As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Too little too fucking late though. The only thing that stops this trainwreck is getting dirty and packing the court. 2/3 of Americans, let alone legislators, aren't going to agree on anything.
He can't be prosecuted isn't quite the same... yet. For the moment, it didn't give him more "Official" power, just shields him from the consequences of misusing the power he already has.
Giving him more actual power is step 3. Step 2 is Trump getting back into office.
True, but no extra powers needed - what if (hypothetically, we know Joe wouldn't do this) he orders a couple strategic assassinations of Justices, maybe one Senator (as a warning), then puts up the SCOTUS nominees he wants? He claims giving orders to government assassins is an official (criminally immune) act, lets the killers confess and pardons them, etc. Only consequence is impeachment, facing a terrified Senate?
This could be fun if Biden expands the Court to 15 and appoints liberal leaning judges. And then Trump expands the Court to 27 and appoints conservative nutters. And Michelle Obama expands the Court to 39 and appoints …
If judges are going to legislate from the bench then they should at least be representative. We should have at least 435 justices just like we have in congress.
Senior judges don’t seem to give a hoot about the laws on the books so only eligibility criteria is bona fide ownership of a powdered horse hair wigs.
The King will be pleased.
> The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.
Maybe?
The idea that Michelle Obama would be President after Trump is the most absurd part of this. If Trump wins we'll be voting for President like they do in Russia. We'll get who Trump decides we get and something tells me he won't pick Michelle
Expand the court but create a mechanism that each case has give randomly picked judges from the bench. That way, you can't guarantee any politician lean to a decision as you may get an all liberal group or not
But ultimately, we have to accept the judicial branch has disappeared from the checks and balances, at least if you are Republican
Why does like 98% of everyone not get this????
Nothing in the immunity decision even slightly-remotely suggests that that is something that can done. Where did this used baby diaper of an idea originate from?
The same place that tells them "not voting is protesting" and that "both parties are the same," a massive disinformation campaign aimed at turning people against the Dems.
I'm for the Dems, insomuch as I will always vote in every election for the person most likely to defeat any Republican on the ballot. I don't see the parties as the same, but I see the DNC as complicit in not preventing the Republicans from putting us in the position we're currently in. I'm tired of them bringing knives to a gunfight. I'm tired of them assuming that the way they're doing things is the way that's best, just because it's not outright fascism. I'm tired of them putting forward corrupt dinosaurs and uncharismatic candidates beholden to the banking class. I'm tired of going high when they go low.
> I'm tired of them bringing knives to a gunfight
That knife looks a lot more like a kid's playset knife that bends if you try to cut anything other than Play-Doh.
From an outsider's perspective, I can't fathom how much the Democratic party seem to be in denial about how far their political opponents have fallen and are willing to go to gain power.
Fascism has been on the table since Trump's first run, he was already talking about banning Muslims from the country back then. Clear warning signs, and the Republicans embraced him with open arms.
I don't have any loyalty to a party. I vote for democracy first, then other issues. I'm all for going high, but absolutely over allowing them to go low without consequences.
I wish more of them understood that actually trying to do something like this congressman writing a constitutional amendment or AOC filing articles of impeachment even though they may not go anywhere is so much better than posting on social media that they are outraged or whatever. Because then they can at least say look, I tried but the fascists in the Republican party want Trump to be a king. The Republicans get this. Senator Durbin won't even subpoena anyone or call for public congressional hearings. It sucks, and it depresses enthusiasm and voter turnout.
I despise the people you are talking about, but the Dems should absolutely expand the court next time they get the trifecta. This latest immunity decision shows the six Republican/Federalist Society justices are full on board with the MAGA dismantling of the republic. Its an illegitimate majority based on McConnell's manupulation of the rules and we should fight fire with fire.
I think it is more the idea that people think the president shopuld take the lead on pushing it, and make it a part of the platform rather than shrink from it after right wing criticism.
Admittedly the left wing establishment are shrinking violets in the face of criticism
The issue is that Biden has to appeal to a huge swath of voters, not just the left, if he wants to get reelected.
If he seems "too extreme" by suggesting the court be packed (or something like that), he could lose support.
It's why you let other folks lead the charge, and then he can ease into it after they have tested t he waters.
Things just are not that easy when it comes to politics, especially with how the EC is set up and all that.
I mean if Trump wins and GOP holds the House and wins the Senate it be totally legal to do...
Why wouldn't the GOP vote to increase the amount of SCJ's and let Trump appoint 2 more without replacing anyone? Have an 8-3 split court. If Thomas/Alito retire, Trump appoints 7 SCJ's.
This came up in oral arguments. Say the POTUS orders seal team six to kill a rival. The defense is that this would be an illegal order, and seal team six wouldn't do it. Under this ruling, whether seal team six obeys that order or not, the POTUS is immune from legal prosecution. This is in direct contradiction of the constitution.
This is not a warning shot from the SCOTUS. This is the final nail in the coffin of democracy. This is fucking nuts, and to pretend otherwise when Elena Kegan tells you it's a death knell, you should listen.
He explicitly doesn't have the power do this.
However, he does now explicitly have the power to order the removal of opponents to expanding the court via: arrests, seizures, assassinations, bribes, etc..
In practice the results are the same just with a few extra political prisoners. The President can legislate indirectly through direct physical threats with impunity (similar to Russia). The only thing stopping it from happening are the morals of the president and a those carrying out his orders (DOJ/Military).
Turkey did that a few years ago. It's Big Joe's big chance.
Trump already said he will do it. They have little time to stop that train wreck from happening.
> Turkey did that a few years ago. It's Big Joe's big chance. Trump already said he will do it
And if he DOES, how many people are going to not vote for him because they don't want an authoritarian? Making the choice authoritarian v authoritarian means there's no point voting.
I'm starting to think the people pushing "Biden should just do X unconstitutional, legally impossible, or blatantly stupid thing" are republicans just trying to stir up trouble.
People do not have any grasp of how the government works.
I pointed out to a friend of mine that foreign aid is decided by Congress and that we just impeached the last president for withholding aid and that the last Israel aid package was passed by 80% of congress. Their response? That Biden just needed to use his presidential powers to cancel the aid and could have veto’d aid packages (66% of congress is enough to override a veto)
People are dangerously ignorant on civics. They have no clue how any of this works and then get upset because things are not working the way they think it works.
It’s likely from foreign folks trying to drive a bigger divide in the country. That and get Dems , who don’t understand fairly basic government functions, upset about shit that wasn’t even feasible. Go into any political post on Reddit and there’s always these kinds of posts very early on.
I think this is precisely what is happening.
Get Democrat voters riled up with an idea that Biden cannot actually push through, while Republicans point to the idea as more evidence of the radical and corrupt lengths Biden will go to cement his power and why he needs to be voted out.
Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans are openly stating the purpose of project 2025 while CNN listens and nods their heads.
> Too little too fucking late though
This is pointless naysaying. Before the Federalist Society gave the president immunity, he didn't have it and there are literally *billions* of things which aren't explicitly banned because there's no precedent.
Republicans in the courts may have fabricated a non-existent case, with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, but that is blatantly against the court process of creating restitution for harm done, not for hypotheticals.
As for legislation, there are millions of priorities. Things people are literally dying over right now. The court is *already* packed, but there would need to be a filibuster-proof majority (probably more than) to expand the court. That means forget the president, put effort into winning the house and senate. And don't stop there, ick them out of state-level places so things like this can keep happening:
https://apnews.com/article/arizona-fake-electors-charges-2020-election-9da5a7e58814ed55ceea1ca55401af85
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/04/trump-operatives-charged-wisconsin-2020-election-00161436
That's not glorious, but it's effects in swing states. Until republicans are removed from power, those steps of clawing back justice step by step. Either that or surrender to the party which wants to put non-supporters in "re-education" camps 2025.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision
r/Defeat_Project_2025
First thing that needs to happen is a law about Congress reviewing Supreme court nominations in a timely manner. Second thing is a mandatory retirement age for judges. Had those two been in place, Trump would have only been able to appoint one judge.
The Dem leadership is assuming that there are still going to be elections 4 years from now. I'm not. It was nice while we had it. Guess I'll see everyone at the battle for Whole Foods 13 months from now.
Packing the court should have been done at the start of Joe's term. Instead they let Roe fall and the court give the president king-like powers. It's like they democrats just run on these things to get our money.
They had like a 1 vote majority and I’m pretty sure not all democrats would have supported this because those in contentious districts would have been too vulnerable to support it.
It wasnt a filibuster proof majority and both Manchin and Sinema refused to support abolishment of the filibuster. The filibuster is a Senate procedural rule for process and not something enshrined as law for how the Senate functions.
And even if the filibuster was abolished, with the current vote makeup does anyone expect either Manchin or Sinema to vote for SCOTUS reform?
Legislative change requires sufficient majorities in both the House and Senate. Congress has consistently been hamstrung against legislation that is widely popular because the GOP refuses to vote for it or even entertain its passage, bills almost always championed by the Democrats.
The last time the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority they passed the Affordable Care Act, which is still one of the most progressive pieces of legislature (Yes I know it's sad phrasing it this way but the point sadly stands) to date.
To see this level of change requires pursuing a strong Democrat majority in congress. The current political climate and institutionalized disadvantages the Democrats have will never see this happen anytime soon due to GOP ratfucking.
Saying the Democrats aren't doing anything or should be doing something is missing an important piece of context -- voters have simply not given them enough political weight where it matters to do something meaningful.
>The last time the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority they passed the Affordable Care Act,
They were actually one short. It's the reason why there's no public option.
Technically, [Democrats didn't have a supermajority](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869) when they passed the ACA.
Obama had a very tenuous *coalition* supermajority for less than a month, which comprised 2 Independents and 58 Democrats, with one of those Democrats on his literal deathbed.
Orchestrating the ACA vote alone was a political masterclass, but it's been completely undermined by Republican propaganda that way too many people on the left readily believe.
The last time we actually elected a supermajority of Dems in both houses of Congress, we got [the 89^(th) Congress](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_United_States_Congress), which was back in **1967** under LBJ. The 89^(th) Congress is heralded as one of the most productive Congresses in American history.
Democratic legislators created Medicare and Medicaid, reformed public education and immigration, and passed the Voting Rights Act, the Higher Education Act, and the Freedom of Information Act — all in one session of Congress.
Imagine what Democrats could do today if we gave them those same supermajorities in both chambers of Congress plus the presidency.
Yea definitely I didn't really want to go into all the small details since it's just common sentiment that Obama had a full 2 years of Senate filibuster-proof majority (no it was really just a few weeks at best depending on how one wants to slice up Senate time).
The fundamental catch-22 here is Democrats want to pass meaningful and impactful legislation, have consistently campaigned on it, and voters have consistently failed to grant them the needed mandates to do so. All the while, the same voters come onto social media and complain the Democrats are not doing anything for them, notwithstanding the significant amount of good the Democrats have done even in the face of immense stonewalling.
A veto-proof Congressional majority for the Demorats would be an immense legislative firestorm of good.
The very first bill, H.R. 1 at the very start of Biden's administration was to secure elections. Sadly it didn't pass, but imagine if it could've passed if instead of a perfectly split Senate there was just a few more Democrats Senators!
If anyone reads this comment, emphatically please recognize the only way to see systematic and institutional change here without breaking the institutions involved to pieces comes with aggressively pursuing gains in the legislative branch. The response to Democrats not passing anything that feels meaningful isn't to stop supporting them, but to support them harder because _for fuck's sake they are trying with whatever little they have_. And yea perhaps your hypothetical Democrats' legislator sucks -- primary them and support someone who will get it done.
People need to vote.
Thats not really happening.
23% turnout for voters 18-29, the largest age bloc in 2022. This lead to the D’s losing the House. And, the last productive Congress in US history.
Not voting just helps the other guys win.
Anyone reading this says they care about issues, and doesn’t vote…you don’t actually care. Get your shit together, and show up. The red hats understand this better than the people on the left.
You're fully missing the point. They can't win without breaking or bending the law. But if they don't break/bend the law, there won't be a constitution if trump wins. In an ideal situation Trump loses and the democrats get a super majority - But if Trump wins, that's the end of the USA. That's enough justification to pack the court now via executive fiat, and round up the people who authored Project 2025 and put them away.
But senate has to confirm nominations
Or are u suggesting we "save the USA" by destroying the Republic, First?
I think you'd have independents buying ar15s and joining "the new south"
>Or are u suggesting we "save the USA" by destroying the Republic, First?
The last time the Union was in this kind of danger, that's exactly what had to happen. Abraham Lincoln suspended all sorts of things to ensure that the USA would survive.
It's no longer a question of if we should be willing to go to extremes to save democracy but rather if. Joe Biden will be Abraham Lincoln or if he will be James Buchanan and leave it to someone else to take the nessary actions.
> I am pretty sure the court just said the president can do as he pleases
You know damn well the Federalist Society judges are going to rule anything done by a Democrat (or Republican not in good standing, like Justin Amash) is going to be ruled 'an unconstitutional breach of authority'.
Yeah there is 0 chance of this happening without a supermajority. Which is again why it is so unbelievably important that Dems vote in November. If the super is secured a fucking LOT can happen to undo much of the straight up evil fuckery that's occurred in the last bit. Voting is not just to pick the president. It's to pick the people that either gridlock or enable progress at every tier of government. So if you're not voting for president out of protest, then you're not voting for the boots on the ground that are needed to change things either.
If there are 50 democratic senators in congress, and they all vote to remove the filibuster, it can be done. We just don’t have the vote now or in the last 3-1/2 years with Sinema and Manchin.
Yeah as long as we have sinema and manchin’s in the den party it’s going to be hard to get a lot done even with a majority. For one the filibuster but even if they backed down on that they probably would not vote for extremely drastic changes.
Without Manchin, you have a Republican who isn't going to do a damn thing to help Dems.
Sinema is a different story, as she can be replaced by another Dem if AZ Dems don't get apathetic. They have the numbers.
He is, but like Sanders and Angus King, he still caucuses with the Democrats (I believe Sinema is also an independent now, which I’m entirely convinced she did just for attention). Neither Sinema nor Manchin are running for re-election. The Dems will lose Manchin’s seat (even though the Democrats have held it for over 60 years), but should retain Sinema’s.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg should have resigned in the Obama administration, but it must have been ego and arrogance that she didn't. The woman had cancer since the first Obama administration.
It’d put a lot more pressure on someone like Robert’s. He’d be a deciding vote and would get all the blame for abolishing things like Roe. Now there’s no one target, it’s the group as a whole.
She was in her late 70s, had a cancer diagnosis and looking frail since Clinton, did she think she was going to make a full recovery and live another 50 years.
I wish the parties legislated much more like their fund raising emails.
Emails: The most basic protections at the doctor's office have been trampled! We won't have human rights until all humans have autonomy over their body. Give us $3 before the end of the quarter and we'll give you a chance to win lunch with the representative. This is the most important issue of our time!
In the office with full immunity to do anything "official": oh crap they used the Supreme Court to legislate, that's terrible, I wish we could do something, they changed the rules like 800 times getting to this point of the coup but if we had bent one rule the victory wouldn't mean anything. Gosh those Republicans do find the craziest loopholes. Looks like we'll have to leave it there. If only we had advisors who could tell us what we need to do to lead the country. This is so complicated and hard and oh, fundraising dinner see ya.
“But her emails!”
2016 is when we should have thought about the future of the courts, but too many wanted to “protest vote” and “send a message” and stay home.
People love a protest after the damage has been done. but they hate doing the work or making the compromises needed to prevent the situation from Happening in the first place
That isn't dirty. It's a reasoned and restrained approach to fixing what's wrong with this corrupt court. They should be thankful. A lot of countries would just kill them.
No, not “packing the court.” Instead “adding members to the court” the left is absolute shite at slogans and for some reason we always decide on slogans or phrases that are guaranteed to sound bad. Packing the court sounds like your doing something shady or just trying to do something out of the usual, if you google court packing you see failures and pushback historically so it looks unprecedented, if you google adding members to the court you see historical precedence
You could use this precedent to undo it, but I doubt biden would. And even if he wanted he would need the senate to agree, along with 6 folks willing to go along with him as replacement justices. Here's how that would work.
Some context that is important. The normal process for a Supreme Court justice retiring, presuming they don't die, is to send a letter to the President. The President will then nominate and the senate will have a chance to confirm the nominee or not.
1. Detain the 6 conservative justices under pre-text of them being terrorists that are a national security threat. This is center of the bull's eye for Presidential powers, Biden has absolute immunity.
2. "Accept" their letters of resignation while they are detained and can not speak publicly.
3. Nominate and confirm 6 replacements.
4. Overturn the nonsense judgement.
5. Release the detained former justices.
The justices who were detained and resigned without their own consent of course could go to the courts to try and get that all overturned, but guess which court that will end up at?
In theory the next President could pull the same thing, except there is one key difference. When Biden does this the current ruling would be that he has absolute immunity. If another President did that same thing after rebalancing the court, they'd explicitly be doing so when the current ruling was no absolute immunity.
I disagree. This is a good opportibity for dems to run on something with substance.
Hammer the message..."no one is above the law, including me....vote for accountability in government"
That's a winning straightforward, no bullshit, message. Lock it down
No, it isn't too late. Gotta start somewhere and starting is the hard part. Once you get momentum it becomes easier to go faster and harder to stop.
So let's not shit on this effort because he's the only guy who gives enough of a shit to do what is within his power.
No, the founding fathers *totally* wanted the president to be an individual that was not bound by the law who could murder whomever he wanted to. A king, if you will. That was ABSOLUTELY the intent of the founders.
Amendments must be called by 34 states and voted on to pass by 38 states. There are 50 states in the union. 25 states are GOP states and will not vote in favour of it. Another 3 Democrat states usually sides with them on amendments, although that often varies. An amendment to reverse this decision will not happen.
