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.

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

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.

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

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.

Scared?? Yup, they're scared.

Narrator: it is not

its so annoying how full of shit the republican party is. Even without trump they are worse than they have ever been.

House speaker should have an IQ requirement.

His lips were moving. The clear tell that Johnson is lying.

Well. Biden is still in charge. He can declare and emergency and make whoever he wants appear on the ballot.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.