968
submitted 4 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

US president also to seek constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and various officeholders

Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday, Politico reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, adding that the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

Biden said earlier this week during an Oval Office address that he would call for reform of the court.

He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday and the specific proposals could change, the report added.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 170 points 4 months ago

Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday

Just twisting that knife in the wound. I love it.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 50 points 4 months ago

I'm here for it too! As long as he doesn't do it from an open car in Dallas..

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 36 points 4 months ago

Not to be morbid, but that's what got Johnson elected the next year, so...

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

You don’t think proposing SCOTUS reform is going to help Republicans, do you?

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Atom@lemmy.world 146 points 4 months ago

InB4 "WhY DiDn't hE Do iT WhEn hE HaD ThE MaJoRiTy?" Because he's calling for constitutional amendments that require a 2/3rds support in Congress and the SCOTUS may finally be disliked enough to get some GOP members to support reform, especially if it comes with limiting Biden's own immunity.

[-] thegr8goldfish@startrek.website 63 points 4 months ago

If he flexs his newfound immunity he could definitely stir the pot.

[-] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 points 4 months ago

If he goes full Dark Brandon with his immunity, perhaps in his lame duck period, then that would be epic.

I got the popcorn ready.

[-] KinglyWeevil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 4 months ago

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Sometimes reasonable men must do unreasonable things.

Removing threats to democracy because that democracy is so flawed that it gave you the power to do so legally, and then using that power to eliminate the ability for it to be used again, is heroic.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

He must use the stones to destroy the stones

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago

No way that majority exists, but the tv ads will be delicious and brutal

[-] ulkesh@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

…and 3/4 of the states. Not only will it take years to accomplish, the uneducated people of the country won’t stand for any amendment that a “librul” came up with. And then everyone will forget or stop caring.

There won’t be another amendment in the next fifty years, as long as MAGA morons exist.

[-] ericatty@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 months ago

This requirement is what stalls almost all constitutional changes. The last three to pass were 25th 1971 about voting rights for 18 year olds (100 days to pass) the 26th in 1967 about presidential succession (just under 3 years to pass) The last last one (27th) was added 1992 after almost 203 years of meeting the other requirements (It has to do with sitting Congress not being able to raise their own salaries, increases are delayed to the next term. )

There are 6 amendments still sitting out there awaiting ratification by the states.

load more comments (1 replies)

I mean the critique behind "why didn't he do it when he had the majority" still applies: calling for a constitutional amendment is ineffectual. There's no way a constitutional amendment is going to happen in today's political environment.

Also the court reform he's proposing isn't a constitutional amendment, but since he waited until he didn't have a majority, that can't happen either.

It's almost like he doesn't want change.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Had he done that, it would have been before this blatant level of corruption had surfaced. So it would have been met with with "there is no evidence to merit something this drastic".

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Manchin and Sinema would have blocked it. Our "majority" in the Senate existed only for legislation those two DINOs would allow.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] oyo@lemm.ee 122 points 4 months ago

To be clear, this immunity obviously DOES NOT EXIST in the constitution and was invented out of whole cloth.

[-] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 14 points 4 months ago

The way they interpreted it was invented, but there was precedent in the constitution

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheAristocrat@lemmy.world 87 points 4 months ago

Now that he doesn't have to worry about getting reelected, he doesn't have to pussyfoot around anymore.

[-] 4lan@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

What if we just made the limit 1 term? Then no presidents would be doing actions purely to get reelected?

[-] Corgana@startrek.website 15 points 4 months ago

It's helpful not totally replace the executive branch every four years if you don't have to

[-] prole 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Would be so much worse... Think about any type of project or policy that takes more than 4 years to complete (and longer to see tangible benefits from).

It's already bad enough having a GOP president come in every 8 years to undo most of the good things their Democratic predecessor accomplished (with Reagan removing Carter's solar panels from the White House roof being the archetype).

Imagine having that pendulum swing every 4 years. Literally nothing that takes longer than 4 years would ever get done.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] mlg@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Can't wait for him to flip the table on Israel

any second now...

aaaaaaaaannny second now..........

[-] prole 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Why would he do that before the election? It's still the same party, and him doing that would do nothing but hurt Kamala at this point. The smart move is to walk the tightrope for a few more months.

Yeah I get it, it sucks that American politicians can't just say certain things without tanking their career and destroying their political future. It's fucked up and gross, but it's real.

A lot of people are talking like this is a done deal, but I've seen enough elections at this point to know that a million impossible to predict things can (and likely will) happen between now and November.