Potential amendment texts need to be vetted and discussed. Leaving the SCOTUS decision as it stands is not a long term option. Even if Trump is defeated this cycle, sooner or later a president will use it to commit and conceal crimes. We have had more than one president who was constrained by the possibility of discovery and punishment.
Most US presidents have been honorable men, but *all* of them have been ambitious.
Also this illegitimate court is going to continue to pass radical unconstitutional laws, they aren't going to stop. More are coming.
If the court isn't stopped they will legally ensure that Trump becomes dictator, regardless of who has the most votes in an election. And Trump isn't even permitted to run according to the constitution, so the whole election is theater.
Getting in legal battles with individual rulings is at least better than nothing, but it's somewhat futile. Much more drastic action needs to be taken by the White House before it is too late.
Because Biden and Dems in power "take the high road", which is like being cornered into a knife fight with nothing but your bare hands, and refusing to kick the motherfucker in the nuts when he charges you.
What SCOTUS did was not simply give Trump blanket presidential immunity...they gave themselves judicial review to determine whether the actions they as president took were within their official duties as president.
So if Biden were to do the exact same things Trump is being indicted for, SCOTUS could "in theory" say none of his actions were official acts as president and therefore would not have immunity.
They are trying to avoid outright ruling this way as it would be obvious that they are trying to protect Trump while not giving Biden any rope to use himself.
The immunity ruling should not count until they write exactly what constitutes an official duty. We need to see a complete list in writing because SCOTUS does not exist to oversee what the president’s duties are from day to day.
SCOTUS believes that only congress can pass regulations and not the agencies created to regulate industries so congress would have to write a bill banning every single bad chemical and every single possible moving violation and every single safety rule for every single industry.
SCOTUS has to do the same when they pass a ruling or it is just an incomplete opinion.
I think there's a good chance this would actually become an amendment. There are a lot on the right who also see the dangers that come with this.
It might take years though, likely until at least after Biden/Trump finishes their next team.
Besides, I'm European and... one of our core principles here, one that can **never** be overturned in any situation—ban on death penalty aside—is that of criminal law non-retroactivity. *No* European country allows a criminal law to be applied to facts that were committed prior to its approval.
So I was wondering whether the US held this as a sacred principle too. Because to me, it feels like this should fit: as in, any legislation (constitutional amendments included) that is passed to strip Presidents of their immunity for official acts should only apply to acts done *after* the law is passed—otherwise, we'd have criminal law retroactivity.
There are specific Constitutional prohibitions on legislation that does this, in article 1. Court decisions can go back and forth, so long as the statute exists already and enforcement isn’t selective. That’s a worry about an incoming administration deciding to enforce the antiquated Comstock Act, which was written with respect to 19th century medicine.
We do: ex post facto laws are explicitly prohibited in the Constitution, against both the states and the federal government. It's one of the very few restrictions on state power that existed before the 14th amendment started incorporating individual rights against the states.
However, I'm not sure this would qualify, because the acts were illegal; the court just ruled that the president is immune from prosecution for them, not that the president didn't, in fact, commit a crime.
It's tricky though. For example, the statute of limitations on criminal matters are bound by the prohibition on ex post facto laws, so if someone commits a crime, the statute of limitations expires, and then a law extends the statute of limitations, the crime is still barred from being prosecuted, but that's not so if someone commits a crime and then, while the crime is still within the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations is extended.
The amendment would have to specify whether this is retroactive. While ex post facto clauses are illegal in normal statutes, the constitution has no limitations on what can be amended (other than the Senate's composition).
I believe that this decision was about Nixon more than Trump. Trump is just the one the got it through. The people behind the scenes have been pissed since Nixon was run out of office. Fox News was created because they did not like the coverage that Nixon got. This has been in the the works for a long time.
Nixon is dead. He got pardoned and he’s dead. This is about keeping Trump out of jail as well as whatever other lunatic the GOP throws into the Oval Office.
> Even if Trump is defeated this cycle, sooner or later a president will use it to commit and conceal crimes.
It has already hindered the prosecution of Trump. The judge for his 34 felony convictions postponed sentencing from July to September, in part to review whether sentencing is even warranted under the new decision.
I feel this one can be pretty cut and dry: "no official of the United States, elected or appointed, shall be held immune to the legal recourses of their official,or unofficial acts, except by way of presidential pardon."
In 1838, 23 years before he became President, Lincoln presented his essay titled "Perpetuation of our Political Institutions" to the Young Men's Lyceum in Springfield Illinois.
[Please take 20 minutes out of your day to listen to his words.](https://youtu.be/GB6rPqD1Mnw?si=yiNwNiNVXwcRHygj)
[You can read the essay here](https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm)
Pass this on to ANYONE who claims they are an American. Have them listen to this. Have them hear from Lincoln the dangers of tyranny.
The problem here being, of course, that it was the criminal mob VERSUS the rule of the court and Lincoln making the plea that it was the court that must be listened to.
He never anticipated the court *was* the criminal.
He was right though: no other countries could take the US. The US will eat itself.
The mobs will return. I grew up in Florida, and there was never any shortage of folks reminding me that "The South Shall Rise Again." When the confederacy gets their way, the mobs will return.
Yeah....I live down there and that's pretty much on point. The big cities can still be reasonable. But, you head like half an hour out of town and you see the "we lost the war" flags, GOP signs, and the like. I hate it here and wish I had the kinds of funds necessary to leave.
> At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
> At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us.
Oof. President Lincoln is rolling in his grave.
> It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Welp.
> They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws:
As long as we can continue to find reasonable, intelligent, and logical people that who are brave enough to lead on every level, I think we’ll be alright…but if we continue to devalue these types of leaders for the instant gratification of wealth and power and control…we’re cooked.
> All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.
Goddamn
Here's a better idea. Vote. Vote for the party that is not aligned with the fascist state, even if that means **your** single issue is deprioritized in their platform.
Roevember is coming. Register and vote. In Colorado go to govotecolorado.gov to register AND check your registration. Clerks are purging “inactive” voters.
Pennsylvania and Georgia will decide who becomes President in November.
Those are two very big **SWING STATES**.
That’s how the system works in 2024. Why is Georgia so fiercely pro-Trump? What has Trump ever done to make life better in Georgia (same question could be asked of the Democrats).
People in Georgia struggled to stay alive, whether Obama or Biden was President, or when Trump was president. So maybe, they rightfully don’t care who wins in November??
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
This is why I encourage everyone to read the ruling, because they actually specifically talk about this. They pretty much unanimously agree it doesn't factor into this case: he wasn't convicted, but they do not interpret that as he can't be charged since he wasn't convicted
That only says the President can be tried if he was successfully impeached, though. The SC ruling said nothing about the case when a President is successfully impeached.
No, what it says is that impeachment is specifically a removal from office and barring from holding another.
It says a successful impeachment does not convict them of a crime.
It says that the person can still be tried criminally after being impeached.
This heavily implies they are not immune from prosecution for things done while in office.
Why should we trust this court? They already ruled insurrectionists can not be barred from the ballots. They even cited the lack of enumeration of abortion in one of the concurring opinions of Dobbs, *which is a direct violation of the 9th amendment's plain statement that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be used to deny or disparage other rights.*
They even said *public statements are not admissible evidence.*
And to be a downer, the Republicans have focused on gaining control of as many states legislatures as they could to make this damn near impossible. US constitution amendments require ratification by at least 38 of the states to be made official. I think there are maybe 20 under democrat control. All elections matter.
This. I just can’t seem a consistional amendment getting passed by congress, senate, and the majority of states when what’s needed is something that will stop the GQP plan of complete control of everything. The GQP will block this for sure.
They don't all have to pass at the same time.
If you get it through congress, you have literally decades to convince the states to ratify it. AFAIK there is no time limit to ratify an amendment.
Broadly yes - the 27th amendment took 202 years, 223 days to be ratified. But some recent amendments have had time limits baked into them like the [District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment)
> Section 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
The [Equal Rights Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment) was structured different, the time limit was not part of the amendment itself but rather as part of the resolution for it:
>Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress: ...
> US constitution amendments require ratification by at least 38 of the states to be made official.
We need a PAC to campaign hard for this amendment as a way to stop Joe Biden from escaping criminal prosecution. Talk about the Activist Judges trying to anoint Joe Biden and his Crime Family as a king above the law. Talk about how without this amendment, he'll be shielded from ever facing justice.
Plaster the airwaves with it. It has the advantage of being technically true, other than the fact that Biden hasn't actually committed any crimes, and it could potentially get Republicans on board with it. The legislatures will know what's really happening, but threaten enough of them with primary runs for being in favor of helping Joe Biden escape prosecution and it might still be doable.
it technically gathered enough states to pass, just it had an expiration date. Which is dumb because if an amendment is going to be basically eternal in the first place its not going to magically become a bad amendment within a couple decades.
An amendment takes a crap load of agreement thst will never happen. Its like one of the hardest things to do. Zero chance this happens before bidens term is up…. Unless the republicans are affraid thst dark Brandon has an ace up his sleeve and will pull it at the last minute. And let’s be honest if drunk can declare a state of emergency so can Biden.
