10mo ago

House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court's immunity decision

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.
“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

News @lemmy.world

girlfreddy @lemmy.ca

11mo ago

apnews.com /article/supreme-court-immunity-trump-biden-9ec81d3aa8b2fd784c1b155d82650b3e

74 comments

Here's the problem with a constitutional amendment:
You will never, ever get a single politician to vote for an amendment specifically designed to weaken the power of their own party leader. No Republican will ever vote for this, especially right now when there's so much momentum going Trump's way. It. Will. Never. Happen.
I have a better chance of Taylor Swift dumping her boyfriend and declaring her undying love for me during her next concert than a single Republican voting in favor of this. This is performance and nothing more.
The only realistic path to reversing this is:
Electing Biden or whoever the Dem nominee is in November.
Hope that Thomas and Alito die, retire, get abducted by aliens, or whatever during Biden's term so Biden can replace them with two liberal judges, giving liberals a 5-4 majority.
Bring a case to the court (I don't know who would have standing to bring such a case, but...) to give the Supreme Court the opportunity to reverse that decision.
Rinse and repeat for every bad decision this half-baked court has made.
This is it. That is the only path. Any other attempt to fix these problems either require a constitutional amendment no GOP politician or governor would ever vote for or ratify or can simply be struck down by the very Supreme Court that caused this mess in the first place.
- There’s also the malicious compliance path (which, to be fair, would also have more than its fair share of dire complications and implications, but it would at least address the immediate and imminent threat of a fascist takeover in 4 months).
  But Biden is 100% not going to do that.
- This is it. That is the only path.
  You don't need Republicans to expand the court. Just saying. It's not the ONLY path.
- About the standing thing: the beauty is the current Supreme Court has eliminated that as a real requirement, so you can just have someone sue for theoretical harm and be all good.
- There's also having a Democrat abuse this in a way that is directly a danger to GOP politicians and using Biden as a sacrificial lamb. Something like ordering the military to execute several members of Congress and SCOTUS justices and then pardoning them.
  But let's be fair, the underlying argument they're using is one meant to do things like not make the president guilty of murder for anyone killed by the military or in action under the military, not to protect Trump from conspiring to do crimes with people in his admin.
- I agree but there is another path: if Democrats win both houses of Congress and the President, and Senate Democrats agree to blow up the filibuster, they can pack the court whenever they want.
  I am of the opinion they should slam the Court up to 11 right away, then 13 in time for the 2026 court term. Then go to Republicans and say "You can let us put four 40-ish Liberals on the Court for lifetime appointments, and gamble on getting your own trifecta to re-pack it, or you can work with us on an amendment to reform the court, put in term limits, and limit its partisanship".
  
  What's interesting is that this precise scenario happened in the 1910s in the UK (given that at the time the house of lords was the highest court in the country as well as the upper legislative chamber). Lloyd George called an election on the subject, and negotiated with the king that if the lords didn't vote for a reduction in their powers, he would create a massive influx of Liberal peers.
  Interesting episode in history.
- If you have a majority on the court that takes this disastrous decision as seriously as they should and are ready to overturn it, then it's fairly easy to get the case to happen. You just need to have a sitting president tell the justice department to bring a case against him. Doesn't have to be for anything big, just literally any criminal offense that can be brought to trial and appealed. He can even appeal directly to the supreme court and ask that they expedite the appeal. They hear the appeal, issue a ruling, and the precedent is gone.
- For number 3, if they really wanted to save us, on their last day the could "officially" order a marine to steal a lollipop from a baby. I'd give it right back, and there may be a better, less painful law, but he could break it and get charged. Maybe speeding. I wonder if there is a precident and another president has been held to the law before. I Grant you that the court in is current state would ignore it.

This is the only way to change that. I don't have much hope that it'll pass, though.
- 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.
  
  Them actively denying legislature on a whim would be time consuming and bring us closer to congress impeaching the justices and removing them.
- 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.
- Pass? The Republican controlled House won't even bring it up for a vote!
- Impeachment. Impeachment is easier, more direct, and since the justices can theoretically interpret the amendment any way they wish far more likely to be effective.
  
  Yeah they've already wiped their asses with the spirit of the Constitution. There are currently in rules for the but not for me mode. It's still a good gesture.

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?
  
  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.
  
  So force them to openly not support it then.
- 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 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

America has no king. America needs no king.
- "Instead of Sleepy Joe, you would have a King, not pale but orange and terrible as the inflation rate! Tempestuous as a 6 year-old, and stronger than the laws of the earth! All shall love me and covfefe!"
  --Trump
  
  Okay Donadriel, let's get you back to your room and change your diapie.

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.
- Joe... "I beat medicare!"
  
  Ooh, now do trump! Luckily, I don't think there is a character limit!

They have to try, get it on the record… Sad reality is all of these efforts are DOA

The Supreme Court ruling grants Trump immunity for his official actions as president, but not for private actions. This amendment by Morelle is in line with President Biden's view on the ruling, who argued that it places no limits on presidential power and effectively makes the president a king above the law.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C9K33wNvZs9/?img_index=1

That's a GOOD idea because Robert's Supreme Court OBVIOUSLY cares about what the Constitution says!

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.

74 comments