House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court's immunity decision ( apnews.com )

A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

ChrisMcMillan ,

This is the way.

Fedizen ,

this is a gimme. You show you're willing to pass laws to reign them in.

NoSuchAgency ,

For years the Supreme Court had a liberal majority and now that they don't, they claim every decision they make is the end of the world and they want to lock everyone up and stack the courts. This is just more of the same

ampersandrew ,
@ampersandrew@lemmy.world avatar

They just made bribes legal and made the president above the law.

mashbooq ,

Because the liberal Supreme Court largely supported democracy, while the conservative one isn't even trying to hide its promotion of fascism. There is no both sides here

Empricorn , (edited )

Reversing decades of settled law in multiple rulings is not "more of the same". Lie to yourself, don't lie to those of us with open eyes.

Cornelius_Wangenheim ,

The Supreme Court hasn't had a liberal majority since the 80s. The difference is that until the Trump appointments, the nakedly partisan political hacks were a minority on the court.

someguy3 ,

Yup this is the way to do it too. It needs to be part of the Constitution to override this "interpretation".

xantoxis ,

A constitutional amendment implies that the constitution doesn't already cover this when, in its plain language, it definitely does. This provides an implicit concession that the court was right.

Don't give them that. Pack the court and issue the opposite decision at the earliest opportunity.

whostosay ,

Honestly at this rate, just start the fucking civil war already. I'd rather go hungry and fight than be pinned by fascists. They're not playing by the rules, and they intend to do us harm. Fuck that. I've got faith in us anyway, we're smart enough to not fall for their obvious horseshit and we're smart enough to win if it comes to it.

lone_faerie ,

I fear the civil war has already started, just without the shooting each other part. Although that's kinda already happening too.

Barbarian ,
@Barbarian@sh.itjust.works avatar

It's not a civil war and I don't think it'll become one. The modern US isn't geographically separated enough to have any sort of cohesive movement locally. There's no north vs south playing out, for example.

Instead, what you have is a slow-rolling coup and social instability.

doubletwist ,

Just because our previous civil war involved a relatively simple geographical separation, doesn't mean it's necessary for a civil war.

The only thing you need is two (or more) sides with opposing beliefs about how the country should run and who should run it, and that said beliefs are strong enough that people are willing to use violence to ensure that their side wins.

Geography has nothing to do with it.

Cryophilia ,

Coast vs interior

Coreidan ,

By that logic the civil war started decades ago

Veraxus ,

The Constitution already guarantees this. SCOTUS is (as it is wont to do) brazenly defying it.

They should spend the rest of their natural lives in small concrete cells for the way they’ve deliberately and maliciously violated & stolen the rights of all Americans.

girlfreddy OP ,
@girlfreddy@lemmy.ca avatar

6 of them anyway. The other 3 seem to be good so far.

Cryophilia ,

"Leftist" comrades: but muh both sides!!!

stoly ,

Not the first time. Or second. Or third. Or fourth…

lone_faerie ,

This week

dhork ,

Yay! I will have a garbage plate in Joe Morelle's honor the next time I am in Rochester.

(Although I do admit, I was probably gonna order the plate regardless)

Cosmonauticus ,

Ballsy move. I support this

NESSI3 ,

I think most people do but there is no way we will see an amendment come to pass.

avidamoeba ,
@avidamoeba@lemmy.ca avatar

At least it'll put the GOPers on record rejecting it.

alilbee ,

Why would they care? They're proud of it. Their voters are proud of it.

TimLovesTech , (edited )
@TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social avatar

I think the Democrats need to do a much larger PSA about what exactly this means. I'm not sure 100% of Trumps cult, or many moderates, would be cool with knowing that Biden right now could have his DOJ lock up basically anyone in the US, with no reason needed, and then pardon them (his DOJ). This would all be actions that cannot be questioned, or used against the President as he has full immunity to:

  1. pardon anyone for anything
  2. command his DOJ

Those are the 2 examples that the Supreme Court majority gave as examples in their "ruling", and they gave both a completely made up unconstitutional condition of immunity that cannot be used against the President, or questioned/debated in any way. These 2 items are a gift to Trump in their hope that he takes the white house and will allow him to round up everyone he wants and put them in death camps if he wanted. He orders his DOJ to do it, pardons them all, and it's all above the law with no possible oversight available. But I think if more people on the right knew that Biden has this power right now, BUT!, if some on the left get their way and they replace Biden on the ballot, and they win, that person would now wield this absolute power.