Still zero chance imo. If trump goes down legally there has to be a list of GQP members that will fall with him. They are worried about their own hides and will make the citizens of the United States suffer to save themselves.
Almost everything that has happened since 2016 was stuff that "would never happen". And then it would. And then again. And again. Sorry, but the ol' do nothing and say we tried everything isn't gonna work.
“… thst [sic] will never happen.”
😠Not with that attitude. Everyone, contact your representatives. Do it—it only takes a little minute. Write or call and demand to be represented.
Here's the template I used.
Template for encouraging your Senator and Congressman to support Supreme Court reform actions
Please use this template if it is helpful. In it, I reference Justice Thomas's multiple gifted trips and gifted properties, and Justice Alito's statements during his appointment hearings.
To find your congressman, check here: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
To find your senators: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
------
Dear Congressman / Senator [Last Name],
I am writing to express my strong support for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Recent revelations regarding their acceptance of unethical gifts, along with their actions that contradict statements made during their appointment hearings, have raised significant concerns about their integrity and impartiality. Furthermore, their rulings have increasingly undermined the balance of power that is fundamental to our democracy.
The Supreme Court's decisions should be guided by the principles of fairness and justice, free from external influences and personal gain. The evidence suggesting that Justices Thomas and Alito have breached ethical standards warrants a thorough investigation and appropriate action to uphold the credibility of our highest court.
In addition to supporting their impeachment, I advocate for the expansion of the Supreme Court to ensure a more balanced and representative judiciary. Furthermore, I believe it is crucial to amend the Constitution to unequivocally state that no citizen, regardless of their office, is exempt from criminal law. Such measures will strengthen our democratic institutions and reaffirm the principle that no one is above the law.
I urge you to take a stand in defense of ethical governance and the rule of law by supporting these actions. Our nation's future depends on the integrity of its institutions, and it is imperative that we act now to preserve the trust and confidence of the American people.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
I'll do it, because it's the right thing to do. However, I recently moved to North Carolina and from what I'm seeing, my letter will immediately go into the trash. But I'll do it.
> Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states.
This is what we need.
An amendment to specify that POTUS is not a king. Not that we should because the founders *clearly* intended that not be the case but the oRiGiNaLiSts decided we do because corruption.
An amendment to put limits on SCOTUS terms so a new Justice is chosen every 2-4 years with no Moscow Mitch bullshit allowed. Plus actual rules of ethics and conduct.
An amendment to outlaw gerrymandering and banning first-past-the-post or similar unrepresentative voting methods. Mandating STAR or ranked choice voting or approval or other reasonable systems.
An amendment that requires a more representative Congress. Better House where Montana has so much more relative power than California or Florida or New York or Texas. And updates the Senate to be more representative because the Senatorial power of Idaho vs California is also fucking insane. Land area should not get so much representation.
An amendment that explicitly protects reproductive freedom.
An amendment that *very fucking explicitly* separates religion and state.
SCOTUS ruled in direct opposition of what is *currently* in the Constitution. They can do the same thing even with an amendment directly made to counteract that ruling. The illegitimate court is what has to be dealt with. They act obviously in bad faith.
I remember when the focus was on forcing ethics upon SCOTUS.
My main thought at the time was that even if Congress passed some ruling that supreme justices have to meet certain requirements Alito would just come out and say "That's unconstitutional because fuck you" and that would be the end of it.
The judicial branch has supplanted the legislative branch, which has been gridlocked through partisanship and corruption. Creative interpretation of existing laws allows them to modify them as they see fit, and if they want to put forth a new "law" they can get someone to bring a hypothetical scenario to them.
Right, this is exactly it. People are talking about an amendment. Newsflash: the easiest way to amend the constitution is to ask the Roberts court to redefine some words.
I do think that this "Project 2025" plan and the immunity decision are potentially so offensive to Americans that they may be willing to view court packing as a necessary and urgent check-and-balance instead of a power grab from Biden.
My understanding is all the planning for the act would be couched in official conversations, therefore can't be used as evidence against POTUS. If they catch the shooter, shooter can be prosecuted in due course for the crime, but likely can't convict him of conspiracy since much of that evidence is now disallowed by SCROTUS.
SCROTUS has introduced (from thin air) the "peripheral official act" defense for POTUS. Nixon would never have felt the need to resign if he had this.
If today's Republican party existed in the '70s, CHARLIE MANSON would still be POTUS today. 🤢
They spelled out that Trump's communications with Pence, state officials, and the public on January 6th may not be immune given a strong enough argument on the circumstances.
If I recall, they said that it would follow under presumptive immunity and would need substantial evidence to overcome that presumption, no? You're gonna have a tough time getting enough evidence to do that...
I don't think they plan on giving Biden 6 months to test the limits against them.
They toppled our democratic system right before independence day. The project 2025 leader had just stated that if people cooperate, blood will be avoided..
From a christo-fascist perspective, a coup on independence day is alot more poetic than a tedious election and legal trials.. They're trying to write a narrative it sounds...
I hope I'm paranoid, but it makes a ton of sense... Why would the court wait until after the election to topple everything? Why would they give Biden that power? He could disrupt their entire agenda in that time...
Thanks to all the dems who wouldn’t vote for Hillary. The supreme ct picks Hillary would have had were the most important thing. Now they are talking about not voting for Biden.
We couldn’t get Congress to pass a vote on whether or not the sky is blue…. Let alone a Constitutional Amendment…. This is grandstanding.
Raskin did the only practical thing that could be done by Congress with his roundtable.
It’s already in the constitution. Easy to see and in plain English. Then the guy who has the musical wrote about it in the federalist papers. The issue is SCOTUS which Biden should pack.
Would this amendment just repeat what was already written in Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution?
—-
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
—
Needs Biden to win the election, otherwise this is going nowhere.
If Biden wins the election all the Republicans will jump out and scream that Biden is a power hungry autocrat and that presidential power needs reined in.
Too little, too late, and feels like another “after the fact” democrat move that they know won’t take hold, and when it fails they can wring their hands and tell us to vote a little bluer next time
Biden should go apeshit with this immunity with a progressive agenda and make conservatives' heads spin. AND THEN introduce this amendment and dare them to vote against it
Its already covered in the Constitution. Article 2 section 4. Congress has the power to impeach and remove a President (translation: if he can be impeached then he cant be immune) and Section 9 clearly states everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
The judgement is CLEARLY deliberately flawed as a way to take absolute power and then *nobody* has any right to question it.
The rest of the Dems better start going hard as fuck against Trump and all his pedo links to JE and all his bullshit.
They better show some nutz right now.
They acting like a bunch of pussies.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At least someone in our government is paying attention
Too little too fucking late though. The only thing that stops this trainwreck is getting dirty and packing the court. 2/3 of Americans, let alone legislators, aren't going to agree on anything.
"Expanding" the court cannot happen without a majority in the House and the Senate. The president cannot unilaterally decide to expand the court
He can now! As king as it official! All hail King Biden!
"If I went round saying I was an Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!!"
r/expectedMontyPython They're relevant for everything!
"Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!"
I’m 37! I’m not old!
He can't be prosecuted isn't quite the same... yet. For the moment, it didn't give him more "Official" power, just shields him from the consequences of misusing the power he already has. Giving him more actual power is step 3. Step 2 is Trump getting back into office.
True, but no extra powers needed - what if (hypothetically, we know Joe wouldn't do this) he orders a couple strategic assassinations of Justices, maybe one Senator (as a warning), then puts up the SCOTUS nominees he wants? He claims giving orders to government assassins is an official (criminally immune) act, lets the killers confess and pardons them, etc. Only consequence is impeachment, facing a terrified Senate?
This could be fun if Biden expands the Court to 15 and appoints liberal leaning judges. And then Trump expands the Court to 27 and appoints conservative nutters. And Michelle Obama expands the Court to 39 and appoints …
... Eventually the entire adult US population minus the president is sitting in the supreme court?
So we will finally have representative democracy?
And health insurance
And we can all accept bribes!
And my axe!
If judges are going to legislate from the bench then they should at least be representative. We should have at least 435 justices just like we have in congress.
Senior judges don’t seem to give a hoot about the laws on the books so only eligibility criteria is bona fide ownership of a powdered horse hair wigs. The King will be pleased.
Can y'all take Canadians as well? Been looking for a part time gig.
> The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country. Maybe?
Love it, count me in
The idea that Michelle Obama would be President after Trump is the most absurd part of this. If Trump wins we'll be voting for President like they do in Russia. We'll get who Trump decides we get and something tells me he won't pick Michelle
Expand the court but create a mechanism that each case has give randomly picked judges from the bench. That way, you can't guarantee any politician lean to a decision as you may get an all liberal group or not But ultimately, we have to accept the judicial branch has disappeared from the checks and balances, at least if you are Republican
Why does like 98% of everyone not get this???? Nothing in the immunity decision even slightly-remotely suggests that that is something that can done. Where did this used baby diaper of an idea originate from?
