this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
986 points (98.9% liked)

News

22800 readers
4099 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.


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 1 month ago (2 children)

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 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago

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

[–] aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (7 children)

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Atom@lemmy.world 143 points 1 month ago (8 children)

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 65 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 54 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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 1 month ago (1 children)

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 7 points 1 month ago

He must use the stones to destroy the stones

[–] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Imagine if he straight up held the court hostage. "Every week that you don't rule to restrict presidential immunity I kill another justice as an official act."

"Two things actually - you gotta do that and restore Roe. Fuck it, three things - you gotta restore the Voting Rights Act too."

"Shit. Four things. Citizens United. Reverse it. Yeah do all that or I'll keep killing and replacing justices until you do. Officially."

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago

Oh, and Chevron

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 36 points 1 month ago

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

[–] ulkesh@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

…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 1 month ago (1 children)

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)
[–] Rolder@reddthat.com 9 points 1 month ago

Expecting the GOP to cooperate on anything ever is a bit of a pipe dream

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] oyo@lemm.ee 127 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] wischi@programming.dev 30 points 1 month ago (3 children)

It's not like the constitution is some infallible magic text, it was also "invented" by some dudes.

[–] Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It was also, at least according to Jefferson, intended to be replaced on a regular basis to better reflect the needs of the country.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] Tryptaminev@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kn0wmad1c@programming.dev 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheAristocrat@lemmy.world 91 points 1 month ago (9 children)

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

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 22 points 1 month ago (7 children)

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

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 16 points 1 month ago

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

[–] _bcron@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think the problem with that would be that every 4-12 years we'd have a lame duck supreme court playing tug of war with the last supreme court over a handful of issues.

What we really need is to be able to easily oust justices for ethics violations and conflicts of interest, like what the hell is Thomas still doing there??

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

Thomas is still there because taking Bribes and Gifts from Billionaires who have Cases before you is FINE! The REAL Corruption is Judge MERCHAN'S DAUGHTER who DONATED some Money once to DEMOCRATS!

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

Well, they still represent their party, so their actions could still affect an election. An embarrassing lame duck session would screw the next party nominee.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] mlg@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

any second now...

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

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 64 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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 63 points 1 month ago (5 children)

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 1 month ago

The supreme court created both of those immunities as well.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 month ago

Get ‘em Dark Brandon!

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 33 points 1 month ago

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

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month 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 1 month ago (3 children)

We about to see the real Dark Brandon.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zerlyna@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 13 points 1 month ago

Please please please please

[–] Zugyuk@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

... And add another 4 justices, right?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 9 points 1 month 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 1 month ago (1 children)

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 10 points 1 month ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›