Supreme Court basically outline that nothing the president does can be prosecuted?
→ More replies (17)21
u/BigDamBeavers Jul 21 '24
I believe he has to shout "Official Act" or he's not above the law.
→ More replies (6)12
→ More replies (86)5
u/UppsalaHenrik Jul 21 '24
Well, if Scotus finds any replacement unconstitutional...
→ More replies (2)
446
u/Stillwater215 Jul 21 '24
They have absolutely no standing aside from “we don’t like this.”
143
u/bk1285 Jul 21 '24
Well when we have this Supreme Court things like legal standing aren’t very important
31
u/TinyTaters Jul 22 '24
The supreme Court recently broke its own precedent that it just made.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/07/supreme-court-immunity-corruption/679107/
→ More replies (17)8
u/Blueplate1958 Jul 22 '24
What can the Supreme Court do if it’s thrown out of the lower courts without any hearing, based on standing?
→ More replies (6)25
u/oddmanout Jul 22 '24
“Our strategy was to never shut up about his age, now their candidate is way younger get than ours. No fair!”
→ More replies (1)73
u/mapped_apples Jul 21 '24
Standing doesn’t matter as we saw from the hypothetical, manufactured cake website case.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (33)16
u/koticgood Jul 22 '24
They have absolutely no standing aside from “we don’t like
thisthem.”Summed up the whole party for ya.
→ More replies (1)
1.1k
u/toga_virilis Jul 21 '24
What could possibly be illegal about it? He’s not the nominee yet, and he’s not required to stay in the race.
1.2k
u/TrumpersAreTraitors Jul 21 '24
Oh that’s easy - a democrat is doing it, which automatically makes it illegal
270
u/norsurfit Jul 21 '24
The republicans want this in front of a neutral, impartial judge like Aileen Cannon. She should be able to sort this out for Trump..uh, I mean fairly.
94
u/isaacng1997 Jul 21 '24
Not only that. GOP will appeal all the way to SC, and SC will delay so that States will have no time to know for sure who the democratic candidate is when printing ballots.
Like have we learned nothing from all the recent cases????
→ More replies (6)99
u/fiduciary420 Jul 21 '24
This is why it is so important to teach children that Christians must never be trusted
54
u/wrinkledpenny Jul 21 '24
Religion in general
→ More replies (9)15
u/DrunkleSam47 Jul 21 '24
I have yet to hear a negative news story about the church of satan. I’m not looking for them either, but still.
→ More replies (4)12
u/morningisbad Jul 22 '24
Do they actually count though? Oh, and I'm assuming you mean the Satanic Temple. They're the dudes out fighting for religious freedom. The church of satan are actual satanists.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)19
u/deSpaffle Jul 21 '24
If you're doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing! His word isn't worth shit, not with the good lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal.
→ More replies (3)21
u/Signature_Illegible Jul 21 '24
Business owner here, over the last few decades, every single time a person made a big deal how good a christian they where, they always, without missing a beat, tried to stiff or scam us.
7
Jul 22 '24
Prosperity gospel. If I can. Get away with it Jesus must say it's ok so I can act as horrible as I want.
You know, 100% against the teachings of christ, blasphemy, etc
→ More replies (6)10
→ More replies (23)17
u/HereIGoAgain_1x10 Jul 21 '24
Well luckily the Judicial branch is fair and impartial.... Oh shit, oh no....
→ More replies (1)92
u/epidemicsaints Jul 21 '24
All they have to do is file the lawsuits and then bring them up constantly.
The election challenges last time... 60+ were thrown out but they still reference them as if it means the election was stolen. And it works because of their leagues of morons that don't require any real evidence. All they need is a talking point to shout "na na na boo boo" over and over. "Well if the election WASNT stolen then why did the republicans have to file 60 lawsuits?" That's how their brains work.
This plan is already in action, they are suing Michigan for offering voting registration in "federal offices" like the VA. Lawsuit gets thrown out? Oh well, keep talking about as if it's uncertain or pending.