The same place that tells them "not voting is protesting" and that "both parties are the same," a massive disinformation campaign aimed at turning people against the Dems.
I'm for the Dems, insomuch as I will always vote in every election for the person most likely to defeat any Republican on the ballot. I don't see the parties as the same, but I see the DNC as complicit in not preventing the Republicans from putting us in the position we're currently in. I'm tired of them bringing knives to a gunfight. I'm tired of them assuming that the way they're doing things is the way that's best, just because it's not outright fascism. I'm tired of them putting forward corrupt dinosaurs and uncharismatic candidates beholden to the banking class. I'm tired of going high when they go low.
> I'm tired of them bringing knives to a gunfight That knife looks a lot more like a kid's playset knife that bends if you try to cut anything other than Play-Doh. From an outsider's perspective, I can't fathom how much the Democratic party seem to be in denial about how far their political opponents have fallen and are willing to go to gain power.
Absolutely. Fascism is literally on the table for *this election*.
Fascism has been on the table since Trump's first run, he was already talking about banning Muslims from the country back then. Clear warning signs, and the Republicans embraced him with open arms.
I don't have any loyalty to a party. I vote for democracy first, then other issues. I'm all for going high, but absolutely over allowing them to go low without consequences.
I wish more of them understood that actually trying to do something like this congressman writing a constitutional amendment or AOC filing articles of impeachment even though they may not go anywhere is so much better than posting on social media that they are outraged or whatever. Because then they can at least say look, I tried but the fascists in the Republican party want Trump to be a king. The Republicans get this. Senator Durbin won't even subpoena anyone or call for public congressional hearings. It sucks, and it depresses enthusiasm and voter turnout.
"Get caught trying" is almost always the right answer to show your constituents that you're doing your job.
Going high when other people go low is often a recipe for suicide. When your enemy is ruthless... you have to be ruthless in response.
Yes, I fear we’re dangerously lose to having another Hitler. Desperate times require desperate measures.
Were going to lose our democracy because there always trying to play fair . F..k that shit the otherside has never played fair .
I despise the people you are talking about, but the Dems should absolutely expand the court next time they get the trifecta. This latest immunity decision shows the six Republican/Federalist Society justices are full on board with the MAGA dismantling of the republic. Its an illegitimate majority based on McConnell's manupulation of the rules and we should fight fire with fire.
I think it is more the idea that people think the president shopuld take the lead on pushing it, and make it a part of the platform rather than shrink from it after right wing criticism. Admittedly the left wing establishment are shrinking violets in the face of criticism
The issue is that Biden has to appeal to a huge swath of voters, not just the left, if he wants to get reelected. If he seems "too extreme" by suggesting the court be packed (or something like that), he could lose support. It's why you let other folks lead the charge, and then he can ease into it after they have tested t he waters. Things just are not that easy when it comes to politics, especially with how the EC is set up and all that.
Watch Trump do this exact thing and get away with it.
I mean if Trump wins and GOP holds the House and wins the Senate it be totally legal to do... Why wouldn't the GOP vote to increase the amount of SCJ's and let Trump appoint 2 more without replacing anyone? Have an 8-3 split court. If Thomas/Alito retire, Trump appoints 7 SCJ's.
This came up in oral arguments. Say the POTUS orders seal team six to kill a rival. The defense is that this would be an illegal order, and seal team six wouldn't do it. Under this ruling, whether seal team six obeys that order or not, the POTUS is immune from legal prosecution. This is in direct contradiction of the constitution. This is not a warning shot from the SCOTUS. This is the final nail in the coffin of democracy. This is fucking nuts, and to pretend otherwise when Elena Kegan tells you it's a death knell, you should listen.
He explicitly doesn't have the power do this. However, he does now explicitly have the power to order the removal of opponents to expanding the court via: arrests, seizures, assassinations, bribes, etc.. In practice the results are the same just with a few extra political prisoners. The President can legislate indirectly through direct physical threats with impunity (similar to Russia). The only thing stopping it from happening are the morals of the president and a those carrying out his orders (DOJ/Military).
Turkey did that a few years ago. It's Big Joe's big chance. Trump already said he will do it. They have little time to stop that train wreck from happening.
> Turkey did that a few years ago. It's Big Joe's big chance. Trump already said he will do it And if he DOES, how many people are going to not vote for him because they don't want an authoritarian? Making the choice authoritarian v authoritarian means there's no point voting. I'm starting to think the people pushing "Biden should just do X unconstitutional, legally impossible, or blatantly stupid thing" are republicans just trying to stir up trouble.
That's the intolerance paradox, essentially, just scaled up. You can't deal with fascists and \*also\* keep your hands clean.
People do not have any grasp of how the government works. I pointed out to a friend of mine that foreign aid is decided by Congress and that we just impeached the last president for withholding aid and that the last Israel aid package was passed by 80% of congress. Their response? That Biden just needed to use his presidential powers to cancel the aid and could have veto’d aid packages (66% of congress is enough to override a veto) People are dangerously ignorant on civics. They have no clue how any of this works and then get upset because things are not working the way they think it works.
It’s likely from foreign folks trying to drive a bigger divide in the country. That and get Dems , who don’t understand fairly basic government functions, upset about shit that wasn’t even feasible. Go into any political post on Reddit and there’s always these kinds of posts very early on.
I think this is precisely what is happening. Get Democrat voters riled up with an idea that Biden cannot actually push through, while Republicans point to the idea as more evidence of the radical and corrupt lengths Biden will go to cement his power and why he needs to be voted out. Meanwhile, Trump and Republicans are openly stating the purpose of project 2025 while CNN listens and nods their heads.
Even FDR couldn't do it and he had 70% majority in the House and the Senate.
FDR didn't need to do it. He threatened to do it and the right wing SCOTUS backed down and accepted the New Deal. So his threat of doing it worked.
FDR threatened to do so, was definitely going to do so and then SCOTUS backed down on New Deal policies
> Too little too fucking late though This is pointless naysaying. Before the Federalist Society gave the president immunity, he didn't have it and there are literally *billions* of things which aren't explicitly banned because there's no precedent. Republicans in the courts may have fabricated a non-existent case, with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, but that is blatantly against the court process of creating restitution for harm done, not for hypotheticals. As for legislation, there are millions of priorities. Things people are literally dying over right now. The court is *already* packed, but there would need to be a filibuster-proof majority (probably more than) to expand the court. That means forget the president, put effort into winning the house and senate. And don't stop there, ick them out of state-level places so things like this can keep happening: https://apnews.com/article/arizona-fake-electors-charges-2020-election-9da5a7e58814ed55ceea1ca55401af85 https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/04/trump-operatives-charged-wisconsin-2020-election-00161436 That's not glorious, but it's effects in swing states. Until republicans are removed from power, those steps of clawing back justice step by step. Either that or surrender to the party which wants to put non-supporters in "re-education" camps 2025. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision r/Defeat_Project_2025
First thing that needs to happen is a law about Congress reviewing Supreme court nominations in a timely manner. Second thing is a mandatory retirement age for judges. Had those two been in place, Trump would have only been able to appoint one judge.
The Dem leadership is assuming that there are still going to be elections 4 years from now. I'm not. It was nice while we had it. Guess I'll see everyone at the battle for Whole Foods 13 months from now.
Packing the court should have been done at the start of Joe's term. Instead they let Roe fall and the court give the president king-like powers. It's like they democrats just run on these things to get our money.
They had like a 1 vote majority and I’m pretty sure not all democrats would have supported this because those in contentious districts would have been too vulnerable to support it.
It wasnt a filibuster proof majority and both Manchin and Sinema refused to support abolishment of the filibuster. The filibuster is a Senate procedural rule for process and not something enshrined as law for how the Senate functions. And even if the filibuster was abolished, with the current vote makeup does anyone expect either Manchin or Sinema to vote for SCOTUS reform? Legislative change requires sufficient majorities in both the House and Senate. Congress has consistently been hamstrung against legislation that is widely popular because the GOP refuses to vote for it or even entertain its passage, bills almost always championed by the Democrats. The last time the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority they passed the Affordable Care Act, which is still one of the most progressive pieces of legislature (Yes I know it's sad phrasing it this way but the point sadly stands) to date. To see this level of change requires pursuing a strong Democrat majority in congress. The current political climate and institutionalized disadvantages the Democrats have will never see this happen anytime soon due to GOP ratfucking. Saying the Democrats aren't doing anything or should be doing something is missing an important piece of context -- voters have simply not given them enough political weight where it matters to do something meaningful.
>The last time the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority they passed the Affordable Care Act, They were actually one short. It's the reason why there's no public option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman This fucking fuck.
Guess who was also behind the No Labels attempt to run a third-party spoiler.
At least he can’t do any more damage, now.
