|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Thought experiment: if the justices just said “abortion is illegal because we said so”, what would effectively change? A few more states would pass bills making abortion a capital crime than those who are already planning to do so? tagesschau posted:So how much would the Supreme Court have to overstep for the other branches to go "we thank the Court for its advisory, non-binding opinion" and just ignore a ruling that is obviously not based in law? Not that I particularly want to find out, because that is squarely in constitutional-crisis territory. It's a moot point, Dems will never have the balls to do this and while the GOP would do so in a heartbeat, they own the judiciary through and through in addition to being entirely willing to expand the SCOTUS the moment they lose the majority (IE: never) and have the WH + Senate. The latter of which they are realistically going to control more often than not due to how well they lock in control of states when they gain power in one. They overstepped their authority in Bush v. Gore and Clinton did nothing. They did it again in Shelby County and Obama did nothing.
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
It's one of those things nobody really wants to see happen, but I suspect one of the secondary goals of the GOP. If the SCOTUS becomes irrelevant then all those gerrymandered state legislatures become exponentially more powerful.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:What happened was that she lost the general election by 20 percentage points. Acting like she should have just won despite clearly losing leaves you in no position to accuse others of subverting democracy. What happened is she won the primary, and then Brown teamed up with the state GOP to run an all out smear campaign on her, to which the state Dems did virtually nothing to try and defender her against in terms of resources, endorsements, or commendations of Brown, even though his poo poo slinging also almost certainly played a large role in the Democratic candidate for Buffalo County Sheriff losing to a Republican by a handful of percentage points after backing Walton. I'm not saying Walton "deserved" to win. I'm saying that when an out socialist won a primary against an establishment Dem incumbent that incumbent ran screaming to the right and was actively being helped by the GOP, and the state Dems at best were tacitly complicit in him doing so. You can argue that this has nothing to do with punching left and rather the party's knee jerk reaction to back incumbents, but I have a hard time buying that had Brown lost to a candidate with similar policies to his own and then responded by throwing a fit and openly soliciting assistance from the GOP that he wouldn't have been smacked down much harder by the party apparatus, or at a minimum his challenger would have gotten a full throated party endorsement and funding.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's one of those things nobody really wants to see happen, but I suspect one of the secondary goals of the GOP. If the SCOTUS becomes irrelevant then all those gerrymandered state legislatures become exponentially more powerful. There's literally no benefit to the GOP in having the SCOTUS, a thing they firmly control and that all levels of government unquestioningly obey the rulings of, be de-legitimized. It's their single most powerful tool to enact regressive policies on blue states and regions they haven't been able to sabotage their way into power (yet).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
I'm going to become the Joker if my friends keep posting RBG quotes on Facebook. It's so annoying how normies don't blame her for this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:They overstepped their authority in Bush v. Gore and Clinton did nothing. They did it again in Shelby County and Obama did nothing. What are some extrajudicial remedies that Clinton or Obama could have sought in those cases?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Sydin posted:What happened is she won the primary, and then Brown teamed up with the state GOP to run an all out smear campaign on her, to which the state Dems did virtually nothing to try and defender her against in terms of resources, endorsements, or commendations of Brown, even though his poo poo slinging also almost certainly played a large role in the Democratic candidate for Buffalo County Sheriff losing to a Republican by a handful of percentage points after backing Walton. None of what you describe, even if it were 100% accurate, rises anywhere near the level subversion of democracy. The Democratic primary is not actually the general election, despite the fact that it frequently functions as such in large parts of New York State. It's the overestimation of niche candidates' electability that leads to nonsense like believing progressives could primary Manchin and end up filling his Senate seat with anything other than a Republican. A "win" or two like that and Biden loses his ability to appoint anyone to the judiciary. Evil Fluffy posted:It's a moot point, Dems will never have the balls to do this I should include governments of blue states in that, too. The governor of California is going to be able to make a lot more political hay out of actively interfering with obviously bogus SCOTUS decisions than the president is.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:None of what you describe, even if it were 100% accurate, rises anywhere near the level subversion of democracy. The Democratic primary is not actually the general election, despite the fact that it frequently functions as such in large parts of New York State. True none of what I said had anything to do with actual subversion of democracy, it's just awful party politics. If you want the actual subversion of democracy in the Walton/Brown race, that would be the judge with a massive conflict of interest who ordered Brown's name be placed back on the GE ballot. e. And yeah, I went back and looked at my original post and see that I specifically used the phrase "subvert democracy" in regards to Dem actions and this is just moving goal posts. I was - hopefully understandably - drunk and angry about the leaked Roe decision when I made that original post. I would argue though that even if you want to say by textbook definition what the Dems did to Walton was not a subversion of democracy, it was extremely lovely and indicative of the party establishment's marginalization of progressives in pursuit of moderates, swing voters, and independents. Which has resulted in a nominally "big tent" party, which has landed them in a situation where they cannot meaningfully use the legislature they control on paper to protect fundamental rights because members of their party refuse to play ball to do so. Sorry if I'm coming off as overly hostile, this whole situation is just depressing and frustrating to a degree that's hard to accurately describe. Sydin fucked around with this message at 19:17 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It's really not a hypothetical when Alito (among others) has called for banning abortion wholesale. Make no mistake, that is coming and the only question is just when they'll be given the case intended to effect this. You can be absolutely certain that the legal challenges to give this opportunity are already in the works. I like how when I said the court was going to do exactly this after RBG died two years ago I got nothing but dismissive responses.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