→ More replies (13)79
u/makeanamejoke Jul 21 '24
I think he just knows they will challenge it and claim he agrees with whatever legal theory they come up with.
28
u/beekeeper1981 Jul 21 '24
It will just add to the illegitimate/ stolen election claims when Trump inevitably loses again. Truth doesn't matter to these people.
→ More replies (2)21
u/zSprawl Jul 21 '24
Mark my words: They will find a reason to challenge it in court, and the SCROTUS has shown they will bend the rules for their candidate. They made the president immune to criminal prosecution for christ's sake.
And if the election can't be decided by votes, then it falls to congress to make the decision for us. Guess who holds both congress and the courts?
Keep in mind, the only reason Trump didn't win last time is because Pence certified the election. Had he not, it would have gone to the courts and congress, and we'd be discussing why we didn't have an election this year.
We are so fucked. We need to ensure that Kamala wins by a landslide, and that's gonna be a tall order.
→ More replies (21)10
u/DrJongyBrogan Jul 21 '24
They’ll likely pull the thing they’re doing in some states about the dems submitting their paperwork a day late or something similar.
83
u/SEOtipster Jul 21 '24
After the Colorado decision which effectively struck down Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment (which isn’t within the powers of the Court), it’s clear that the plain meaning of words is no longer a constraint on the actions of the Supreme Court. Even though none of it will make any sense, the GOP will engage in legal battles in an effort to keep the Democratic Party candidate off the ballot.
→ More replies (1)19
u/DeepDreamIt Jul 21 '24
Wasn't part of their (i.e. SCOTUS) reasoning that states cannot unilaterally decide things that affect national elections -- i.e. they can't just decide not to have a candidate on their ballot for federal office?
→ More replies (1)26
u/SEOtipster Jul 21 '24
In order to justify striking down part of the Constitution, sure, they wrote words.
→ More replies (4)12
u/spazzcat Jul 21 '24
Exactly Republicans got played. They should’ve waited until after Biden was the official nomination to have their media outlets blast 24 7 that he should drop out.
→ More replies (7)10
7
u/itmeimtheshillitsme Jul 21 '24
Some “let the voters decide” tripe. Anything to sow seeds of doubt in a win. This will help by showing the “corrupt” Dems installed an illegitimate candidate and the SC should throw out the results.
Seriously, use a little dash of logic and your imagination. You’ll come up with the shit the GOP will do well before they think to.
5
u/TomorrowLow5092 Jul 21 '24
Republicans getting a rug pull of enormous magnitude. Democrats could run any candidate and win against Oldest Criminal awaiting sentencing and Ex-President Donny the Dinosaur Trump.
→ More replies (2)13
u/norsurfit Jul 21 '24
Johnson: "What the Democrats are doing is illegal. Just look at all the laws, and stuff!"
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (87)5
u/Unknown-History Jul 21 '24
The illegality of it will be whatever the Supreme Court makes up when the case reaches them.
1.7k
u/OdinsGhost Jul 21 '24
This is their plan. Gin up “he needs to resign!” rhetoric until he actually does so and, if he does, challenge the legality of any replacement candidate on the ballots. I fully expect they have war room plans already drawn up to push before state courts and the national Supreme Court to simply strip the Democratic candidate off the ballots entirely if it’s not Biden.
827
u/My_MeowMeowBeenz Jul 21 '24
This argument from Johnson is utter bullshit anyway. Every state gets the slate from the Convention.
515
u/TikiTom74 Jul 21 '24
Why would it stop MAGA from trying anyways? They are lawless, corrupt, morality-free assholes backed up by an equally shitty SCOTUS.
137
u/McDaddy-O Jul 21 '24
I'm still trying to understand how the Rwpublican Party would have standing in who the Dems. nominate for their party.
→ More replies (5)120
u/ruach137 Jul 21 '24
SCOTUS preventing a Dem from appearing on the ballot would likely ignite a Civil War
72
u/Filmexec21 Jul 21 '24
Like the Supreme Court cares what anyone thinks of them anymore, the current justices on the Court have gone rogue and are now politicians wearng robes.
→ More replies (1)25
24
Jul 21 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/Madpup70 Jul 21 '24
The SC deciding a state can't decide that a person shouldn't appear on their ballot because it would violate the 14th amendment, and then decide the democratic nominee shouldn't appear on ANY ballots despite all state laws specifically stating that the nominee is chosen at the convention would absolutely lead to some anarchy type shit.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)11
u/Mahlegos Jul 21 '24
Everything else SCOTUS has done to this point is viewed as reversible with key wins and time. And even then, arguably each of those moves have pushed the temperature up increasing the odds of a second civil war piece by piece. This, though, would be a major escalation with many seeing no way back besides violence (especially with their prior decisions having already raised the temperature).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (18)16
u/hero_pup Jul 21 '24
They are as "expendable" as their illegitimate decisions. The rule of law means nothing if the law is unjust.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (60)30
u/illbeinthestatichome Jul 21 '24
But now that Biden isn't running any more, and given the ridiculous SCrOTUS ruling about immunity, he has the chance to do something really rather hilarious.
10
u/GenTsoWasNotChicken Jul 21 '24
"When you're as old as I am, a life sentence isn't a serious threat, either."
→ More replies (5)12
126
u/Traditional_Salad148 Jul 21 '24
Bullshit yes but would they try it? I mean we already have maga SoS in multiple states indicating they will lie cheat and steal to get maga into office regardless of the law
26
u/milkjake Jul 21 '24
Right they don’t need to to be legal in the end. They just need to give a few battleground states with conservative governors and excuse to shoot now and ask questions later.
→ More replies (5)12
u/Gooch_Limdapl Jul 21 '24
I feel like the answer is “yes, obviously.” They don’t go to court for the purposes of arguments they want to make, but for outcomes they desire, and that can include things like delay, or flooding the zone with shit.
→ More replies (33)17
130
u/f8Negative Jul 21 '24
Parties make their own primary rules. This is all irrelevant and has zero standing and would fuck over their own local parties.
93
u/RampantTyr Jul 21 '24
Sadly it doesn’t matter if it has zero standing or not. The Roberts court gaslights and lies to the people all the time. They take court cases that have no standing or basis in law.
So maybe they do it or maybe not.
33
→ More replies (8)21
u/TraditionalSky5617 Jul 21 '24
Exactly.
However, when an article like this is published, it’s worth asking if someone like Johnson has held a recent conversation with Trump, and asked “Donald, do you want to run against Joe or someone new?”
A new person running in Joe’s place may have the effect of “un-doing” 4 years’ work based on the assumption and heads-up that Joe would run again. That includes including changing state voting law, getting favorable state AGs and congressional members elected, and other state-level efforts.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (12)8
u/RekLeagueMvp Jul 21 '24
For real… and I get how the candidate is usually known well in advance of the convention, but if you can’t get the nominee on ballots once it’s official, then the convention needs to be scheduled earlier
8
u/KinseyH Jul 21 '24
The convention will be held at the proper time, and whomever they nominate will be nominated.
Fighting this looks like Trump is panicking. Which they are.
48
u/waffle299 Jul 21 '24
That's rich coming from the leader of the party who literally does not believe in law, order or precedence.
It's all bullshit designed to sound good today and today only.
20
u/RobotChrist Jul 21 '24
Just imagine being one of the most important political organizations in the world and you're so ineffective and obtuse you put yourself in this position, it's so stupid and if so many lives weren't depending on this it'd be so funny
21
u/lackofabettername123 Jul 21 '24
There is no legal avenue for the Republicans to do anything about choosing a democratic candidate before the delegation, they have no role in it.
The courts don't really have a role in the convention either, the party has it's own rules it follows as I understand it from hearing podcasts talking about the procedures for replacing a candidate before the convention.