Technically, [Democrats didn't have a supermajority](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869) when they passed the ACA. Obama had a very tenuous *coalition* supermajority for less than a month, which comprised 2 Independents and 58 Democrats, with one of those Democrats on his literal deathbed. Orchestrating the ACA vote alone was a political masterclass, but it's been completely undermined by Republican propaganda that way too many people on the left readily believe. The last time we actually elected a supermajority of Dems in both houses of Congress, we got [the 89^(th) Congress](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_United_States_Congress), which was back in **1967** under LBJ. The 89^(th) Congress is heralded as one of the most productive Congresses in American history. Democratic legislators created Medicare and Medicaid, reformed public education and immigration, and passed the Voting Rights Act, the Higher Education Act, and the Freedom of Information Act — all in one session of Congress. Imagine what Democrats could do today if we gave them those same supermajorities in both chambers of Congress plus the presidency.
Yea definitely I didn't really want to go into all the small details since it's just common sentiment that Obama had a full 2 years of Senate filibuster-proof majority (no it was really just a few weeks at best depending on how one wants to slice up Senate time). The fundamental catch-22 here is Democrats want to pass meaningful and impactful legislation, have consistently campaigned on it, and voters have consistently failed to grant them the needed mandates to do so. All the while, the same voters come onto social media and complain the Democrats are not doing anything for them, notwithstanding the significant amount of good the Democrats have done even in the face of immense stonewalling. A veto-proof Congressional majority for the Demorats would be an immense legislative firestorm of good. The very first bill, H.R. 1 at the very start of Biden's administration was to secure elections. Sadly it didn't pass, but imagine if it could've passed if instead of a perfectly split Senate there was just a few more Democrats Senators! If anyone reads this comment, emphatically please recognize the only way to see systematic and institutional change here without breaking the institutions involved to pieces comes with aggressively pursuing gains in the legislative branch. The response to Democrats not passing anything that feels meaningful isn't to stop supporting them, but to support them harder because _for fuck's sake they are trying with whatever little they have_. And yea perhaps your hypothetical Democrats' legislator sucks -- primary them and support someone who will get it done.
People need to vote. Thats not really happening. 23% turnout for voters 18-29, the largest age bloc in 2022. This lead to the D’s losing the House. And, the last productive Congress in US history. Not voting just helps the other guys win. Anyone reading this says they care about issues, and doesn’t vote…you don’t actually care. Get your shit together, and show up. The red hats understand this better than the people on the left.
You're fully missing the point. They can't win without breaking or bending the law. But if they don't break/bend the law, there won't be a constitution if trump wins. In an ideal situation Trump loses and the democrats get a super majority - But if Trump wins, that's the end of the USA. That's enough justification to pack the court now via executive fiat, and round up the people who authored Project 2025 and put them away.
But senate has to confirm nominations Or are u suggesting we "save the USA" by destroying the Republic, First? I think you'd have independents buying ar15s and joining "the new south"
>Or are u suggesting we "save the USA" by destroying the Republic, First? The last time the Union was in this kind of danger, that's exactly what had to happen. Abraham Lincoln suspended all sorts of things to ensure that the USA would survive. It's no longer a question of if we should be willing to go to extremes to save democracy but rather if. Joe Biden will be Abraham Lincoln or if he will be James Buchanan and leave it to someone else to take the nessary actions.
Do they, I am pretty sure the court just said the president can do as he pleases.
> I am pretty sure the court just said the president can do as he pleases You know damn well the Federalist Society judges are going to rule anything done by a Democrat (or Republican not in good standing, like Justin Amash) is going to be ruled 'an unconstitutional breach of authority'.
Yeah there is 0 chance of this happening without a supermajority. Which is again why it is so unbelievably important that Dems vote in November. If the super is secured a fucking LOT can happen to undo much of the straight up evil fuckery that's occurred in the last bit. Voting is not just to pick the president. It's to pick the people that either gridlock or enable progress at every tier of government. So if you're not voting for president out of protest, then you're not voting for the boots on the ground that are needed to change things either.
If there are 50 democratic senators in congress, and they all vote to remove the filibuster, it can be done. We just don’t have the vote now or in the last 3-1/2 years with Sinema and Manchin.
Yeah as long as we have sinema and manchin’s in the den party it’s going to be hard to get a lot done even with a majority. For one the filibuster but even if they backed down on that they probably would not vote for extremely drastic changes.
Without Manchin, you have a Republican who isn't going to do a damn thing to help Dems. Sinema is a different story, as she can be replaced by another Dem if AZ Dems don't get apathetic. They have the numbers.
Isn't Manchin an (I) now?
He is, but like Sanders and Angus King, he still caucuses with the Democrats (I believe Sinema is also an independent now, which I’m entirely convinced she did just for attention). Neither Sinema nor Manchin are running for re-election. The Dems will lose Manchin’s seat (even though the Democrats have held it for over 60 years), but should retain Sinema’s.
How could they have packed the court when the Senate was easily filibustered?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg should have resigned in the Obama administration, but it must have been ego and arrogance that she didn't. The woman had cancer since the first Obama administration.
Yes, but even then the court would still be 5-4.
It’d put a lot more pressure on someone like Robert’s. He’d be a deciding vote and would get all the blame for abolishing things like Roe. Now there’s no one target, it’s the group as a whole.
RBG really screwed America over in the end.
She was in her late 70s, had a cancer diagnosis and looking frail since Clinton, did she think she was going to make a full recovery and live another 50 years.
Selfishness is why we are here with Biden and the other olds
Right? Super weird he didn’t just press the “stack the Supreme Court” button sitting right there on the desk. It is that easy, after all.
It is now.
I wish the parties legislated much more like their fund raising emails. Emails: The most basic protections at the doctor's office have been trampled! We won't have human rights until all humans have autonomy over their body. Give us $3 before the end of the quarter and we'll give you a chance to win lunch with the representative. This is the most important issue of our time! In the office with full immunity to do anything "official": oh crap they used the Supreme Court to legislate, that's terrible, I wish we could do something, they changed the rules like 800 times getting to this point of the coup but if we had bent one rule the victory wouldn't mean anything. Gosh those Republicans do find the craziest loopholes. Looks like we'll have to leave it there. If only we had advisors who could tell us what we need to do to lead the country. This is so complicated and hard and oh, fundraising dinner see ya.
“But her emails!” 2016 is when we should have thought about the future of the courts, but too many wanted to “protest vote” and “send a message” and stay home. People love a protest after the damage has been done. but they hate doing the work or making the compromises needed to prevent the situation from Happening in the first place
That isn't dirty. It's a reasoned and restrained approach to fixing what's wrong with this corrupt court. They should be thankful. A lot of countries would just kill them.
No, not “packing the court.” Instead “adding members to the court” the left is absolute shite at slogans and for some reason we always decide on slogans or phrases that are guaranteed to sound bad. Packing the court sounds like your doing something shady or just trying to do something out of the usual, if you google court packing you see failures and pushback historically so it looks unprecedented, if you google adding members to the court you see historical precedence
You could use this precedent to undo it, but I doubt biden would. And even if he wanted he would need the senate to agree, along with 6 folks willing to go along with him as replacement justices. Here's how that would work. Some context that is important. The normal process for a Supreme Court justice retiring, presuming they don't die, is to send a letter to the President. The President will then nominate and the senate will have a chance to confirm the nominee or not. 1. Detain the 6 conservative justices under pre-text of them being terrorists that are a national security threat. This is center of the bull's eye for Presidential powers, Biden has absolute immunity. 2. "Accept" their letters of resignation while they are detained and can not speak publicly. 3. Nominate and confirm 6 replacements. 4. Overturn the nonsense judgement. 5. Release the detained former justices. The justices who were detained and resigned without their own consent of course could go to the courts to try and get that all overturned, but guess which court that will end up at? In theory the next President could pull the same thing, except there is one key difference. When Biden does this the current ruling would be that he has absolute immunity. If another President did that same thing after rebalancing the court, they'd explicitly be doing so when the current ruling was no absolute immunity.
I disagree. This is a good opportibity for dems to run on something with substance. Hammer the message..."no one is above the law, including me....vote for accountability in government" That's a winning straightforward, no bullshit, message. Lock it down
No, it isn't too late. Gotta start somewhere and starting is the hard part. Once you get momentum it becomes easier to go faster and harder to stop. So let's not shit on this effort because he's the only guy who gives enough of a shit to do what is within his power.
No, the founding fathers *totally* wanted the president to be an individual that was not bound by the law who could murder whomever he wanted to. A king, if you will. That was ABSOLUTELY the intent of the founders.
Amendments must be called by 34 states and voted on to pass by 38 states. There are 50 states in the union. 25 states are GOP states and will not vote in favour of it. Another 3 Democrat states usually sides with them on amendments, although that often varies. An amendment to reverse this decision will not happen.
[удалено]
If he was paying attention, these would have been written 6 months ago and ready to go to the floor.
They're all paying attention, the ones that want to do something can't and the ones that can do something don't care
It won’t matter. In the current landscape it is impossible to pass any legislation
Potential amendment texts need to be vetted and discussed. Leaving the SCOTUS decision as it stands is not a long term option. Even if Trump is defeated this cycle, sooner or later a president will use it to commit and conceal crimes. We have had more than one president who was constrained by the possibility of discovery and punishment. Most US presidents have been honorable men, but *all* of them have been ambitious.