As much as you might want the Democratic party to shout support for Palestinians from the rooftops, the current reality is that we need to continue to be very careful. If you actually care about Palestinian lives beyond using them as political pawns, then unfortunately we need to play the game until November.

Because the alternative is an unacceptable outcome for the Palestinian people.

I'll probably get downvoted for saying it, but it doesn't make it less true: Harris could behave exactly the same toward Israel as Biden, after being elected, and she would still be the only choice this election.

I know there are plenty of genuine people here, but so much of the "genocide Joe" rhetoric was such obvious astroturfing. Or at least began that way...

But we live in a world of cause and effect. Regardless of what happens between now and then there are a few possible outcomes for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. But objectively, by a long shot, the worst is if Donald Trump and the GOP (with the hands of the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, John Birch Society, probably several lame clubs named after Ayn Rand bullshit, firmly up its keister like a goddam Muppet) take the presidency and immediately give Netanyahu carte blanche to "do what needs to be done" there. Which is what he/they will do.

If you think things are bad now, a Trump win would be signing the death warrant for the Palestinian people in the Levant. And every so-called "progressive" that stayed home because of Biden's stances on Israel will have the blood of millions of dead Palestinians on their hands.

I consider myself to be a progressive, but the complete lack of pragmatism I've seen from other so-called progressives lately has been atrocious. So I hope it was mostly astroturf.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment

Arguably, this is still pussyfooting since there's no fucking way he has anything near the number of votes needed for this.

[-] prole 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Whenever I see a politician mention anything about a constitutional amendment, I immediately stop reading.

Shit ain't happening... We wouldn't be able to pass an amendment saying "Pizza is yummy" because Republicans would refuse to agree with Democrats. They would actually stop eating pizza altogether because of it. There would be a movement to outlaw pizza because it's grooming our kids (stupid sexy pizza).

I was trying to think of something silly and outlandish, and as I was typing this, I realized... This isn't even that far out of the realm of possibility at this point. It's like legitimately difficult to think of something too far-fetched for this reality. It wouldn't be the first pizza-related issue on the right (ahem, Pizzagate?). Or the second (I just remembered the stupid "pizza is a vegetable" bullshit).

The looking glass ain't shit, we went through it years ago. We're at the end of "2001: A Space Odyssey" with Pink Floyd's Echoes playing in sync with it. If we're lucky, we'll soon make it through the psychedelic spaghettification, and we will get to watch ourselves as a boring old man before becoming a giant space fetus...

Sorry, got kind of sidetracked there what were we talking about again?

Oh yeah, Jupiter and beyond the infinite.....

(Spoiler alert? Lol I couldn't spoil the end of that film if I tried).

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 67 points 4 months ago

The problem is not presidential immunity. The problem is immunity and the president is just the highest profile job that has it. Politicians never do anything about the root cause, and only treat the symptoms.

Police officers get away with murder because their job gives them immunity. Ceos, shareholders and other corporate staff have immunity as well.

A president getting away with assassinating a political rival is just as unjust as letting a ceo get away with killing 346 people simply because their job gives them immunity for their actions.

[-] turmacar@lemmy.world 61 points 4 months ago

Perfect should not be the enemy of Good. Reforming the entire system is not something that just happens. It takes several steps in the right direction and you have to start somewhere.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 15 points 4 months ago

The supreme court created both of those immunities as well.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 41 points 4 months ago

Get ‘em Dark Brandon!

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 34 points 4 months ago

Cool, next do the circuit courts! Especially the 5th!

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago

It appears he’s pushing to add official ethics guidelines, not pack the court or anything that would radically change the fuckpit we’ve got now.

Public confidence in the court has slipped sharply in recent years.

lol

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 4 months ago

We about to see the real Dark Brandon.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago

Sounds like an official act to me! Let’s do some more.

[-] 4lan@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I think he should hire 15 more supreme Court justices. All 18 years old If they want to fuck around with our country we can too. Maybe that would lead to actual change in the rules surrounding supreme Court

[-] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 14 points 4 months ago

Please please please please

[-] Zugyuk@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

... And add another 4 justices, right?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 points 4 months ago

The Democratic Party when the corrupt court just calls their reform unconstitutional: 🤷‍♂️

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] dropped_the_chief@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

When the republican senate started weighing how to get their way through the supreme court, during the Obama administration, don't sound so surprised the Democrats aren't forced to go low too.

[-] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 months ago

They should have been going low from the beginning. Nice guys finish last.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

I'm glad he's not running anymore, because I don't have to watch his supporters add "Reformed the Supreme Court" to the list of proposals they count as completed accomplishments.

[-] Debs@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 months ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
968 points (100.0% liked)

News

23627 readers
2209 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS