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…
You don’t think proposing SCOTUS reform is going to help Republicans, do you?
Right, but the phrase implies this is just taking something that is already hurting them and making it worse.
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.
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.
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.
…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.
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
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.
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.
It was also, at least according to Jefferson, intended to be replaced on a regular basis to better reflect the needs of the country.
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.
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.
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.
Now that he doesn’t have to worry about getting reelected, he doesn’t have to pussyfoot around anymore.
What if we just made the limit 1 term? Then no presidents would be doing actions purely to get reelected?
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.
Mexico is in a very different situation regarding the size and complexity of their administrative state. They’re also facing an entirely different type of corruption and political violence than we have up here…
Can’t wait for him to flip the table on Israel
any second now…
aaaaaaaaannny second now…
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.
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.
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).
I just remembered the stupid “pizza is a vegetable” bullshit
I think you’re thinking of Reagan’s “ketchup is a vegetable” bullshit.
Not entirely sure that matters here.
I really don’t think there’s that many people towards the middle or left of the political spectrum that are going to be upset about this if he gets the changes through.
Besides, any changes that might bother voters will still have an effect on Kamala’s campaign until the elections over in November.
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.
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.