Edit - Extra words =(

grue ,

The most effective way to get the word out would be a demonstration on Biden's part. He could show how dangerous the power is and get rid of the traitorous fascists who created it at the same time.

alchemist2023 ,

yeah like go round them up and put them in a room. you gave me this power. now resign. all of you, or seal team 6 takes you out. boom.
then Biden chooses the judges he wants, reverts the immunity and rolls back all the recent crap. fixes everything.
easy. no more of a coup than the Nazis have done. but now it's legal
do it. for your very lives, do it, coz you guys are real real real close to fucking it up for everyone else too

Rinox ,

Think if he did this to a supreme court judge, do you think they'd reverse the ruling? 🤔

AlexWIWA ,

They can't win without undecided voters who will hopefully see this and care

jballs ,
@jballs@sh.itjust.works avatar

I propose Biden start having the military shoot those that oppose the amendment and see how long it takes to get it passed.

frickineh ,

What we need is for a Democratic president to do something bananas and claim immunity. I bet at least the less crazy Republicans would suddenly see how that could be a problem. Maybe if Joe set one of the conservative justices on fire as an official act.

But seriously, they have no problem with hypocrisy so that probably still wouldn't help.

PunnyName ,

Hypocrisy is a tool for the GQP

HejMedDig ,

I think the Republicans would just use that as an excuse to do something even crazier at their first opportunity

takeda ,

Provide a free retirement ticket to Guantanamo Bay.

jaybone ,

Yeah, they wouldn’t get it.

Fedizen , (edited )

it will happen easily if biden wins. If the court majority becomes 5-4 liberal republicans will absolutely hop on board. Thats why dems should also float an electoral college reform and an amendment to ban gerrymandering. Even a ban on courts creating "immunity rules" should be floated since immunity is something that shouldn't be handed out as often as the supreme court does it.

The amendment process is long and difficult and honestly being just willing to go through the extra steps makes good headlines.

pearsaltchocolatebar ,

The supreme court has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. To propose one you need a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and senate (or 2/3 of states calling a constitutional convention, but no amendment has gone through this process). Then, it requires that 75% of the states ratify it.

There's no chance the amendment will even get 2/3 of the congressional vote, much less 75% of states agreeing to it.

Fedizen ,

to change some of the rules around the court you need an amendment because they're in the constitution (lifetime appointments, for instance.)

The 11th amendment was explicitly also added to overturn a supreme court ruling, so historically passing an amendment was not always a problem and if its a problem now maybe some effort should be placed into fixing the difficulty problem as well.

grue ,

to change some of the rules around the court you need an amendment because they're in the constitution (lifetime appointments, for instance.)

Or the President would need to use the new powers the court gave him on it, until the remaining justices decided to change the rules themselves.

pearsaltchocolatebar ,

The difficulty is that our governments and voters are so polarized that an amendment banning the government from drowning puppies wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting passed.

Half of the country wants the supreme court ruling to stay.

JovialMicrobial ,

Unfortunately you are right on this one. They couldn't even get Equal Rights Ammendment passed and it was proposed in 1923. It got tossed around and talked about and got close to being ratified over the past century but ultimately didnt make it through.

Then in 2019 Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota actually sued to prevent ERA from bring ratified when it was brought up again. That's how much some states hate progress.

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out though. Will they kill it immediately or will it sit around in limbo for a century?

Beaver ,
@Beaver@lemmy.ca avatar

They can if they support ranked choice under fairvote us

rimu ,
@rimu@piefed.social avatar

An amendment requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It's worth a try but don't pin all your hopes on it.

makyo ,

And that's only half the battle - then 3/4 of the state legislatures must pass it as well

doubletwist ,

I thought it's an either or thing, as two different paths to possibly get an amendment passed, not that it needs both.??

ChefTyler1980 ,

You thought wrong, but I blame the school system.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=An%20amendment%20may%20be%20proposed,in%20each%20State%20for%20ratification.

doubletwist ,

Upon re-reading, it looks like there is two paths, but both require two steps?

The first part, proposing an amendment:

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, OR, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose.

Then the second part, ratifying the amendment:

The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, OR three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Cryophilia ,

It's understandable, as the proposal process DOES have two different paths (congress or states). But the ratification can only proceed via the states.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • news@lemmy.world
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •