@ArneBab The balloting is a state issue, not Federal, so not really a Supreme Court issue.

@volkris Didn’t the supreme court declare that they can grab every case?

@ArneBab No it absolutely did not.

That's not how the legal system works in the US, so anyone who told you that they did is lying.

I hate to keep beating this drum but that really is what it comes down to, certain special interests putting out information that is flat out the opposite of what is really happening. And we need to call them out on it and we need to stop listening to them.

@volkris did you check the source I quoted?

If that is wrong, I appreciate you beating this drum!

@ArneBab My point is that we should stop listening to sources that are wrong. There are so many sources out there that are telling us misinformation because it gets clicks, and we need to stop listening to them. We need to call them out for being sources of misinformation.

Elections are state matters, not Federal. The Supreme Court is not really involved. Anyone trying to tell a story about the Supreme Court getting involved here is misleading you Aunt we need to stop listening to these outfits that are selling stories that are just outright false.

@volkris I have to ask that: what’s your source?

People are wrong on the internet, and like me, you are a person on the internet.

And I quoted a person on the internet.

So to get out of that and to verifiable facts, do you have a reference to an established legal expert backing that the supreme court cannot involve itself when Biden gets replaced?
(I don’t. I have the reference I posted, which as far as I can tell is someone from within the political establishment)

@volkris My source is https://www.ocasiocortez.com/

@ArneBab Well my source tends to be linked below. I'm sorry AOC doesn't seem to have the vaguest idea of how the US government actually operates.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

@volkris that’s not a legal opinion. I’m from Germany and I know a lot of places where our constitution is clear but laws do not really reflect that — which leads to lawsuits that go up till the constitutional court. But that would be SCOTUS in the US, so if it goes there, it’s clear how they would decide since the judge stuffing by Trump.

Roe v. Wade was also considered clear until the Supreme Court decided that the constitution meant something different.

@ArneBab Well the US might operate differently from Germany.

No, that's not how it works in the US, that's just not how the US legal system operates.

@volkris This is not a source. I’d prefer to say something different, but I know why I explicitly asked abort a reference to an established legal expert.

Those things typically aren’t a simple as I’d like them to be.

@ArneBab okay fine, here you go

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

@volkris that’s again the constitution, but not "a reference to an established legal expert backing that the supreme court cannot involve itself when Biden gets replaced".

If such a reference does not exist, it would be high time for someone to fund legal experts who explicitly check this and publish the result.

Because saying “I can read it written in legal text right here, isn’t that clear?” is not how law works, though it might be better if it did.

@volkris I now found a reference to an established legal expert who sees no risk in nominating a different candidate:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/12/joe-biden-democrat-plan-b-nominee-00140790?nname=politico-nightly&nid=00000170-c000-da87-af78-e185fa700000&nrid=0000014f-8912-d780-a9ef-9d7a73180000&nlid=2670445

So with that I conclude that you were right.

Thank you for correcting me!

@volkris but reality calls fool on this:

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/trump-will-harris-zugriff-auf-spenden-verhindern-102.html

Republicans try to block Harris from using the donations collected by Biden.

In a federal court, so this may be decided by SCOTUS in the end.

@ArneBab keep in mind how tenuous these connections are getting.

If the destination is Democrats being blocked from electing a Democrat, then here we're talking about a legal case of questionable standing based on arrangements that Democrats made for themselves with questionable legal basis even if standing is proven resulting in restrictions on the use of some funds.... and all of that still requiring the leap to "and therefore Democrats can't elect their candidate."

It's quite a long reach.