raminasi posted:What are some extrajudicial remedies that Clinton or Obama could have sought in those cases? Obama could've ordered the DOJ to continue to enforce the VRA in full, including preclearance, since Congress is the one who gets to decide matters around voting rights and did so overwhelmingly only years prior to this decision and if the SCOTUS doesn't like it that's just too loving bad because the matter's outside their jurisdiction. He doesn't have to order John Roberts be blackbagged and shipped to Gitmo but making toothless non-statements to try and pretend poo poo isn't on fire isn't acceptable when you're the leader of the country. Yes the GOP would've called him a tyrant and dictator but who loving cares what a bunch of fascists think when they've openly and repeatedly stated their goal is to sabotage you and the country for their own gain? Fuschia tude posted:I like how when I said the court was going to do exactly this after RBG died two years ago I got nothing but dismissive responses. I was saying this poo poo back nearly a decade ago when Dems were begging her to retire and she refused to because her arrogant rear end didn't think Obama and a Democrat-held Senate that everyone knew they were going to lose in the upcoming midterms wouldn't nominate someone good enough to replace her despite the fact he'd already appointed Sotomayor and Kagan by that point.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 19:51
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Obama could've ordered the DOJ to continue to enforce the VRA in full, including preclearance, since Congress is the one who gets to decide matters around voting rights and did so overwhelmingly only years prior to this decision and if the SCOTUS doesn't like it that's just too loving bad because the matter's outside their jurisdiction. He doesn't have to order John Roberts be blackbagged and shipped to Gitmo but making toothless non-statements to try and pretend poo poo isn't on fire isn't acceptable when you're the leader of the country. Every single one of those enforcement actions would have been tossed out of court on motions to dismiss, though. The DoJ still has to operate through the courts, and the high court tossed section 3. The legislature did not reauthorize following this, and district courts are bound by the SCOTUS decision without new legislation.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
Sydin posted:True none of what I said had anything to do with actual subversion of democracy, it's just awful party politics. If you want the actual subversion of democracy in the Walton/Brown race, that would be the judge with a massive conflict of interest who ordered Brown's name be placed back on the GE ballot. That judge's decision was overturned on appeal, so Walton did end up losing an election where hers was the only name on the ballot. Sydin posted:I would argue though that even if you want to say by textbook definition what the Dems did to Walton was not a subversion of democracy, it was extremely lovely and indicative of the party establishment's marginalization of progressives in pursuit of moderates, swing voters, and independents. Lots of state Democratic parties are pretty awful and don't seem to care about winning. Look at Florida, where they're probably going to blow the chance to unseat DeSantis by throwing their support behind Charlie Crist, one of the least exciting candidates imaginable. Sydin posted:Which has resulted in a nominally "big tent" party, which has landed them in a situation where they cannot meaningfully use the legislature they control on paper to protect fundamental rights because members of their party refuse to play ball to do so. That control isn't even on paper, because Congress doesn't act like it's a parliament. Being the highest-ranking Democrat gives Joe Biden absolutely no power to apply a three-line whip to an act to codify Roe or expand the Supreme Court or whatever. He can't even expel people from caucus or prevent them from running again under the Democratic banner. I'm already sick of the hot-take tweets about how the Democrats could just fix this immediately if they wanted to, because American politics has literally never worked that way.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:A few more states would pass bills making abortion a capital crime than those who are already planning to do so? Don’t forget that it also opens up the possibility of federal abortion bans the next time the GOP is in power.  raminasi posted:What are some extrajudicial remedies that Clinton or Obama could have sought in those cases? There are lots of options but they tend to be outside traditional channels, many of which might damage the precious legitimacy of our institutions. The real answer to this problem of course is for normal people to start losing their poo poo until those on power relent out of fear or the government collapses but LMAO Americans don’t have the self respect needed for that kind of action. We are so thoroughly hosed in so many ways, it’s hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
Sydin posted:What happened is she won the primary, and then Brown teamed up with the state GOP to run an all out smear campaign on her, to which the state Dems did virtually nothing to try and defender her against in terms of resources, endorsements, or commendations of Brown, even though his poo poo slinging also almost certainly played a large role in the Democratic candidate for Buffalo County Sheriff losing to a Republican by a handful of percentage points after backing Walton. Please do try to keep the thread on target about the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Obama could've ordered the DOJ to continue to enforce the VRA in full, including preclearance, since Congress is the one who gets to decide matters around voting rights and did so overwhelmingly only years prior to this decision and if the SCOTUS doesn't like it that's just too loving bad because the matter's outside their jurisdiction. He doesn't have to order John Roberts be blackbagged and shipped to Gitmo but making toothless non-statements to try and pretend poo poo isn't on fire isn't acceptable when you're the leader of the country. What's the mechanism by which the DOJ would enforce preclearance? readingatwork posted:There are lots of options but they tend to be outside traditional channels, many of which might damage the precious legitimacy of our institutions. Cool! Great! That's exactly what I'm looking for! What are some examples?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Cool! Great! That's exactly what I'm looking for! What are some examples? Well for one thing you could start leveraging popular sentiment to attack justices directly to make their lives miserable. It might not solve the current issue but if they know that they will never be able to go out in public without getting spit in the face and screamed at it may disincentivize similar rulings going forward. Oh! Here’s an idea. Open an investigation into the conservative justices and try to get them thrown in prison. It probably won’t work but it will get a ton of documents leaked and (again) the potential threat of legal action might be a deterrent going forward. This argument is pointless though because Democrats first and foremost care about preserving the stability of American institutions over doing any sort of tangible good in the world. The right will forever be allowed to use said institutions in blatantly illegal/unethical ways without recourse because to challenge those actions might put these institutions basic legitimacy under scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 20:32
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Well for one thing you could start leveraging popular sentiment to attack justices directly to make their lives miserable. It might not solve the current issue but if they know that they will never be able to go out in public without getting spit in the face and screamed at it may disincentivize similar rulings going forward. One side of politics is filled with primarily coordinated criminals, and the other side is filled with the uncoordinated remainder.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
I’d like to see some of these Democratic judges practice passive resistance. Keep striking down abortion restrictions under Roe and Casey. This isn’t a solution, but it will preoccupy and annoy Alito, et al to keep having to swat them down. I’d also like to see Dems specifically say “there is still a constitutional right to abortion, regardless of what the Court says, and we will act accordingly.” At least promote a theory of rights that doesn’t depend on 5 geriatrics and what they say. We’re in uncharted territory here. There are plenty of times the US has trampled on people’s rights, but I can’t think of another decision that was so clearly “that right you’ve had for fifty years, you no longer have.l How people react now will be forming the pattern for next time.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 21:14
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Please do try to keep the thread on target about the Supreme Court. I agree the Walton chat strayed off topic and apologize, but I do feel that talking about the current inability of the legislative and executive branches to check the power of the judicial is very relevant to the topic of SCOTUS right now and hope you won't begrudge me for at least continuing that line of discussion. tagesschau posted:That control isn't even on paper, because Congress doesn't act like it's a parliament. Being the highest-ranking Democrat gives Joe Biden absolutely no power to apply a three-line whip to an act to codify Roe or expand the Supreme Court or whatever. He can't even expel people from caucus or prevent them from running again under the Democratic banner. I'm already sick of the hot-take tweets about how the Democrats could just fix this immediately if they wanted to, because American politics has literally never worked that way. I was not talking about Biden but the Democratic party as a whole organizing themselves in a way that their bloc isn't ideologically cohesive enough to effectively wield their slim margin of power, even on something as fundamentally important as a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:That control isn't even on paper, because Congress doesn't act like it's a parliament. Being the highest-ranking Democrat gives Joe Biden absolutely no power to apply a three-line whip to an act to codify Roe or expand the Supreme Court or whatever. He can't even expel people from caucus or prevent them from running again under the Democratic banner. I'm already sick of the hot-take tweets about how the Democrats could just fix this immediately if they wanted to, because American politics has literally never worked that way. Can’t he? Or cant…someone in the Democratic Party? Or is that determined entirely by state party rules?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I was not talking about Biden but the Democratic party as a whole organizing themselves in a way that their bloc isn't ideologically cohesive enough to effectively wield their slim margin of power, even on something as fundamentally important as a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. In Canada, an MP who votes against their party in a whipped vote is generally immediately removed from the caucus and the party, and usually will be barred from running under the party's banner in the next election, effectively turfing them out of Parliament. None of the preceding items can be hung over the head of members of either chamber of Congress, so "the Democrats have full control and can simply decide to pass a law to fix the Supreme Court and/or what it has broken" is not an accurate statement. von Metternich posted:I’d also like to see Dems specifically say “there is still a constitutional right to abortion, regardless of what the Court says, and we will act accordingly.” I think this is the key, really. Don't spend even a minute pretending that this decision is good law or binding on anyone.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:I like how when I said the court was going to do exactly this after RBG died two years ago I got nothing but dismissive responses. I think there was a reactionary response to it based on the idea of the Supreme Court as Roberts has cultured it. There was an inability to fully comprehend that the new balance of power was now held by insane Christian cultists who network in prayer groups and think federally guaranteed access to contraception is a devil hell sin, much less "abortion for all who need it" and much like with GWB plowing face first into Iraq as Magog, they are acting as agents of a just God who will work the path out for them. That's how you end up doing this. You think God will make it work out. Just do the thing, and the theo-moral apparatus of the physical universe will render this path unto victory. Thus: the imperial wizard court
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:I think there was a reactionary response to it based on the idea of the Supreme Court as Roberts has cultured it. There was an inability to fully comprehend that the new balance of power was now held by insane Christian cultists who network in prayer groups and think federally guaranteed access to contraception is a devil hell sin, much less "abortion for all who need it" and much like with GWB plowing face first into Iraq as Magog, they are acting as agents of a just God who will work the path out for them. That's how you end up doing this. You think God will make it work out. Just do the thing, and the theo-moral apparatus of the physical universe will render this path unto victory. This is one of the ways you can tell if the crazies are in charge in any given situation; whatever actions they take are completely devoid of tact. Even as a first draft there are a thousand ways this decision could have been written to soften and obfuscate it's purpose while achieving the exact same results, instead we get the closet thing to a real-life Bond villain monologue.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Stickman posted:A legislative solution is ALSO subject to the whims of the Supreme Court. Lol the GOP has already got a gerrymandered Congress and a gerrymandered electoral college and a gerrymandered Supreme Court, the only legislative solution on the way is an outright ban on abortion at a Federal level.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 02:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/statesman/status/1522018267208069120 Abbott continues to do what he can to be as big a net loss to humanity as possible.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:https://twitter.com/statesman/status/1522018267208069120 What an absolute poo poo. Does he stay awake nights wondering how he can be the most rancid skidmark on humanity's underwear?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 03:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:https://twitter.com/statesman/status/1522018267208069120 Wow, they're first step is bringing back segrated schools?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:https://twitter.com/statesman/status/1522018267208069120 Now that Roe is done and dusted, I suppose the new target will be Brown v. Board of Education.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 03:35
|
|
|
Covok posted:Wow, they're first step is bringing back segrated schools? Certainly not their first.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:There's not really anything that SCOTUS can do to compel (for example) California to prosecute people it doesn't want to prosecute. Right, they'll just make it a federal crime and use DHS or their new abortion cops to prosecute people in blue states. tagesschau posted:In Canada, an MP who votes against their party in a whipped vote is generally immediately removed from the caucus and the party, and usually will be barred from running under the party's banner in the next election, effectively turfing them out of Parliament. None of the preceding items can be hung over the head of members of either chamber of Congress, so "the Democrats have full control and can simply decide to pass a law to fix the Supreme Court and/or what it has broken" is not an accurate statement. Doesn't really refute their point that the root problem is the Democrats are ideologically incoherent as a party. Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 03:55 on May 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
Covok posted:Wow, they're first step is bringing back segrated schools?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:In Canada, an MP who votes against their party in a whipped vote is generally immediately removed from the caucus and the party, and usually will be barred from running under the party's banner in the next election, effectively turfing them out of Parliament. None of the preceding items can be hung over the head of members of either chamber of Congress, so "the Democrats have full control and can simply decide to pass a law to fix the Supreme Court and/or what it has broken" is not an accurate statement. Why do you keep bringing up parliaments? I am not talking about Canada, I am talking about the Senate of the United States of America, in which the Democratic party has 50 votes + a tiebreaker from the VP, who could pass virtually whatever legislation they wanted over the objection of every single Republican senator in the room the if all 50 of those Dem senators + the VP agreed it it was important enough to nuke the filibuster for. But all 50 Dem senators do not agree protecting the fundamental right for a woman to choose what happens to her body is worth nuking the filibuster, because the Democrats have cultivated an ideological environment where being pro-choice is not a requirement for being an officially endorsed member of their party. This appears to have essentially allowed SCOTUS to run roughshod over said rights and queue up to trample even more once the GOP lawsuits start rolling in. Which is, quite frankly, extremely depressing and an indictment against the way the Dems have organized their party and their ability to protect us when the GOP inevitably goes after even more of our rights, like so: Evil Fluffy posted:https://twitter.com/statesman/status/1522018267208069120 Karl Barks posted:Right, they'll just make it a federal crime and use DHS or their new abortion cops to prosecute people in blue states. Even if we didn't get flooded with DHS agents multiple police and sheriff departments openly revolted against Newsom's COVID restrictions and mask mandates when they were perfectly legal; there's no way in hell we could effectively compel the majority of law enforcement in the state to comply with openly defying a federal ban on abortion. Maybe a handful of ardently blue coastal urban enclaves like SF would be able to keep some clinics up and running but the reality is a federal ban would effectively mean an end to abortion in most if not all of California no matter how much Gavin stamps his feet about it because our civil government flat out cannot control large segments of state law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 04:27
|
|
|
US party politics is confusing to me, is it true that parties can't actually stop someone running under their banner?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:US party politics is confusing to me, is it true that parties can't actually stop someone running under their banner? In general, yes. The reasons have to do with racism, in that for a while southern parties tried to basically bar black [candidates | delegates | etc.].
