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.
Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday
Just twisting that knife in the wound. I love it.
I’m here for it too! As long as he doesn’t do it from an open car in Dallas…
Not to be morbid, but that’s what got Johnson elected the next year, so…
What wound?
You don’t think proposing SCOTUS reform is going to help Republicans, do you?
Well, no, but there’s a big gap between “not helping” and “wounding”, and this is much, much closer to the “not helping” end of that gap.
Right, but the phrase implies this is just taking something that is already hurting them and making it worse.
Yes. By announcing it in Texas.
Can’t speak for ripcord, but the part I am unclear on is why Texas specifically is relevant. Is the supreme court based in Texas? I am not American.
The 5th federal court district is in Texas and is notorious. Most recently they did some shenanigans to keep the federal government from enforcing it’s borders because Texas was playing politics with their troops and occupying federal land to put Razer wire in the border river.
I’m from the US and I’m not following, either.
The Supreme Court meets across the country in Washington DC, so it’s not for that reason.
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.
No way that majority exists, but the tv ads will be delicious and brutal
If he flexs his newfound immunity he could definitely stir the pot.
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.
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.
He must use the stones to destroy the stones
deleted by creator
Oh, and Chevron
…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.
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.
That’s some excellent history. Thanks for sharing.
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.
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”.
Manchin and Sinema would have blocked it. Our “majority” in the Senate existed only for legislation those two DINOs would allow.
His first year:
- The American Rescue Plan Act and extending existing Covid-19 programs
- Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
- Bills to avoid a government shutdown and keep the federal government running
- Juneteenth National Independence Day Act
- Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act
Expecting the GOP to cooperate on anything ever is a bit of a pipe dream
To be clear, this immunity obviously DOES NOT EXIST in the constitution and was invented out of whole cloth.
It’s not like the constitution is some infallible magic text, it was also “invented” by some dudes.
That’s true, but I don’t think it invalidates anything about the post you replied to. It’s not a question of who invented what. The case is that the job of the founders WAS to invent the constitution and the structure of the government and all that.
The second group’s job is to read what they wrote and follow it. And sometimes there’s wiggle room in interpretation and settling that is their job too. But they don’t get to make up new laws and amendments just because the result of doing so is desirable for them.
While technically true, countries with a proper constitution that is upheld by the judiciary, legislative and executive branch of government tend to be much more stable.
It is good to amend the constitution if necessary, but the principle of there being a constitution and it being followed, is a very important thing for democracy.
It was also, at least according to Jefferson, intended to be replaced on a regular basis to better reflect the needs of the country.
Jefferson did write he wanted it remade every ~20 years. But that was a personal belief of his not the general understanding when the constitution was adopted.
The way they interpreted it was invented, but there was precedent in the constitution
There’s also the question of how a law that would criminalize an enumerated power could be constitutional as applied as. That’d be voiding the Constitution by statute rather than amendment.
Which would require the president to sign off on but could be weaponized against an incoming president if one party has the legislature and executive.
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.
They should have been going low from the beginning. Nice guys finish last.
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
Cool, next do the circuit courts! Especially the 5th!
Sounds like an official act to me! Let’s do some more.
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
Just get rid ofthe guys and leave the gals there
Get ‘em Dark Brandon!
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.
The supreme court created both of those immunities as well.
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.
The entire system is beyond antiquated. Coupled with bureaucratic tendency to be self serving, leads me to believe “reformation” will look more like slow death, and further declining services.
I see no reason for optimism along the lines of “system reform”, and history has no examples I can think of. Shit just gets worse and worse till people start killing people and try some new systems.
Suffrage didn’t require violent overthrow of the entire system, neither did the New Deal, neither did the Civil Rights movement, neither did Medicare, neither did Gay Rights. No nothing is “solved”, but everything is better than it was in 1900.
“IDK, maybe War will fix it” is far more unhelpful than working to make positive changes.
Ah, yes. The famously incrementalist New Deal and Medicare. The Civil Rights Movement? Incrementalism is setting a timetable for another man’s freedom. We only got gay marriage because the courts did what the legislature was too incrementalist to feel like doing.
Sufferage, civil rights etc aren’t institutions.
'idk, war will fix it" is a lazy-ass takeaway, but ok.
You’re right, they’re fundamental changes across multiple institutions.
“I can’t think of examples” is a pretty lazy justification for “the only way out is violence”.
… And add another 4 justices, right?
Four isn’t enough, the other side can just eventually add six more. He should directly add a hundred and fifty thousand more.
Make every American a member of the supreme Court and cases are decided by a popular vote
The Democratic Party when the corrupt court just calls their reform unconstitutional: 🤷♂️
Please please please please
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.
We about to see the real Dark Brandon.
What’s he going to do? Remove kingly immunity from the presidency? Or how about use the senate to keep republicans from getting supreme Court nominees from even getting a hearing?
You push an ethics review of the seating court. Make a solid case to impeach them if they did wrong. If you win the house and Senate with a majority then, you remove those that are extremely corrupt.
Install term limits on the court as well. You correct the wrongs the Republicans have built in the last 20-30 years.
If you win the house and Senate with a majority then, you remove those that are extremely corrupt.
Democrats would need a supermajority in the Senate to achieve that. Anything less than 2/3rds and nobody gets removed.
