• JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I have doubts a constitutional amendment will pass, but hopefully there are other avenues to enact this plan.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      The Supreme Court gave him an avenue, an official act by executive order. Remove 3 conservative justices reducing the Court to it’s original number of 6.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Court’s decision just removes criminal liability for the President for such official acts. It does not render them legal or proper.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Let the 6 member court deliberate this executive decision. Democrats need to stop asking for permission. Republicans don’t. They act, then apologize for overstepping. Democrats need to stop being defensive and start being offensive.

              • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                3 months ago

                The Democrats should have taken the gloves off after McConnell refused to confirm Garland and ended the filibuster.

                since the Democrats don’t have a time machine, I just want them to learn from their mistakes. They’re still using the same strategy of when they go low, we go high -and we lose.

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            No, there are a lot of things that are not legal but also not criminal. Here, the difference is whether or not the President is empowered to take such action. Similarly, the President cannot enact a new tax law or bind the nation to a treaty as he lacks the legal authority to do so, but attempting to do so wouldn’t (under some scenarios) be an otherwise criminal act.

            • warbond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Fair point, it’s not a de facto legalization. However, I have to question the intent behind allowing for such varied interpretations of presidential immunity. Confining it to official or unofficial leaves an insane amount of wiggle room, when they could have decided to allow for real scrutiny within the context of an action and whose purposes it actually serves.

              As it stands, a conversation between a president and election officials, regardless of context, is an official act. Presidents are allowed to talk to people in an official capacity, so regardless of what is said during those conversations, it’s completely fine? Why not provide any guidelines on what constitutes an official act? It’s just too broad for anything other than a “I’m sure people will just be cool” acceptance, which is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation to begin with.

              (Edited to add what I’m told is called a “para-graph”)

        • xenoclast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Also, the reality is these rulings are only when it benefits whomever pays them the most.

          You’d have to convince Putin and a lot of trillion dollar corps that own these justices first. Which seems very unlikely.

          He could sacrifice himself for the greater good and commit illegal acts to wipe the SCOTUS and start again with people that will hold him accountable for his illegal acts. He has a unique opportunity that will go away either through reform or the dismantling of US democracy. Either way, the opportunity is now or never

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            The scorched earth approach would cause problems for Kamala’s campaign. After the election however there are a couple months where Biden is still in charge and could go scorched earth with impunity (which would also demonstrate how stupid that system is as well).

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          IMHO that’s even worse. “We know it’s wrong, but we actually think it’s necessary and okay” sort of energy.

      • WhatTrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        Or, better yet, increase the number of justices to at least the number of circuits we have. I would say take that number and multiply it by three so that there are 3 from each that can form a small panel to deal with smaller issues and form a larger, randomly selected, 9-11 judge panel to deal with bigger issues. It would also dramatically limit the power any one justice holds. Mandate a strict code of ethics and disclosure and put in term limits.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Despite the actual structure of the Constitution and all of its amendments, the Supreme Court, as an institution, has fought to exceed the limits of its constitutional power from the very beginning. Its ruling in Loper Bright is only its latest and most brazen move to set itself up as the ultimate and final authority in the nation. As I said, the appropriate historical context for its ruling today is not 1984 and its Chevrondecision but its 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison. It was then, back when the country was still in its swaddling blankets, that the Supreme Court declared itself the sole interpreter of the Constitution. The word “unconstitutional” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the power to decide what is or is not constitutional was not given to the court in the Constitution or by any of the amendments. The court decided for itself that it had the power to revoke acts of Congress and declare actions by the president “unconstitutional,” and the elected branches went along with it. The Supreme Court was never supposed to have this much power

          • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Tbf it is difficult to uphold the constitution in another way. For instance, if Congress passes a bill that contradicts the constitution you have a contradiction. How else, than through courts, would you resolve the contradiction?

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Biden could make a presidential address during prime time to declare a general strike until his demands are met.

              We need to start thinking of extra-legal and post-electoral means of effecting change.

            • WhatTrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yes. Without the courts ability to determine if something is unconstitutional then it would always be up to Congress / the executive to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That presents an obvious separation of powers problem and could easily be misused by a Congress or executive branch that are hostile to certain rights.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Oh really? I’d now like to see you throughout historical events right before they happened, expressing your doubts as if you uniquely had them… “I don’t know, guys…”

      Yes, that’s the point. Nobody has 100% faith that this is a rubber stamp, that’s not the point.

      First, the announcement itself from a sitting American president is historic and important, second, it keeps a hard focus on the corrupt conservative frauds and illegitimacy of this current court. Those are the victories, the actual congressional amendment (a process designed to be difficult in a process that demands consensus) is and always was the long shot that could happen.