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:US party politics is confusing to me, is it true that parties can't actually stop someone running under their banner? Technically no, but there are obviously many things that can be done behind closed doors to make the outcome whatever the party wants. Anyone remember Alvin Greene? I'm also fairly sure you can be kicked out of the caucus in Congress, tho it likely depends on party rules. I know many Republicans were calling for Liz Cheney to be removed from the caucus very recently over the Jan 6 stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Why do you keep bringing up parliaments? I am not talking about Canada, I am talking about the Senate of the United States of America, in which the Democratic party has 50 votes + a tiebreaker from the VP, who could pass virtually whatever legislation they wanted over the objection of every single Republican senator in the room the if all 50 of those Dem senators + the VP agreed. Hey remember when they had 60 senators and yet still had the same problem?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:Technically no, but there are obviously many things that can be done behind closed doors to make the outcome whatever the party wants. Anyone remember Alvin Greene? This is wishful thinking. If the party could dictate a primary outcome to the level you are assuming, consider that, to name one very recent example, AOC would not be a Representative.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
ulmont posted:This is wishful thinking. If the party could dictate a primary outcome to the level you are assuming, consider that, to name one very recent example, AOC would not be a Representative. There are exceptions to every rule, but it's still a rule. The party apparatus also never saw AOC coming, I don't think they were even polling the district when she won. But we're getting a little off topic here...
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:US party politics is confusing to me, is it true that parties can't actually stop someone running under their banner? You can claim run as whatever you want, but to actually get printed on the ballot affiliated with your party of choice you generally need to have received a party nomination to do so. The laws very state to state but in a lot of cases this doesn't actually mean that you need to get the state level party folks to officially bless you, it just means you need to submit a petition to be placed on the ballot that has [x] number of verifiable signatures from registered voters of the party you're trying to affiliate with. So yeah if you can get enough rubes to sign you could run declared as party of a party you share zero platforms with, although good luck when the state and national level party will almost certainly extend zero resources to you and plenty to the candidate(s) they've actually blessed. Proust Malone posted:Hey remember when they had 60 senators and yet still had the same problem? I think if the Dems had 60 votes now there would be almost unresistant pressure to take steps to reign in the court and codify abortion rights into law. I do definitely think though that there are more moderate dems besides Manchin and Sinema who are unwilling to nuke the filibuster over it but aren't making noise about it because it'd attract bad PR and their opposition isn't required because of the narrow majority.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:28 |
|
|
ulmont posted:This is wishful thinking. If the party could dictate a primary outcome to the level you are assuming, consider that, to name one very recent example, AOC would not be a Representative. Isn't it generally state law that dictates primary and general elections (outside of presidential elections)? "Running under their banner" just means "the candidate gets to put the party next to their name on the ballot" and state law dictates the rules for who gets to claim which parties. For states with primaries that's usually "the winner of the primary for that party" and anyone can run in any primary for any party so long as they meet the requirements and have enough signatures. Are there federal rules that specifically reference how party association is determined for ballots (the VRA?) Outside of ballot affiliation I don't think there are any rules that require parties to interact with candidates. They don't have to provide any resources, pressure businesses to refuse service to campaigns, or actively campaign against their own candidate. Presidential elections have a lot more leeway, otherwise we wouldn't have those ridiculous caucuses for determining delegates.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2022 05:05
|
|