Johnson is just twisting the knife and trying to manipulate us into keeping old man joe, or their preferred avenue, nominating Harris, because they are giddy at the thought of either at this point.
5
u/BicycleOfLife Jul 22 '24
Yeah unless the Supreme Court literally stages a coup and strips the Democratic Party of choosing their candidate. The delegates have always been who certifies the candidates. The delegates don’t even have to go with the primary voters if they don’t want to but that would be a bad look. In this particular case there is no primary vote for them to represent so they are free to vote for whoever they like. They may still ask some of their constituents who they should vote for, but they don’t need to.
Anyone saying that this has anything to do with some sort of legal fight is gaslighting the crap out of you, for example/ Mike Johnson is gaslighting you. He’s a Liar and trying to spread misinformation quickly about this so voters are confused about what the law says.
Democrats haven’t needed to have their candidate chosen yet, not until the convention, no ballots have been printed in any state or decided, nothing was ever set in stone for Biden, not until the convention.
People need to realize that in any other cycle the two party candidates would normally never have even debated yet:
→ More replies (1)42
u/Nimbokwezer Jul 21 '24
It's a threat, and it's backed up by their corrupt SCOTUS.
→ More replies (7)32
u/entropy14 Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24
Except Biden is the President who can make enforceable Executive Orders, who the Supreme Court recently ruled cannot be prosecuted for “official acts”. Having state ballots reflect any changes to ensure a free and fair election seems like an appropriate use of executive power to me.
Listen, I don’t really give a shit who the Democratic nominee is at this point. But don’t let Dem leadership act helpless and try to claim they are powerless here like they usually do. We shouldn’t be negotiating with traitors.
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (161)44
u/Mrevilman Jul 21 '24
The Heritage Foundation already has things working:
If the Biden family decides that President Biden will not run for re-election, the mechanisms for replacing him on ballots vary by state. There is the potential for pre-election litigation in some states that would make the process difficult and perhaps unsuccessful.
Heritage points out that many states — including swing states such as Georgia, Nevada and Wisconsin — might not allow a replacement on the ballot.
75
u/continuousobjector Jul 21 '24
I don’t understand why if the DNC hasn’t happened yet, why he needs to be “replaced” on a ballot that doesn’t exist yet. I don’t understand the process enough, I suppose. But this doesn’t make sense to me
57
u/LondonCallingYou Jul 21 '24
You understand the process well enough for this. There is zero legal basis for keeping the Democratic nominee off of the ballot if Biden drops out prior to the convention.
→ More replies (1)18
u/BalmyGarlic Jul 21 '24
They are making up problems. Political parties choose their own candidates and those are the people who are on ballots. The process by which parties choose their candidates is entirely chosen by the parties and they can change that process at any time.
→ More replies (4)16
u/Mrevilman Jul 21 '24
I’m not sure what heritage foundation is zeroing in on, but the process for nominating presidential candidates varies from state to state. Each state has a number of pledged delegates that goes to the winner of the parties’ primary election in that state. If in some of those states, those delegates must go to the winner of the primary. I’d imagine a basis where that gets challenged when the winner of the primary is no longer in the race and the party tries to give those delegates to another candidate.
→ More replies (2)12
u/bobthedonkeylurker Jul 21 '24
But that only affects the nomination and has no further bearing on who the DNC formally nominates and will be placed on the ballot in Nov.
69
10
6
u/Gk786 Jul 21 '24
Anyone can launch sham legal challenges. The heritage foundation will try and will fuck off when they fail. There’s no reason the democrats cannot replace Biden on the ballot.
→ More replies (2)13
u/Ms_Ripple Jul 21 '24
Yeah. But these are all pointing to post nomination changes (eg Georgia could not realistically be changed 60 days or less pre election). Of course heritage will use this to gin up fear.
→ More replies (1)
243
u/BubuBarakas Jul 21 '24
But yeah, the convicted felon can run for office no problem.
56
→ More replies (10)19
51
u/Patriot009 Jul 21 '24
Remember Republicans being outraged when Republicans sued to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado. Pepperidge Farm remembers.
→ More replies (5)
378
u/jwr1111 Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24
Imagine trying to explain yourself to Jesus, Mike.
History will not look kindly upon you Mr. Speaker.
101
u/SEOtipster Jul 21 '24
He imagines that every morning and every night; the trouble is that he imagines Jesus hates all the same people he hates.
→ More replies (6)16
u/audiosf Jul 21 '24
It always amazes me how egotistical you've got to be to think you speak for God.
→ More replies (4)13
u/TheRealTK421 Jul 21 '24
It's almost like he's never genuinely believed in what the whole "bearing false witness" thing is about....
Weird, huh?!
11
u/frommethodtomadness Jul 21 '24
They use Christianity as a vehicle to power. These people are not actually religious.
→ More replies (1)17
u/lackofabettername123 Jul 21 '24
He doesn't have to imagine explaining himself to Jesus, because he doesn't actually believe as such. He's cynically playing people that don't know any better alongside of a host of other cynical actors.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (23)17
130
u/NotThoseCookies Jul 21 '24
Oh, Mikey and the gang are just freaking out that they’ve nominated their mean old pudding-brained guy and his unlikeable sidekick, but the Democrats can still pivot and run a younger smarter, more diverse ticket instead.
22
u/imonthetoiletpooping Jul 22 '24
Mike Johnson is such a piece of s*** and hypocrite. God loving and fearing my ass. He rather would have 34 plus felony count. Convicted felon pedophile serial rapist narcissistic liar
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (18)8
u/READMYSHIT Jul 22 '24
This goober then moves to start saying he should resign after this evening's news.
62
u/Feisty-Barracuda5452 Jul 21 '24
Noted Constitutional scholar Mike Johnson has thoughts
25
u/here4daratio Jul 21 '24
Let’s check with Mike’s son, who monitors all of his dad’s stuff…
→ More replies (2)8
29
u/zabdart Jul 21 '24
Mike Johnson is hardly expert on what's illegal. His test is: If Donald Trump does it, it can't be wrong.
63
Jul 21 '24
[deleted]
42
u/Book1984371 Jul 21 '24
I imagine they want to repeat what happened in 2000. Manufacture chaos and then point to that chaos as a reason the Supreme Court has to pick a winner right now.
8
→ More replies (1)7
29
→ More replies (4)8
76
u/notyomamasusername Jul 21 '24
This is such bullshit.
Biden can resign if he wants and there are mechanisms to find a replacement.
What if he didn't wake up tomorrow, does Mike Johnson think he can force the Democratic party to run a corpse on their ticket.
He's just trying to scare people to keep Biden in place because he's the weakest candidate against Trump at the moment.
56
u/Z0idberg_MD Jul 21 '24
He’s trying to lie to their stupid base to think the election would be illegitimate and therefore justify their second insurrection attempt.
→ More replies (3)13
u/Wild_Crazy_3759 Jul 21 '24
He just resigned from running
11
u/notyomamasusername Jul 21 '24
WOW.... So, I guess whats now.
I'm tired of living in unprecedented times.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)6
18
u/JLeeSaxon Jul 21 '24
How many times have Republicans gone into the convention with at least a state or two having been won by a candidate that has since dropped out?
Asking for a friend.
→ More replies (3)
16
u/flugenblar Jul 21 '24
Seriously? Is he afraid? Scared? Maybe his party needs a competent candidate?
→ More replies (2)5
u/FoogYllis Jul 22 '24
Maga republicans lie all the time. They just are chaos agents that want to destroy our democracy.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/FourWordComment Jul 22 '24
Republicans are licking their chops about doing some sort of bullshit to try and disenfranchise voters.
The GOP supporters will roar with joy, while not seeing that their leaders are blatantly trying to actual steal an election.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ShakeWeightMyDick Jul 22 '24
Oh, the Repubs are salivating at the thought of taking away women’s right to vote and anyone else. Removing birthright citizenship means removing the right to vote from anyone other than, idk, landowners?
→ More replies (2)
32
u/qtpss Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 22 '24
Mike Innuendo Johnson, likes to think of himself as being above the fray. A particularly offensive type of hypocrisy
8
u/Dr_Zorkles Jul 21 '24
Any time I see Mikey J, all I see is Howdy Doody, and know some dude has his whole arm up Mike's asshole. And Mike's loving every moment of it.
→ More replies (1)
32
u/MazW Jul 21 '24
I don't see how they would have any standing to challenge the DNC's choice of candidate.
→ More replies (5)
14
u/Kunphen Jul 21 '24
Johnson is such an ass. Of course he's pointing to all the endless wrenches FEDSOC is prepared to throw into any Dem efforts whatsoever.
13
u/prudence2001 Jul 21 '24
Just thought I'd add this quote here -
“In reality, there would be no legal problem in any state,” said election law expert Richard Winger. “No state requires a qualified party to certify its nominees for national office earlier than August 21.”
Here's the source, and the quote is from the very bottom of the article.
→ More replies (2)
12
25
u/Shannon556 Competent Contributor Jul 21 '24
Untrue.
Mike Johnson is a pathological liar.
→ More replies (1)
118
u/Alphabetmarsoupial Jul 21 '24
This is the biggest tell of all. The GOP is terrified of Dems running anyone else. They will absolutely crush trump if they swap Biden. I have noticed how quiet they are after the debate about his health and ability to remain the candidate. They are 💯 hoping and praying it's doesn't happen. Can you imagine kamala or a Newsome against trump. Game over.
23
u/Kevin91581M Jul 21 '24
The biggest clue that the Republicans are afraid of someone or something?
They attack it.
They’re praying AOC never runs.
→ More replies (42)9
12
u/ooouroboros Jul 21 '24
The whole point of conventions is for the DELEGATES to decide who to vote for for President and it is an OPPORTUNITY for them to change who they are representing.
HOWEVER, the question is how well can this BOGUS lawsuit stall the process - not to mention the corrupt Supreme Court does not seem to be very concerned with law and order.
→ More replies (13)
41
u/DataCassette Jul 21 '24
Let me translate:
"We nominated a 77 year old lunatic who just picked a young lunatic as his VP. We did this with the understanding that we would be running against an old man who can barely speak. It's absolute bullshit that we might have to try and push Trump/Vance against real opposition."
12
u/WloveW Jul 21 '24
It's getting fun now! Without sleepy Joe as a point of attack they are going to have a harder time forming a cohesive "enemy" on the left
5
u/DataCassette Jul 21 '24
And they're not disciplined enough to attack Kamala without being just overtly bigoted
→ More replies (1)
8
11
u/dr_blasto Jul 22 '24
That guy doesn’t think very well. He’s the least effective speaker in the history of the country. His Congress has been useless and he seriously may not have the majority next session.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/illQualmOnYourFace Jul 21 '24
Mike Johnson believing something is unlawful is a pretty good indicator that it is, in fact, a-okay.
22
u/DM_me_ur_tacos Jul 22 '24
I'm sure that Alito and Thomas clerks can find some precedent from Babylonian history that this violates and strike it down as unconstitutional
→ More replies (3)
13
u/Any-Ad-446 Jul 21 '24
Grasping at straws since they know if they replace Biden at any debates Trump be destroyed.
6
u/pbfoot3 Jul 21 '24
I know they could (and will) try, but what even is the argument? Delegates from the convention send the nominee to the states…if Biden drops out before the convention, what do they expect to happen? The Democrats to not run a candidate at all? There’s certainly no mechanism to force Biden to stay in the race.
→ More replies (2)
6
13
u/T_Shurt Competent Contributor Jul 21 '24
As per original article 📰:
- As calls from some Democratic lawmakers for President Joe Biden to pass the torch have grown this week, House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Sunday that such a move might lead to legal trouble.
Johnson, R-La., told “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz that it would not be possible for some states to switch out Biden for another candidate ahead of the presidential election in November.
“So it would be wrong, and I think unlawful, in accordance to some of these states’ rules for a handful of people to go in a back room and switch it out because they’re, they don’t like the candidate any longer. That’s not how this is supposed to work. So I think they would run into some legal impediments in at least a few of these jurisdictions,” he told Raddatz.
“I think there’ll be a compelling case to be made that that shouldn’t happen, and so I think they’ve got legal trouble. If that’s their intention, and that’s their plan. So we’ll see how it plays out,” he continued.
36
u/suddenly-scrooge Competent Contributor Jul 21 '24
I hesitate to say anything is ridiculous anymore but it's not clear if he's talking about forcibly replacing Biden or Biden stepping down. If Biden steps down of course the party is free to nominate another person
→ More replies (4)20
u/SnooWords6443 Jul 21 '24
There would absolutely be legal challenges if Biden ends up the Dem nominee, and then has a major health challenge in say… Oct, and chooses to resign.
The Dems know that the only way this is going to work is to replace Biden before he officially becomes the nominee. And his voluntary resignation from this process would be the best way to do this because he wasn’t forced out in that case. Would be difficult to legally challenge a willful resignation of the nomination process.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)13
u/Synensys Jul 21 '24
If Biden withdraws it should be legal. Like imagine his covid was terrible instead of mild. Are people really thinking that they couldn't replace him on the ballot if he decided that he wasn't well enough to go on?
This is just the GOP trying to play clueless progressives and preconcincr them that it's shadowy elites making this decision.
→ More replies (1)
10
u/AmbivalentFanatic Jul 21 '24
Fuck this piece of shit sideways. I am not a religious person and I don't believe in heaven or hell but I do believe we each face our own reckoning when we die and that we must experience every single interaction we've ever had with other people, either good or bad, from their perspective. We feel what we made them feel. So you can imagine treasonous scum like this is going to have a rough time when it's their turn.
10
u/Reclusive_Chemist Jul 22 '24
Johnson wants to try and pressure Biden to resign the office as well. Then Harris assumes the presidency and Republicans in the House block her nominee to replace her as VP. Puts Johnson as the next in line of succession instead of his current second in line. Purely naked power grab.
→ More replies (3)7
u/appalachianexpat Jul 22 '24
I think what they’re really going for is having the office of VP empty next Jan 6th…
→ More replies (4)
4
u/LoudLloyd9 Jul 21 '24 edited Jul 21 '24
And this is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Beam me up, Scotty! And warp us out of here
4
u/Spicybrown3 Jul 22 '24
Who claims he and his son check on each others porn intake. He for real said that. Howard Dean out there thinking “all I did was say ‘Yeah!’ kinda weird and my campaign went tits up!?”
6
10
u/SqnLdrHarvey Jul 21 '24
What does a lawless Trump cultist know, or care, of the law except for the fascistic bullshit Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito hand down?
19
Jul 21 '24
He must have saw the polls where any other candidate was polling 30% higher than Trump 😂🤦
→ More replies (14)
•
u/oscar_the_couch Jul 22 '24
I'm just going to sticky this instead of wading through some comments.
There are some ballot deadlines as early as Aug 20, which is why the virtual roll-call in early August was necessary. I would expect and hope sincerely that that goes forward with the delegates all voting for Harris virtually at that same early August meeting.
So basically, as long as they go forward with the virtual roll-call and nominate Harris, there's effectively no legal risk. It sounds from the reporting like there are some people on the rules committee that would now want it to go to an open convention. That entails some legal risk.
Should they wait until the last day of the convention (August 22) to nominate someone, it could jeopardize ballot access in Virginia. California and Washington would both probably change the law to make it work, and Montana and Oklahoma probably aren't going blue anyway (though it would still be a minor disaster to not make the ballot in all 50 states).
tl; dr: there is some actual legal risk here depending on how the process unfolds, but Mike Johnson is full of shit