Someone explain to me again why there would be no possible way on earth

[Eliot Rosewater]

For a corrupt judge or Supreme Court to uphold a decision that somehow prevents Kamala Harris from being on all 50 ballots.

Let’s assume we’re dealing with a plaintiff and judges who have no interest in the law or the constitution whatsoever, what kind of garbage could they do, I realize there may be some other issues about campaign funds, I am only talking about being on the ballot.

For instance what about the corrupt judge in Texas that the assholes go shopping for when they want an unconstitutional outcome that ignores precedent etc.

[Shipwack]

1. Sorry, I can't be that guy.

I don't think either thing is likely, but given the lawless nature of many judges and a majority of the Supreme Court, the chances are non-zero.

On the plus side, the more likely miscarriage is being denied the 90 (?) million dollars from the campaign fund. The loss of that would sting, but not be fatal. Didn't Vice President Harris raise three times that over the weekend?

[Klarkashton]

2. Thomas and Alito would certainly sign up for sonething like that.

[Cirsium]

3. Almost anything is possible

I think we are dealing with plaintiffs and judges who have no interest in the law or the constitution whatsoever.

[madaboutharry]

4. As corrupt as some of the justices may be, this would be a bridge too far.

At the core, a political party has the right to determine how they choose their candidate. The justices know a ruling that would keep her off a ballot, or some ballots, would spark massive civil unrest. While true that some of the justices have demonstrated a distain for actual legal rulings they don't like, I don't see this being even a remote possibility.

https://www.factcheck.org/2024/07/experts-delegates-free-to-pick-democratic-nominee/

“Moreover, political parties have the constitutional right to determine the procedure by which they select their nominees, as repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court,” Foley said, citing the Supreme Court cases Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette and California Democratic Party v. Jones.

“The authority of the national parties to choose their nominee in the event the nominee can’t run comes as a surprise to many in this day of wall-to-wall primaries,” Elaine Kamarck, author of “Primary Politics: Everything You Need to Know about How America Nominates Its Presidential Candidates,” wrote in September. “And yet, it is a reminder that the choice of a nominee is party business — not state law, not federal law, and not constitutional law.”

Foley said there “would be no basis whatsoever for Republicans (or anyone else) to challenge the Democratic Party’s decision to follow its own rules in nominating someone other than Biden.”

According to the Democratic Party’s rules, Foley said, “the presidential preference primaries determined who the convention delegates are; the primary voters did not directly choose the party’s nominee. Biden’s now having voluntarily withdrawn from the race before the delegates nominated him based on his status as presumptive nominee as a result of the primaries, the delegates are free pursuant to the party’s own rules to choose a different person as their nominee. There has been no disenfranchisement of primary voters as a part of the process of the party following its own nomination rules.”

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. Thanks for this I will digest it,

I think my main point was that right now we need to have a mindset that if they take away our vote that’s the end of it, everything stops, all work stops, all bill paying stops, and everyone goes to the street in a way that would scare even people like Alito and Thomas.

These fascists need to believe how bad it would be and I don’t know how we make that clear to them.

Ugh, repeatedly the SC has upheld the right of the party to nominate who they want, etc. This SC clearly is willing to ignore that.

[pat_k]

5. Such a demonstration of...

... anti-American authoritarian control would spark an unprecedented write-in movement for freedom. She could even get some of those flat earthers on board

[gab13by13]

6. Democrats have lawyers, full stop for me.

Back to our narrative, she punched the bully right in the face.

[unblock]

8. I'm sure they can find an excuse to keep her off the ballot just as they could have kept Biden off the ballot

A Republican Secretary of State can always claim signatures don't match or they didn't dot an 'i' or something.

Then a corrupt judge can just delay efforts to force them to it back on.

I don't think they will actually do stuff like this. They want some delay and confusion but they don't actually want Harris off the ballot. They just want enough chaos for the background justification to invalidate the entire election when they lose.

[Eliot Rosewater]

10. I hope lots of folks are assuming this will happen, and that there is a way to make it clear

to the SC and others that this action will end the country.

I am also wondering how "write-in" could also be prevented, illegally of course. EVERYTHING they do is illegal. Pretty much everything nowadays anyway.

[pat_k]

13. Write-in rules vary by state.

Live and learn. It's news to me, but there are some states that don't allow write-ins, or only allow write-ins who are registered by some process. I wonder if there have been legal challenges, and if so how they were possibly resolved to prohibit counting a write-in?

https://ballotpedia.org/Write-in_candidate

[EarthAbides]

9. Evil people

I am sure the evil people behind Project 2025 are working on ways to make this happen....

[Fiendish Thingy]

11. With lawless judges I suppose anything is possible

But the more relevant question is, is it probable?

I guess we’ll find out- there may be some attempts at lawsuits, but I’m not that worried that they will prevail.

[notemason]

12. I would think President Biden

could look into his new trunk of full-immunity powers and come up with a solution should push come to shove.

[mdbl]

15. My thoughts too.

At least make sure the FEC is monitoring these states trying to screw the voters the most. Maybe assign FEC monitors at the polls. How can we trust these red state morons bent on fixing an election to do the right thing? They hide under the cover of accusing everyone else of doing exactly what they are doing. A light needs to be shined all over them constantly or our democracy doesn't have a chance.

[notemason]

16. Amen

[mdbl]

14. That is the conservative judge's mantra - everything is unconstitutional

If it doesn't go along with their fascist agenda, it's unconstitutional.