Now I am quite certain that President Biden will step down as his party’s nominee. This is not an assessment, but an analysis of reality. As I explained If that happens on Monday, Kamala Harris would be the most likely replacement.
If that happens, we will immediately be faced with a new question: Should Biden resign from his office and appoint Harris to the presidency?
First, it will depend on Biden’s condition. If/when he withdraws his candidacy, a reason will be given. Is that reason focused on his health or his cognitive functioning?
If it is just a question of health and general weakness, then resignation becomes a decision. If the President is mentally weak, he may have no choice but to resign.
However, for today’s discussion, let’s assume that there is no significant impact on Biden’s ability to run his office for the next six months and that therefore the decision whether or not to resign becomes entirely (meaning politically) discretionary. Then what?
Let me tell you what the post-Biden world will look like:
-
Kamala Harris is more of a focus than anyone in politics, including Trump. She will be able to fill stadiums and arenas instantly. This will be an unprecedented transition for the next generation of Democrats, with uncertainty about whether she will be able to perform well. If she succeeds in transition, she will have an immediate lead in the polls and people’s interest will increase.
-
Republicans will continue to argue every day that Biden should be removed via the 25th Amendment, and Harris will have to answer this charge every time she speaks to the media. And she will Very This is possible only if the media turns this work into a stormy campaign and continues it till the day of elections.
-
Meanwhile, the real world keeps going on. Maybe Israel starts a shootout with Hezbollah. Maybe there’s a terrorist attack in the US. Maybe the border controls get lost. Maybe a major US city gets stormed.
In this environment, there are both good and bad aspects of Harris being the current president.
The case for Harris contesting the election as the current president.
First of all, President Harris traveling on Air Force One and standing behind the presidential seal will instantly solidify her gravitas. It will draw even more attention to her and give her the ability to dominate every news cycle from here until the election. Everything about her candidacy becomes even more historic and exciting.
This evens the playing field between Harris and Trump. Trump gets to run as both an insurgent and an incumbent president. Vice President Harris will be neither, as she will be blamed for what voters dislike about the Biden administration without having the advantage of being battle-tested. If Harris runs as an incumbent president, she will have shown she can do the job. People will have seen her in a real big chair.
It’s possible that some Americans have trouble imagining a black woman as commander in chief. If Harris is the current president, they’ll see it in reality and that might ease their concerns if she does a satisfactory job.
Finally, Trump would flare up every time he heard Harris call him Madam President. This is no small matter.
This is the case for Harris to remain Biden’s vice president and replace him on the ticket.
Biggest issue: The presidency requires a lot of time and energy, and Harris would have to campaign at full speed. If Harris is the current president, she would be distracted and her time on the campaign trail would be limited to her job.
Also, if Harris is just the vice president, President Biden can take actions that his supporters might not like—like closing the border, dealing with Bibi Netanyahu—and bear the brunt of those attacks for them. Most importantly: If something bad happens (e.g., a terrorist attack) it will be President Biden, not Harris, who will be held responsible.
One last thing: his fellow candidates.
If Harris is sworn in as president, she will have to bring a vice president with her. That means nominating someone who must be confirmed by both the House and Senate. That could be a difficult process; we should assume House Republicans will try to thwart it.
Harris’s choices will be limited by two factors. First, can her vice presidential nominee be confirmed by the Republican House? Second, her nominee would have to resign from his or her position to accept the short-term job. I doubt Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear or any governor or senator would accept under those conditions.
If Harris remains vice president, she may have her dream running mate, as she will not have to resign from her post before the election.
I’m not sure how this will balance out. Ultimately, the decision will be driven more by what a huge advantage Harris has than the reality of Biden. But I promise you people will be thinking about all of this soon.
You may have noticed that some people are unhappy with the fact that The Bulwark This conversation about Biden has been going on for the past week. I understand the sentiment. Biden is a good man who has been a good president. He deserves better than the position fate has placed him in.
But for all my admiration for Biden, this moment is bigger than him. And because he is a patriot, I am sure he realizes this truth. Those who admire Biden owe him loyalty for his candor. And, by the way, that is the kind of loyalty Biden wants: He has never sought a creed.
I am proud of the fact that The Bulwark The community has risen to this moment. I’m proud of my colleagues and especially proud of you for the way you’ve handled these conversations. If the rest of America was like the community we’ve built here, everything would be fine.
Keep it up, folks. I know this sounds depressing, but I’m actually glad to have confirmation that we still have a healthy political party.
Never forget that after that debate, the Republican Party continued to refuse to acknowledge the problems with their candidate. Meanwhile, much of the Democratic Party refrained from caving in to the damage and is now, however painfully, engaged in serious discussions about what is best for the country.
This is encouraging.
I know it hasn’t been all that fun. But as Harvey Dent once said, it’s always darkest before the dawn.
If you’ve ever thought about being a part of the work we’re doing, I hope you’ll join us now. These are your people. This is the moment.
Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, said, There were some ideas Regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. Here is their conclusion:
We are in the process of a second American Revolution, one that will remain bloodless if the Left allows it to be.
Yes, we’ve reached the point where the president of America’s leading conservative think tank threatens political violence and no one pays any attention. Certainly no one. the swamp Conservatism Inc. would excommunicate him. Or turn Heritage into a disfellowshipped organization. Or refuse to participate in panels with Heritage folks. Or commit other minor acts of disapproval that would have been expected a decade ago.
The funny thing is, Roberts might be right. to do It seems we are in the midst of a revolution in which our liberal democracy is being replaced by a non-liberal democracy. And so far Republicans have been willing to refrain from violence as long as they get their way. It has only been when our democracy thwarts Republican ambitions that some very fine people have been driven to bloody violence.
Here’s Politico’s report on the situation following the presidential immunity ruling:
Richard Fallon, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, argued that the ruling does not leave the president’s power completely unchecked. The president’s illegal conduct could still be prevented or exposed by other parts of the Constitution—for example, if the president illegally imprisoned a political enemy, that person would be entitled to a court order to be freed.
President Joe Biden, he said, is “tied in the same way other presidents were tied the day before.”
But Fallon acknowledged that the extraordinary scenario of a presidential-ordered assassination would be different. It cannot be changed after the event.
He said “the law can only impose criminal penalties” — but the president would be exempt from that.
Legal experts said the biggest challenge for a president who orders a killing would be finding military personnel willing to carry out that order. While the president himself would enjoy the protection of immunity, others involved would remain vulnerable to prosecution because the Supreme Court’s decision does not make the underlying act legal.
“If they are given an illegal order by the president or someone who answers directly to the president, they could be in a position where they could be subject to court martial in either direction,” said Claire Finkelstein, a national security law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
However, an anarchic president can avoid this problem by promising to pardon anyone who follows his orders.
Finkelstein, who submitted an amicus brief in Trump’s case along with 14 other national security professionals, warned that such dilemmas would create dangerous confusion within the military’s chain of command, undermining its essential discipline and order.
Read the whole thingI think.
By the way, we have a term for that – when written laws don’t apply to the president, but he can give illegal orders to the military and then promise that he will pardon them and protect them from the law when they follow his illegal orders.
This is called “dictatorship”.