Also this illegitimate court is going to continue to pass radical unconstitutional laws, they aren't going to stop. More are coming. If the court isn't stopped they will legally ensure that Trump becomes dictator, regardless of who has the most votes in an election. And Trump isn't even permitted to run according to the constitution, so the whole election is theater. Getting in legal battles with individual rulings is at least better than nothing, but it's somewhat futile. Much more drastic action needs to be taken by the White House before it is too late.
Idk how they are still alive today considering the president can have them executed legally apparently. But what do I know.
Because Biden and Dems in power "take the high road", which is like being cornered into a knife fight with nothing but your bare hands, and refusing to kick the motherfucker in the nuts when he charges you.
Beautifully said.
Ok but what if someone says Biden told him to do it and Biden doesn't testify? Hasn't that already happened with trump?
What SCOTUS did was not simply give Trump blanket presidential immunity...they gave themselves judicial review to determine whether the actions they as president took were within their official duties as president. So if Biden were to do the exact same things Trump is being indicted for, SCOTUS could "in theory" say none of his actions were official acts as president and therefore would not have immunity. They are trying to avoid outright ruling this way as it would be obvious that they are trying to protect Trump while not giving Biden any rope to use himself.
The immunity ruling should not count until they write exactly what constitutes an official duty. We need to see a complete list in writing because SCOTUS does not exist to oversee what the president’s duties are from day to day.
Trump's lawyers have already tried using the SCOTUS ruling in ongoing cases. That's how desperate his team is now.
SCOTUS believes that only congress can pass regulations and not the agencies created to regulate industries so congress would have to write a bill banning every single bad chemical and every single possible moving violation and every single safety rule for every single industry. SCOTUS has to do the same when they pass a ruling or it is just an incomplete opinion.
Commit and conceal crimes? They'd have no reason to conceal them they'd be immune to consequences.
The court gave them permission to conceal evidence of unofficial criminal acts when it is connected to official acts.
I think there's a good chance this would actually become an amendment. There are a lot on the right who also see the dangers that come with this. It might take years though, likely until at least after Biden/Trump finishes their next team.
Amendments also need to be ratified by ~~2/3~~ 3/4 of the states to become law. Which is a very high ask.
Besides, I'm European and... one of our core principles here, one that can **never** be overturned in any situation—ban on death penalty aside—is that of criminal law non-retroactivity. *No* European country allows a criminal law to be applied to facts that were committed prior to its approval. So I was wondering whether the US held this as a sacred principle too. Because to me, it feels like this should fit: as in, any legislation (constitutional amendments included) that is passed to strip Presidents of their immunity for official acts should only apply to acts done *after* the law is passed—otherwise, we'd have criminal law retroactivity.
There are specific Constitutional prohibitions on legislation that does this, in article 1. Court decisions can go back and forth, so long as the statute exists already and enforcement isn’t selective. That’s a worry about an incoming administration deciding to enforce the antiquated Comstock Act, which was written with respect to 19th century medicine.
We do: ex post facto laws are explicitly prohibited in the Constitution, against both the states and the federal government. It's one of the very few restrictions on state power that existed before the 14th amendment started incorporating individual rights against the states. However, I'm not sure this would qualify, because the acts were illegal; the court just ruled that the president is immune from prosecution for them, not that the president didn't, in fact, commit a crime. It's tricky though. For example, the statute of limitations on criminal matters are bound by the prohibition on ex post facto laws, so if someone commits a crime, the statute of limitations expires, and then a law extends the statute of limitations, the crime is still barred from being prosecuted, but that's not so if someone commits a crime and then, while the crime is still within the statute of limitations, the statute of limitations is extended. The amendment would have to specify whether this is retroactive. While ex post facto clauses are illegal in normal statutes, the constitution has no limitations on what can be amended (other than the Senate's composition).
I believe that this decision was about Nixon more than Trump. Trump is just the one the got it through. The people behind the scenes have been pissed since Nixon was run out of office. Fox News was created because they did not like the coverage that Nixon got. This has been in the the works for a long time.
Nixon is dead. He got pardoned and he’s dead. This is about keeping Trump out of jail as well as whatever other lunatic the GOP throws into the Oval Office.
> Even if Trump is defeated this cycle, sooner or later a president will use it to commit and conceal crimes. It has already hindered the prosecution of Trump. The judge for his 34 felony convictions postponed sentencing from July to September, in part to review whether sentencing is even warranted under the new decision.
I feel this one can be pretty cut and dry: "no official of the United States, elected or appointed, shall be held immune to the legal recourses of their official,or unofficial acts, except by way of presidential pardon."
In 1838, 23 years before he became President, Lincoln presented his essay titled "Perpetuation of our Political Institutions" to the Young Men's Lyceum in Springfield Illinois. [Please take 20 minutes out of your day to listen to his words.](https://youtu.be/GB6rPqD1Mnw?si=yiNwNiNVXwcRHygj) [You can read the essay here](https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm) Pass this on to ANYONE who claims they are an American. Have them listen to this. Have them hear from Lincoln the dangers of tyranny.
The problem here being, of course, that it was the criminal mob VERSUS the rule of the court and Lincoln making the plea that it was the court that must be listened to. He never anticipated the court *was* the criminal. He was right though: no other countries could take the US. The US will eat itself.
The mobs will return. I grew up in Florida, and there was never any shortage of folks reminding me that "The South Shall Rise Again." When the confederacy gets their way, the mobs will return.
Away down south in the land of traitors, rattlesnakes and alligators
Yeah....I live down there and that's pretty much on point. The big cities can still be reasonable. But, you head like half an hour out of town and you see the "we lost the war" flags, GOP signs, and the like. I hate it here and wish I had the kinds of funds necessary to leave.
This reminds me of trump’s artful analysis of shark v battery
Truly, the great orangetater of our day
> At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?-- Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!--All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. > At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. Oof. President Lincoln is rolling in his grave. > It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. Welp. > They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.--Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws: As long as we can continue to find reasonable, intelligent, and logical people that who are brave enough to lead on every level, I think we’ll be alright…but if we continue to devalue these types of leaders for the instant gratification of wealth and power and control…we’re cooked.
> All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. Goddamn
Here's a better idea. Vote. Vote for the party that is not aligned with the fascist state, even if that means **your** single issue is deprioritized in their platform.
Crazy that he said trump. I know it's not used as a person but still crazy.
Roevember is coming. Register and vote. In Colorado go to govotecolorado.gov to register AND check your registration. Clerks are purging “inactive” voters.
Pennsylvania and Georgia will decide who becomes President in November. Those are two very big **SWING STATES**. That’s how the system works in 2024. Why is Georgia so fiercely pro-Trump? What has Trump ever done to make life better in Georgia (same question could be asked of the Democrats). People in Georgia struggled to stay alive, whether Obama or Biden was President, or when Trump was president. So maybe, they rightfully don’t care who wins in November??
It has never been a requirement for Republicans to make people's lives better; only to let them victimise who they hate.
We turned GA blue last time and we will do it again.
It's already in the Constitution. They just ignored it. What's an amendment going to do here if they'll just decide to ignore that too?
Where is it in the Constitution?
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
This is why I encourage everyone to read the ruling, because they actually specifically talk about this. They pretty much unanimously agree it doesn't factor into this case: he wasn't convicted, but they do not interpret that as he can't be charged since he wasn't convicted
That only says the President can be tried if he was successfully impeached, though. The SC ruling said nothing about the case when a President is successfully impeached.
No, what it says is that impeachment is specifically a removal from office and barring from holding another. It says a successful impeachment does not convict them of a crime. It says that the person can still be tried criminally after being impeached. This heavily implies they are not immune from prosecution for things done while in office.
Why should we trust this court? They already ruled insurrectionists can not be barred from the ballots. They even cited the lack of enumeration of abortion in one of the concurring opinions of Dobbs, *which is a direct violation of the 9th amendment's plain statement that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be used to deny or disparage other rights.* They even said *public statements are not admissible evidence.*
Presidential immunity is not in the constitution because it doesn't exist. Immunity is mentioned for legislators. The dissent really lays it all out.
Roberts basically hallucinated his constitutional justification, like an AI that's confidentially incorrect.
That's what they should have been doing all along.
And to be a downer, the Republicans have focused on gaining control of as many states legislatures as they could to make this damn near impossible. US constitution amendments require ratification by at least 38 of the states to be made official. I think there are maybe 20 under democrat control. All elections matter.
This. I just can’t seem a consistional amendment getting passed by congress, senate, and the majority of states when what’s needed is something that will stop the GQP plan of complete control of everything. The GQP will block this for sure.
It’s not just a majority. It takes 2/3rds to pass a constitutional amendment.
3/4ths, actually. So 38.
They don't all have to pass at the same time. If you get it through congress, you have literally decades to convince the states to ratify it. AFAIK there is no time limit to ratify an amendment.
Broadly yes - the 27th amendment took 202 years, 223 days to be ratified. But some recent amendments have had time limits baked into them like the [District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_Voting_Rights_Amendment) > Section 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission. The [Equal Rights Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment) was structured different, the time limit was not part of the amendment itself but rather as part of the resolution for it: >Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress: ...
