This is the only way to change that. I don't have much hope that it'll pass, though.
this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
900 points (100.0% liked)
politics
22612 readers
4594 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But SCOTUS can choose how to interpret this amendment however they choose.
And a President can fire them. Or more. Because they said he could.
What’s he waiting for then?
He's too virtuous. He hasn't processed that anything he does is legal.
So he leads be example. Or something.
Maybe someone should explain it to him before 4 PM?
It feels so Game of Thrones-ish. Democrats are going to act all high and mighty and virtuous, while Republicans are just going to be like Cersei Lannister, "Is this meant to be your shield, Lord Stark? A piece of paper?" Republicans will run them through and sleep well knowing they won, without a guilty conscience. The President should be acting now to protect the country, not waiting for the wolves to get into the hen house and then wringing their hands that there was nothing they could do about it.
That's pretty much it. Republicans are bring out the spiked maces and Dems are just trying to fisticuff they're way out of it. Because virtue.
Not even fisticuffs. They're filing a motion to discourage mace spikes over a certain length.
Pending the approval of some unelected clerk rando with only symbolic authority, of course.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Being free from the consequences of your actions does not give you absolute power and authority. He can't fire them, because he never had that power. What he can do is have them swatted and kill them in official capacity, although he can still be impeached.
Trump signed an executive order and made much of the executive branch fire-able. Go far enough and that influence can turn into control over other parts of the government.
There's a path to effective termination.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Under the new authority they’ve granted him, he can also “fire” them, if you get my meaning.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
It’s the only legislative way to change that.
There is a way that Biden could change that completely unilaterally, but he’s not going to do it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Biden should get on the floor and force a debate. Bring a nerf gun and just start shooting people who disagree or email in an end of debate.
Unfortunately, margarine transfats green wants to carry.
They should also abolish the supreme court while they're at it. Just have the justices be pulled at random from lower courts.
Maybe get rid of judicial review, too, since that's apparently just inferred and not an explicit power given to the courts.
Have you seen the dumbasses that get elected as judges for lower courts? Lowering the bar doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
Have you seen the recent dumbasses that have been put on the Supreme Court? There is no bar.
Lot harder to bribe a random pool. Good suggestion. I'd guess you want something like 17 justices though to reduce variability
What's to stop the ~~monkey paw~~ SCOTUS from simply interpreting a large hole in the amendment?
The only way this ever gains traction is if Biden starts abusing the Supreme Court ruling. As long as Republicans see this as something that doesn't hurt them, they will never support it.
So you're saying Biden should start abusing his new powers, maybe by eliminating certain lifetime appointees?
Not really how that works.
It’s like saying “you’re immune from gun shots” and then you go out and try to fly. The immunity doesn’t grant him extra power within his position, it just grants him immunity if he misuses those powers “officially”.
So he could sell pardons, or order the justice department to release his son, or openly accept bribes in a quid pro quo agreement. As long as it’s “official duties” it’s fair game.
And yes, he could likely shoot someone on fifth avenue and state it was official business, and he would have an argument for immunity. Not that it would likely fly at that point.
He also has the power to order special forces to kidnap people and send them to blacksite prisons for being threats to national security. Just sayin'
load more comments
(1 replies)
the problem is that the ruling hands all the power to the courts so if Joe Biden and Donald Trump committed the same crime for the same reasons the courts could say one has immunity and the other doesn't. The only fix is to take power from the court and just bar the courts from creating immunity at all for any reason.
load more comments
(1 replies)
-
Congress passing a constitutional amendment takes priority over court decisions, but there are cases in the past where state laws contradiction federal laws allowed a court ruling to have more power over enforcement such as the 15th Amendment.
-
Impeachment of justices by Congress, this was the intentional method of reeling in a rogue SCOTUS, TBH I think that step should even come first but there is no reason not to work on both simultaneously.
Which is why it is important that they're pursuing an amendment to the Constitution and not proposing a legislative statute: SCOTUS case law supercedes everything except what is in the Constitution.
It's a not point since it'll never make it past the GOP jackwagons in the house.
They have to try, get it on the record… Sad reality is all of these efforts are DOA
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON (AP) — A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”
Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.
The outcome all but ensures the federal cases against Trump will not be resolved before the November election when he faces a likely rematch with President Joe Biden.
While the constitutional amendment process would likely take years, and in fact may never come to fruition, supporters believe it is the most surefire way, even beyond a new law, to enshrine the norm that presidents can face consequences for their actions.
“This amendment will guarantee that no public officer of the United States — including the president — is able to evade the accountability that any other American would face for violating our laws,” Morelle wrote in a letter to colleagues this week.
Another Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Monday she planned to file articles of impeachment against the justices over the ruling, which she said represents “an assault on American democracy.”
The original article contains 565 words, the summary contains 213 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Ah yes, a strongly worded letter. That's the Dem way. Works every time.
A letter informing his fellow legislators of the tangible action he's undertaking. The letter is a supplement to that tangible action, which helps empower it. What more do you want?
Ikr I am doubting my understanding of what I read. He is trying to add a new amendment to the constitution! That's pretty neat. I don't know my history well enough to know if this is uncommon but it is a new experience for me, so I also really appreciate that.
Instead of being like... bigoted shit.
Yeah part of being an effective legislator is drumming up support for your legislation, which is exactly what this looks like. When your job is literally writing policy into reality, "strongly worded letter" can be anything from a hollow complaint to legally actionable constitutional law.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›