Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

The court’s conservative majority decided July 1 that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their official duties — a decision that threw into doubt the Justice Department’s case against Republican former President Donald Trump for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Schumer, of New York, said that Congress has an obligation and the constitutional authority to check the Supreme Court on its decision.

  • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The constitution doesn’t even give the supreme court the power to declare things unconstitutional. They just decided to do that early on and everyone went along with it.

    Suppose the court does declare such a law unconstitutional. Imagine how it would look. Yes, such a law might not be the end of things, but if it was declared unconstitutional it would be a clear call for hobbling the court, because it would demonstrate they’re corrupt.

    • Hegar@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      it would demonstrate they’re corrupt

      I think all the corruption already demonstrate that.

      The SC is fully captured by the far right, they’re already throwing away pieces of democracy to save trump, they’re past caring about open corruption.

      • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        You don’t need to convince me. I’m talking about gathering critical support for something like a constitutional amendment. Nothing wrong with passing a bill first. Amendments are hard.

        • Hegar@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          It would add further pressure on top of all the previous examples of open corruption, for sure.

          • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Remember you need two thirds of both chambers to pass an amendment, followed by three fourths of states. In our current environment that’s nearly impossible. We should be throwing everything at the wall, and if one thing is rejected, that may sway people who haven’t been tuned in, which could be crucial in applying further action.

            There’s also value in doing fucking anything. Why should people support a party that won’t fight for what’s important? I refuse to just complain, or to accept hopelessness. I expect that something will be done, and I’m going to vote and act accordingly.