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.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Do you not believe they’re preparing an amendment, or do you not believe it will pass?
I think they’ll sabotage it or compromise it so much it will be meaningless like the Dems always do.
You believe it’s the Dem’s that do the sabotaging, and that they are compromising to…themselves? Interesting.
For some of their more conservative members, they’ve certainly done so in the past, but I’m pretty sure that @SeattleRain@lemmy.world is just talking about the self-defeating obsession that Democrats have with appearing non-partisan. Yes, they do need to compromise to an extent to get something through the house at the moment, but they have essentially self-sabotaged in the past when they had the majorities to not need to do so, yet insist on negotiating with the Republicans anyway because they hope moderate Republicans will give them credit for not ramming legislation through in a one-sided fashion.
This really only works when the other party is engaging in negotiations in good faith, which the Republicans do not. As a result, the Democrats give the GOP initiative on steering bills and policies as they like, winding up with compromised legislation that doesn’t please their actual base, while also not getting credit from the Republicans they’re hoping to sway in some sense.
For an easy example of this, look at talks about eliminating the filibuster earlier in Biden’s presidency. Manchin and Sinema made it a dead idea, but even before that, Biden has been opposed because of his obsession with reaching across the aisle in an age where trying to do so only serves to stop his agenda dead in its tracks. Rather than get their elbows out and bully the two hold outs into falling in line (which was supposed to be what Manchin was good for, at least. I kept hearing, “He disrupts things, but he falls in line when it counts,” but pretty much never saw evidence of this), they just shrugged and collectively let the agenda die or get neutered, because to do otherwise would not be bipartisan.
I appreciate one of the most concise explanations of that perspective I’ve ever read! This is actually the one I’d like to believe, but not the one I do. I disagree with the idea that “both sides are the same,” but I won’t go so far as to imagine Democrats are truly concerned with integrity to the degree that they’d sacrifices strategy. I’m afraid they’re just people, and people are all fucking stupid in their own way. It’s just some are fucking stupid and malicious.
I don’t think it’s necessarily being so concerned with integrity as to deliberately self-sabotage, but rather that this was a potentially viable strategy 40-50 years ago, and many of the eldritch horrors in party leadership, Biden included, just haven’t gotten the message that the situation has changed in the interim. Part of Biden’s campaign pitch was that he’s worked in Congress for so long and has the relations that would let him reach out to the other side to get stuff passed, and he just gets taken advantage of when trying to do so. The Republicans have long since moved on to a strategy of “Ram through whatever you can while you’re in power, and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct when you aren’t.” They generally aren’t concerned at all with what non-GOP voters think of them and their actions, which lets them just bulldoze their way through the process while racking up points with their base for being effective at advancing the agenda, regardless of how hypocritical/immoral they are in the process. Just see Mitch McConnell when Obama tried appointing a justice to the Supreme Court near the end of his term versus his response to Trump doing the same.
I would also say there’s just a fundamentally different level of at least the appearance of integrity necessary on the Democratic side, and Democratic voters are less willing to accept that the ends justifies the means. This is clearly illustrated just by looking at the fallout for pretty much any Republican having a sex scandal, versus it happening to a Democrat. In his initial scandal, Anthony Weiner didn’t even engage in a criminal act, having sent a 21-year old woman a sexually explicit photo. In less than a month, Nancy Pelosi had called for an investigation into it and he’d resigned his seat. In contrast, Trump has been found liable for sexual abuse in a civil case and has had heaps of sexual assault and harassment accusations brought against him, yet the party of family values, good, Christian morals, and law and order is still completely behind him.
Nothing pisses off congress more than having to do something and vote on legislation. Supreme Court made an enemy.
ADDING an Amendment to a Document that the Supreme Court is IGNORING is the PERFECT way to Fix this!
And also impossible because the Republicanazis would never allow it.
republikkklowns
The SCOTUS will rule the president still has immunity, again…they don’t care what the Constitution actually says.
Military must refuse illegal orders… I don’t think it’s that simple. Maybe if he goes on a one president killing spree, but ordering people to do illegal things doesn’t mean they are immediately going to do illegal things, especially when they are not criminally immune
Problem is not everyone in the military is a constitutional scholar. What happens if part of the military believes it’s their duty to follow the President’s order (since they judge it to be a legal order) while another part of the military believes it’s their duty to not follow an order (since they judge it to be illegal)?
This ruling is laying the groundwork for a civil war.
We’re not exactly more than a couple steps away from the SCOTUS saying that if you can’t prosecute official acts, then ipso facto it must also extend to those enforcing the acts.
Good luck getting 2/3 of the states to ratify it.
3/4 for amendments, actually.
I’d hope this ruling would inspire the need, but I won’t hold my breath.
This will never happen. You can’t get enough states to agree let alone Congress. Getting an amendment passed is near impossible in this climate. The mere fact that a Democrat proposed it mean FOX will demonize it as a threat to america
Ranked choice voting can fix that issue as first-past-the-post sucks so bad.
Agree on ranked choice, but Prop Rep doesn’t have a good track record.
True, but it’s still the right thing to do. At the very least it will force some members of Congress to clearly and undeniably declare themselves as supporters of tyranny.
It won’t pass, but it does show that both sides aren’t the same. It’s the correct move even if it’s just signaling.
Use amendment 14 section 3 to remove most of the Republicans from office.
Get rid of the idea of judicial review.
Seems fair
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)
Ballsy move. I support this
I think most people do but there is no way we will see an amendment come to pass.
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. The amendment process is long and difficult ans honestly being just willing to go through the extra steps makes good headlines.
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.
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?
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.
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.
They can if they support ranked choice under fairvote us
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.
Provide a free retirement ticket to Guantanamo Bay.
I think the Republicans would just use that as an excuse to do something even crazier at their first opportunity
Hypocrisy is a tool for the GQP
I propose Biden start having the military shoot those that oppose the amendment and see how long it takes to get it passed.
At least it’ll put the GOPers on record rejecting it.
Why would they care? They’re proud of it. Their voters are proud of it.
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. This would all be actions that cannot be questioned, or used against the President as he has full immunity to:
- pardon anyone for anything
- 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 =(
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.
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
Think if he did this to a supreme court judge, do you think they’d reverse the ruling? 🤔
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.
And that’s only half the battle - then 3/4 of the state legislatures must pass it as well
I thought it’s an either or thing, as two different paths to possibly get an amendment passed, not that it needs both.??
You thought wrong, but I blame the school system. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=An amendment may be proposed,in each State for ratification.
It’s understandable, as the proposal process DOES have two different paths (congress or states). But the ratification can only proceed via the states.
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.
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.
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.
I fear the civil war has already started, just without the shooting each other part. Although that’s kinda already happening too.
By that logic the civil war started decades ago
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.
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.
Coast vs interior
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.
Not the first time. Or second. Or third. Or fourth…
This week
6 of them anyway. The other 3 seem to be good so far.
“Leftist” comrades: but muh both sides!!!
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
Reversing decades of settled law in multiple rulings is not “more of the same”. Lie to yourself, don’t lie to those of use with open eyes.
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.
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
They just made bribes legal and made the president above the law.
Yup this is the way to do it too. It needs to be part of the Constitution to override this “interpretation”.
this is a gimme. You show you’re willing to pass laws to reign them in.
This is the way.
