this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
895 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19077 readers
5574 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 4 months ago (2 children)

What's to stop the ~~monkey paw~~ SCOTUS from simply interpreting a large hole in the amendment?

[–] blady_blah 30 points 4 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Glytch 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So you're saying Biden should start abusing his new powers, maybe by eliminating certain lifetime appointees?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Glytch 4 points 4 months ago

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'

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I disagree. Remember how many of Trump's cabinet and campaign members were convicted of felonies?

Also, Gitmo. Just saying. Bush and Condoleeza Rice weren't the ones hooking up people to car batteries.

If you are a corrupt sack of shit, it's easy to get a bunch of criminals to do dirty work for you!

[–] Fedizen 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

So force them to openly not support it then.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] Etterra 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's a not point since it'll never make it past the GOP jackwagons in the house.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Vigge93 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Poe's law indicates a high chance they weren't making a reference and were completely serious.

[–] Vigge93 1 points 4 months ago

I was making that reference