2/3 of Congress or state governors, I believe.
> US constitution amendments require ratification by at least 38 of the states to be made official. We need a PAC to campaign hard for this amendment as a way to stop Joe Biden from escaping criminal prosecution. Talk about the Activist Judges trying to anoint Joe Biden and his Crime Family as a king above the law. Talk about how without this amendment, he'll be shielded from ever facing justice. Plaster the airwaves with it. It has the advantage of being technically true, other than the fact that Biden hasn't actually committed any crimes, and it could potentially get Republicans on board with it. The legislatures will know what's really happening, but threaten enough of them with primary runs for being in favor of helping Joe Biden escape prosecution and it might still be doable.
That’s my congressman. Love to see it!
Mine too! I thought I was just n the Rochester sub for a moment.
This country wouldn't even pass the ERA.
it technically gathered enough states to pass, just it had an expiration date. Which is dumb because if an amendment is going to be basically eternal in the first place its not going to magically become a bad amendment within a couple decades.
Well… except for Prohibition era. That was a bad amendment from the get-go.
He is, of course, aware of what it takes to pass a constitutional amendment.
Theyr notoriously easy to pass.
An amendment takes a crap load of agreement thst will never happen. Its like one of the hardest things to do. Zero chance this happens before bidens term is up…. Unless the republicans are affraid thst dark Brandon has an ace up his sleeve and will pull it at the last minute. And let’s be honest if drunk can declare a state of emergency so can Biden. Still zero chance imo. If trump goes down legally there has to be a list of GQP members that will fall with him. They are worried about their own hides and will make the citizens of the United States suffer to save themselves.
Almost everything that has happened since 2016 was stuff that "would never happen". And then it would. And then again. And again. Sorry, but the ol' do nothing and say we tried everything isn't gonna work.
I have lived through and survived 5 or 6 "once in a lifetime economic events" and a pandemic. We are terrible at this lol
“… thst [sic] will never happen.” 😠Not with that attitude. Everyone, contact your representatives. Do it—it only takes a little minute. Write or call and demand to be represented.
Here's the template I used. Template for encouraging your Senator and Congressman to support Supreme Court reform actions Please use this template if it is helpful. In it, I reference Justice Thomas's multiple gifted trips and gifted properties, and Justice Alito's statements during his appointment hearings. To find your congressman, check here: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative To find your senators: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm ------ Dear Congressman / Senator [Last Name], I am writing to express my strong support for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Recent revelations regarding their acceptance of unethical gifts, along with their actions that contradict statements made during their appointment hearings, have raised significant concerns about their integrity and impartiality. Furthermore, their rulings have increasingly undermined the balance of power that is fundamental to our democracy. The Supreme Court's decisions should be guided by the principles of fairness and justice, free from external influences and personal gain. The evidence suggesting that Justices Thomas and Alito have breached ethical standards warrants a thorough investigation and appropriate action to uphold the credibility of our highest court. In addition to supporting their impeachment, I advocate for the expansion of the Supreme Court to ensure a more balanced and representative judiciary. Furthermore, I believe it is crucial to amend the Constitution to unequivocally state that no citizen, regardless of their office, is exempt from criminal law. Such measures will strengthen our democratic institutions and reaffirm the principle that no one is above the law. I urge you to take a stand in defense of ethical governance and the rule of law by supporting these actions. Our nation's future depends on the integrity of its institutions, and it is imperative that we act now to preserve the trust and confidence of the American people. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Your Name]
Yes. Beautiful. This is what I’m TALKING ABOUT! I love this.
Thanks! Feel free to share it around
Flyfrog, I have already sent it to eleven people.
I'll do it, because it's the right thing to do. However, I recently moved to North Carolina and from what I'm seeing, my letter will immediately go into the trash. But I'll do it.
That’s the spirit!
Thank you so very much for this! I suck at writing to authoritive figures, so this was a massive weight off my shoulders.
> Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate; or by a convention to propose amendments called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states.
This is what we need. An amendment to specify that POTUS is not a king. Not that we should because the founders *clearly* intended that not be the case but the oRiGiNaLiSts decided we do because corruption. An amendment to put limits on SCOTUS terms so a new Justice is chosen every 2-4 years with no Moscow Mitch bullshit allowed. Plus actual rules of ethics and conduct. An amendment to outlaw gerrymandering and banning first-past-the-post or similar unrepresentative voting methods. Mandating STAR or ranked choice voting or approval or other reasonable systems. An amendment that requires a more representative Congress. Better House where Montana has so much more relative power than California or Florida or New York or Texas. And updates the Senate to be more representative because the Senatorial power of Idaho vs California is also fucking insane. Land area should not get so much representation. An amendment that explicitly protects reproductive freedom. An amendment that *very fucking explicitly* separates religion and state.
I support this message.
I’d like to see a truly independent Department of Justice with a directly elected Attorney General as well.
SCOTUS ruled in direct opposition of what is *currently* in the Constitution. They can do the same thing even with an amendment directly made to counteract that ruling. The illegitimate court is what has to be dealt with. They act obviously in bad faith.
I remember when the focus was on forcing ethics upon SCOTUS. My main thought at the time was that even if Congress passed some ruling that supreme justices have to meet certain requirements Alito would just come out and say "That's unconstitutional because fuck you" and that would be the end of it. The judicial branch has supplanted the legislative branch, which has been gridlocked through partisanship and corruption. Creative interpretation of existing laws allows them to modify them as they see fit, and if they want to put forth a new "law" they can get someone to bring a hypothetical scenario to them.
Right, this is exactly it. People are talking about an amendment. Newsflash: the easiest way to amend the constitution is to ask the Roberts court to redefine some words. I do think that this "Project 2025" plan and the immunity decision are potentially so offensive to Americans that they may be willing to view court packing as a necessary and urgent check-and-balance instead of a power grab from Biden.
Huh, a Democrat. I thought the Repugnicans were all about freedom..?
And small government!
[удалено]
My understanding is all the planning for the act would be couched in official conversations, therefore can't be used as evidence against POTUS. If they catch the shooter, shooter can be prosecuted in due course for the crime, but likely can't convict him of conspiracy since much of that evidence is now disallowed by SCROTUS. SCROTUS has introduced (from thin air) the "peripheral official act" defense for POTUS. Nixon would never have felt the need to resign if he had this. If today's Republican party existed in the '70s, CHARLIE MANSON would still be POTUS today. 🤢
They spelled out that Trump's communications with Pence, state officials, and the public on January 6th may not be immune given a strong enough argument on the circumstances.
If I recall, they said that it would follow under presumptive immunity and would need substantial evidence to overcome that presumption, no? You're gonna have a tough time getting enough evidence to do that...
I don't think they plan on giving Biden 6 months to test the limits against them. They toppled our democratic system right before independence day. The project 2025 leader had just stated that if people cooperate, blood will be avoided.. From a christo-fascist perspective, a coup on independence day is alot more poetic than a tedious election and legal trials.. They're trying to write a narrative it sounds... I hope I'm paranoid, but it makes a ton of sense... Why would the court wait until after the election to topple everything? Why would they give Biden that power? He could disrupt their entire agenda in that time...
If you have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment, you probably have the votes to impeach supreme court justices.
I voted for that dude! My vote actually mattered, I'll be damned.
Sure would be nice if they had this kind of gusto to overturn Citizens United when that happened, but everyone's beak is wet now...
Thanks to all the dems who wouldn’t vote for Hillary. The supreme ct picks Hillary would have had were the most important thing. Now they are talking about not voting for Biden.
We couldn’t get Congress to pass a vote on whether or not the sky is blue…. Let alone a Constitutional Amendment…. This is grandstanding. Raskin did the only practical thing that could be done by Congress with his roundtable.
It’s already in the constitution. Easy to see and in plain English. Then the guy who has the musical wrote about it in the federalist papers. The issue is SCOTUS which Biden should pack.
Would this amendment just repeat what was already written in Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution? —- The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. —
So this will take effect today then correct? Is os this just noise that will never go anywhere?
Needs Biden to win the election, otherwise this is going nowhere. If Biden wins the election all the Republicans will jump out and scream that Biden is a power hungry autocrat and that presidential power needs reined in.
Too little, too late, and feels like another “after the fact” democrat move that they know won’t take hold, and when it fails they can wring their hands and tell us to vote a little bluer next time
Biden should go apeshit with this immunity with a progressive agenda and make conservatives' heads spin. AND THEN introduce this amendment and dare them to vote against it
Pack the court already
Best of luck Joe
Its already covered in the Constitution. Article 2 section 4. Congress has the power to impeach and remove a President (translation: if he can be impeached then he cant be immune) and Section 9 clearly states everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The judgement is CLEARLY deliberately flawed as a way to take absolute power and then *nobody* has any right to question it.
The rest of the Dems better start going hard as fuck against Trump and all his pedo links to JE and all his bullshit. They better show some nutz right now. They acting like a bunch of pussies.