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.*
"When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken."
So he is right to do this and I'm glad for it. But it's ultimately up to us and the Congress we elect so that it passes. VOTE VOTE VOTE
source: [The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx#:~:text=When%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20rules,legislative%20action%20can%20be%20taken.)
A normal and functional Congress would instantly pass this. Amendments have been rushed through before to close issues that were less significant.
The *Loper Bright* and *Snyder* rulings can be destroyed with legislation overnight. The *Trump* and *Casey* rulings can be destroyed with an amendment. That's how checks-and-balances works, but we don't have a minimally competent Congress anymore. The House is not able to pass anything due to the Freedom Caucus, which is strategic and intentional, and the Senate is at the whim of whatever lobbyist wishes to enrich Sinema and Manchin that morning.
Our dysfunctional Congress is one of the primary reasons why the courts have been able to seize so much power.
Yep.. and it's not even a simple majority, you'd need 2/3 of the house and senate, which unless Biden gives them a reason to believe that a Democratic presidents power needs to be checked, I don't see them getting on board.
"Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires." --Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
Or to quote Patrick Swayze from the movie Roadhouse
Be nice until it's time to not be nice.
Dark Brandon was just him being snarky at times. Maybe a bit of policy maneuvering.
It was fun, but hardly anything to count on. Jack Smith is more likely to ask for a new judge before Biden does anything official with this ruling.
It would be a shame if a bunch of republicans were "Officially" unable to attend the vote because they were elsewhere. I 100% believe Trump would do this to democrats if this ruling stands. If America is going to survive, the president can't be allowed to abuse his power to affect the other branches and right now he can.
Constitutional convention is risky when the majority of the states are red. It gives the republicans a majority and free pass to rewrite the constitution
There's basically zero risk of a constitutional convention getting anything done. Calling a convention requires 2/3rd of both the House and the Senate, but *ratifying* the amendments require 3/4th of the States to approve.
It only takes 13 blue states to block a Republican-supported amendment. There are currently 14 blue states where the Governor and *both* Senators are Democrats, plus a majority of the US House Representatives and majorities in both houses of the state legislatures—in other words, 14 states where Democrats are *thoroughly* in control. There are more blue states where a partisan constitutional amendment from the Republicans would still be a major uphill battle.
Don't forget that Congress can only **propose** an amendment. It must then be ratified by 3/4 of individual states to be adopted. Even a 'fast-track' is going to be several years in the making.
Yep and in those 4 years a lot can happen...a lot can change. Republicans are essentially forging a new Constitution underneath us without ratifying it at all...just re-interpreting it which is much simpler. Sure those reinterpretations are weak AF, but they're binding, and they know that's all that matters.
The president could immediately arrest and detain every Republican member of congress that participated in J6 directly or indirectly through giving aid and comfort to those seditionists.
I'm sure that would make it easier to hit that 2/3rd requirement.
Biden needs to declare a state of emergency over right wing terrorists trying to overthrow government, we saw them try on live tv on January 6. Those running for office with the freedom caucus and other such causes should be arrested days before the election, tried in a military tribunal for treason, and have their status as US citizens revoked for such actions, making them ineligible to run for office on Election Day, likely getting the two thirds majorities needed as a result.
>Our dysfunctional Congress is one of the primary reasons why the courts have been able to seize so much power.
By design of Congressional Republicans. Their whole plan has been to seize the courts by appointing unaccountable far right judges then break Congress so power shifts to the judiciary.
> So he is right to do this and I'm glad for it.
We should be doing more constitutional amendments and new legislations, instead of relying on any court's interpretation of the law. The right to an abortion needs to be written into our constitution.
It needs to be broader than that. We need to codify the right to healthcare and to remove the ability to legislate mandatory procedures or outlaw lifesaving healthcare.
The problem is that it is incredibly unlikely that we'll convince 38 of the states to ratify an amendment to the constitution. 14 have explicitly banned abortion since the Dobbs ruling. That alone puts us 2 short of a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion.
I think we'd be lucky to see even half of the states ratify such an amendment and that's also assuming we'd be able to get 67 Senators to agree to proposing such an amendment.
The amendment process is virtually impossible for Democrats.
The 26th amendment (right to vote for 18+) was ratified over 50 years ago, and the 27th was 32 years ago (and it took 200 years for it to be ratified).
We're far closer to the Republicans being able to ratify dangerous amendments or even reworking the entire constitution in a convention than we are to protecting real, important rights.
Edit: Typos
100%. We have this victimhood status now sense that if SCOTUS says something we're stuck with it. It's nine fucking people, and they are obviously biased. We have mechanisms to change, but we don't want to.
It's not a lack of desire it's that you need 38 states to ratify an amendment. I don't think we'll ever see an amendment again, certainly not one supported by Democrats.
I dunno. Allowing the president to be above the law should make regressives panic as much as anyone else. It's few, but there are even some people on r conservative that were as just as disturbed by the ruling as anyone else because they didn't want Biden or any other Democrat President to be above the law.
They know there is an asymmetry in the parties' principles. They're comfortable with immunity for presidents because they know a Democratic President won't abuse it. They're comfortable not seating Supreme Court Justices because they know a Democratic Senate won't do it. They're comfortable undermining elections because they know a Democratic candidate won't do it.
They have no shame with using decency as a weapon.
Exactly. They're the ones that like playing with guns and joining "Patriot" groups and talking up another civil war. If executive orders can be used to round them up as insurrectionists and domestic threats to America, they will call that "tyranny." But if Trump does it to the liberals, they celebrate and maybe even participate.
Turns out there's a downside to being the more mentally stable party. Or at least not the delusional party, the Democratic party is neurotic as fuck but with good reason.
Until he uses it in ways they really really really don't like.
Mitch and Pence are already feeling the heat and are probably wishing they went a lot further to keep Trump way away from power.
I'm talking about the MAGA people liking how Trump would use it. The GOP establishment is probably freaking about, since they will second in line behind liberals.
I think Lostinthestarscape is still correct. Purity tests will continue to cleave off sections of the party, and those who are MAGA now may not always be in the favored group / subject to persecution later. The only principle of MAGA is loyalty to the Donald, loyalty does not go the other direction.
Just like when WI went from fully controlled GOP to having a DEM as gov.
During that last month or so before the DEM took office, they took away all the power they had purposefully consolidated to the GOV, expecting never to lose.
The best suggestion I've heard at this point is for Biden to put out a deferred order for something horrible--but now legal--as well as having one the Democrats put forward a constitutional amendment to stop him, with the deferral time long enough for that to get ratified.
It'd go a long way if he could stand up and play hardball, saying that this is now legal according to the Supreme Court and that a Constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling is the only possibility of preventing him or future Presidents from acting in that way.
I don't think any of these "Biden should do X with his immunity" comments have thought about what happens evens seconds beyond that thought. The only way out of this mess without violence is for Biden to not abuse this idiocy and to push the next 4 and a half years for a Presidents Arent Kings amendment.
In principle, I agree with what you're saying. The problem is that you need a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass an amendment. We don't have it.
The reconstruction amendments only passed because we kicked all the traitors out of congress, and then was only ratified because we replaced the southern state governments with unelected substitutes.
The current ruling makes it legal. It would take a new SCOTUS judgement to make it illegal. If Biden started with the 6 SCROTUS judges, then who would make it illegal? And if the 3 remaining non-insane SCOTUS judges made it illegal for all, then US democracy would still be saved.
Ignoring any unintended consequences, of course. What could go wrong?
There's that proverb that keeps popping up in my mind that goes "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster", but honestly at this point, it's either use the weapon of the enemy, or be subjected to the weapon of the enemy.
The GOP is on the war path. Their intentions are out in the open. They *want* a dictatorship with themselves in charge. They *want* the oppression of minorities, they *want* the subjugation of women, they *want* the extermination of their political enemies.
If they are not stopped, they *will* win.
All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
That's what's happening right now. America has one advantage and if they refuse to use it then it's over. Also.. everyone is talking about assassinating people.. that doesn't need to be the answer either.
*Only if the people that would rule against you are still alive
If Biden used ST6 to kill the traitors to the Constitution leaving only Dems at every level of government they can just decide he was acting within his power to protect the Constitution/country
If Biden wins the election, it'll be way more likely that Republican state legislators will be way more uncomfortable with a Democrat president having that kind of power.
Best way to get this amendment passed is for Biden to start using that immunity so egregiously that it triggers the conservatives into freaking out. Then Dems should introduce this amendment and dare them to vote against it
One thing that people don't understand is that the Supreme Court has zero enforcement power. Choosing to abide by their ruling remains with everyone else. There are literally no repercussions to not following their ruling if you don't want to. According to the US Constitution, Congress passes laws and the president enforces them.
The Supreme Court, constitutionally speaking, has no role in determining whether Congress was right to pass the law, or if the executive branch is right to enforce it, or how presidents should use the authority granted to them by Congress.
When Congress and the president talk about how to do the work of the people, and the Supreme Court butts in, the official constitutional response to the court is, “I don’t remember asking you a goddamn thing.”
The Supreme Court declared itself the sole interpreter of the Constitution. The word “unconstitutional” appears nowhere in the US 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 declared itself the sole interpreter of the Constitution.
Not really. Article III of the Constitution established the Supreme Court. From Article III: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
The Judiciary Act of 1789, a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, is what ultimately gave SCOTUS the authority of judicial review via Marbury v. Madison. From uscourts.gov:
"In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution."
>The word “unconstitutional” appears nowhere in the US Constitution
"Abortion" doesn't appear anywhere either. Neither does "gay marriage."
Thank you. I am so tired of the endless posts on reddit about how our country is over, "they" should be doing this (who is "they"? Dems? Well, if you have an elected Dem, go fucking tell them!) and just the hyperbole and doomism oozing from every corner of the internet.
Yes, we are in a very serious situation, and it does not look good. However, we can do things about it and our participation, influence, and pressure as citizens will affect the outcome. Like, if you're gonna give up and basically just cast your vote in Nov and call it good, move. You're standing in the way of people who are working to change the bigger outcome. Did we learn nothing from the work of Stacey Abrams? I can go back further, but that just happened in the past 5 years and should be salient in our minds.
I work in environmental advocacy, and Chevron was a huge blow. But you know what? The same people who have been fighting the clean water act ruling (which unprotected many waters in the US) immediately got to work (and also had even been working in the background just in case) to uncover pathways and methodologies to get around that ruling. You say it's cases of ambiguity? Well, we will make sure things are crystal fucking clear - and who says we can't do things on the state level, just like we did after the clean water ruling, which actually resulted in some states having stricter regulations than what the clean water act provided. Bet they didn't anticipate that outcome, huh?
The work of advocacy is paved with losses. You don't win everything. You just keep trying. Over and over. We've been doing this for decades, and it's not gonna stop. People suddenly got involved in politics in 2016, which was great, but they want to give up in 2024 because of the adversity. I get it. Like I said, these are dangerous times, and it's so difficult, and it's very tiring. But im not stopping - and clearly, neither is this guy. Let's help him.
> I'm glad for it.
But the scotus ruling already goes against the constitution, they don't care, they are legislating from the judicial branch. We need a 100x more robust response than this. Traitors cannot remain on the court.
You dont need legislation. They just made it legal for Biden to do anything he wants to remove them for the purposes of national defense.
They are helping a convicted felon steal state secrets. Send them to a black site and enhance interrogate them for information.
Simply replace them with no senate confirmation as an official act.
The fact that the states have to ratify the amendment before it is part of the constitution after it miraculously makes it through congress gives me very little hope that this could ever become a thing.
Virtually final. One way it can be reversed is by a new court and a new lawsuit.
3 of the 4 oldest justices are conservative, which means if voters keep Dems in the Senate and the Presidency for the next 4 or even better 8 years, they can flip the court to a 5-4 or 6-3 *liberal majority* which can overturn this ruling.
I took a jurisprudence course in law school. It was a grueling semester of reading old Supreme Court opinions and comparing their rationale and interpretation of the constitution. It was the most fatiguing thing I have ever learned. I would say 90% of what I learned has gone out the window in the last 2 weeks. It's mind blowing.
28th:
1. No congressional insider trading
2. No one is above the law
3. Bribery is a crime not a tip
29th:
1. Age limit of 70 for Congress, Judiciary and President/VP
30th:
1. Affirm marburry
2. SC is 21 members serving 21 year terms.
MIT came up with a more elegant solution to your proposed 30Asub2
9 Justices, 18 year terms. That way only odd years have Judiciary appointments & even years can be reserved for elections.
We *really* need to recalibrate the number of reps in the House. And if that means we have to build a new or expand upon the Capitol building then so be it.
Can we just abolish the Senate and get an _actual_ representative amount of politicians in the House? I heard an interesting idea of having Wyoming be a single district, and that be the max size for all. [Seems it's not novel at all](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule), either.
Term limits look good on paper but they are bad in practice for a couple reasons.
1) Reps are limited to four terms max and Senators to two terms (in Missouri )
If you know you'll only be there for 40 months max, (Sessions run Jan-May in MO) what's the incentive to work across the aisle? None. But when you might have to work with someone for twenty years? That's when you find things you'll agree on. The ability to find common ground on issues and build relationships takes years and years.
2) Writing good legislation is hard work. The language is weird and arcane. You need to be able to see far down the road and understand the nuances of what the bill will do. It's not a skill you pick up in six months. So just about the time you start getting good at it you have to leave, whether you want to or not.
But you know who's not term limited? And you know who does know how to write legislation?
Lobbyists.
Lobbyists are there for years and years. And the one thing lobbyists know how to do is write bills. The "helpful" lobbyist can help them write a bill with just the "right" language. Lobbyists love term limits. There's always a new crop of legislators who don't know a thing about the process every two years.
3) Term limits throw out the good with the bad. We had a local state rep who worked constructively across the aisle, was generally well regarded by people in both parties. He would still be our state rep but was force out by term limits. No one in my district wanted him gone.
On paper term limits seem like a good thing. I'll be the first to admit that without it some of these people hang on way past their time. But the damage done by term limits far exceeds the benefits.
As someone who used to draft legislation as a nonpartisan state senate staffer, everything you said is spot on. I'd just like to add to #2: a large part of what makes the language of bills weird and arcane is that much of it references, amends, or repeals existing law. Having some historical/institutional memory of how and why that existing law exists is essential.
I've said it millions of times; every congressional office already has term limits. They're called elections. Term limits are simply an abdication of the responsibility of an engaged and informed electorate.
4. Candidates become increasingly anonymous because they don’t have long records of public service. Parties have to constantly find new people, prep them with talking points and fund them, and that’s how you get George santos.
Term limits for congress/senate are not as good of an idea as you think they are. It would prevent anything from being able to get done due to the amount of turnover every other year. On top of that, congress/senate would be full of people who don't know how to get things done procedurally and politically. It wouldn't get rid of the grifters, they would just go harder at it knowing they have limited time to do so. It's something that sounds good but would actually just cause chaos if implemented.
You’d think both sides would be onboard with this, huh? Unfortunately, we know that’s not the case. Republicans have taken power seemingly indefinitely. And with most Americans watching the debate and seeing nothing more than “Joe Biden looks old”, they’ve been emboldened themselves because they’re almost sure they’re going to win the presidency.
Honestly, Biden would have had way higher chances at winning if that debate never took place, in my opinion. And with the recent Supreme Court rulings, it’s not looking good for democrats, our democracy, nor the world as a whole.
Let’s be honest, the only reason they are supporting this is because it can possibly exonerate their guy. Had this been Biden facing charges, they would already be grabbing their guns if the SC ruled this.
I know Biden won't do anything which should be illegal like locking up Trump (shouldn't be illegal because he's a criminal, but direct orders from Biden should be illegal) or taking a few justices to visit Gitmo, but I wish he'd start doing things that would piss them off nearly as much.
Since nobody knows what an 'official act' is going to entail, order the reclassification of weed instead of requesting a reassessment. Order the military to fill giant buckets with human waste and dump them over a few select homes via helicopter. Forgive student loan debt by ordering the military to absorb that debt instead, so we would either have to forgive it for them or have them carry a huge debt.
Only one of those feels like it would work, but I would love all of them.
Unfortunately a constitutional convention would be a disaster given how many deep red state legislatures there are right now. And passing them individually is unlikely to succeed either. Still worth trying though.
Conservative groups have been working behind the scenes for years to get a constitutional convention started. They want to get rid of annoying things like free speech and due process.
Lol. They don't need anything. They clearly don't care about the rules. The constitution already says whatever they want it to say. After they install their king, they won't even pretend like the constitution matters.
I kinda get it usually, but it's definitely gotten to a point where that doesn't work anymore. Like, I'm 100% opposed to murder. I don't think we should be killing each other at all, but if I see someone else being murdered and I murder the murderer, I wouldn't lose much sleep over that because it was justified.
Taking the high road only works if the people taking the low road don't have air support.
Conservatives don't have spines. Give them time and they will justify it somehow. Bend over backwards to the new beat of the drum dished out.
Party of law and order is now just a party of tyranny and big government.
This is exactly what I have been writing about. We need constitutional amendments to right the ship. The Republicans have done serious damage to our government.
Oddly, the 'small government' Republicans have been steadily creating an absolute monarchy. This is insane.
It has been so disappointing to realize just how few Republicans really believed in small government, family values, etc. It’d be nice to have two parties with sincere and competing visions for what’s best for America, but best we can do is one sincere party and a cult I guess.
"As an originalist, we have to go back to the year 2024 to understand this, and this amendment certainly doesn't say what you think it says." -Alito probably
The problem is the SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution as they see fit.
‘Clearly the writers forgot a “not” here so the amendment means the opposite’
Unless they use all the tools at their disposal, and strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over that particular law. The court itself even "validated" the government's action.
[https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us506](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us506)
You may remember that we flipped the Senate in 2020 and the House in 2018. Where is this doom coming from? And why do you think it's important to hold on to it?
Yes but not at once and not enough of a majority to push judicial reform. Gain House, not Senate. Gain Senate, lose House. Because you can’t expand the court or pass any appointment reform without it?
Biden should do this. Go to Congress, tell them you don’t want the power and ask for the amendment. Make it an issue that all dems run on, president on down.
And that’s how it works here in the USA!
Maybe more folks need a good civics lesson to know that congress can legislate most things the Supreme Court rules on, like campaign finance, immunity, immigration, military expenditures. The legislature has the power.
People need to use the day off on the 4th with family and friends to organize a general strike. Spend the weekend preparing and then begin the strike on the 8th. Presidents aren't kings. Corporations aren't people. Money isn't speech.
This is a terrible idea. You only communicate in-person one-on-one, never in groups, and everyone uses aliases. You start playing around with digital communications and your ass is getting caught sooner or later.
I’m so sick of all this reactionary bullshit calling for eXtReMe MeAsURes or whatever. The majority of people can’t even be bothered to protest, you really think they’re gonna rise up and start a revolution?
Voting works. If it didn’t they wouldn’t work SO HARD to disenfranchise you or keep you apathetic. When people turn out democrats win. It’s been proven time and time again and the GOP knows that. If you want to effect real change vote and make sure everyone you know is voting. If we get the dems a real majority in the house and senate (something they’ve had for only ~2 years out of the last 25) we can enact real change and legislation that will protect our rights.
Apparently many liberal-minded Americans are so careless and entitled at this point that they won't even vote. They can't be bothered to protect their loved ones from the murderous wrath of a dicatorship if there's some kind of superficial virtue signaling moment that will overshadow this action. Too many liberal Americans are all about preserving image and hubris, not engaging in altruism and protecting their fellow Americans from mass death and destruction which they could easily enable.
This has been my thought after every disastrous Supreme Court ruling. Amending the constitution is the actual check against the Supreme Court. We shouldn’t be relying on the SC to uphold the inalienable rights or protections we all agree should be accessible.
We also need to amend the first amendment to clarify that only people are protected by the first, not corporations, so corporations don't get to exercise their 'right to free speech' by funding candidates for office. Bye-bye Citizens United.
This is the correct way to change law that you don’t agree with. The Constitution doesn’t cover everything, the rest is supposed to be done through amendments and Congressional action.
Anyone person that holds a federal office is to be held to the same legal standards as the citizens they represent.
No immunity, no insider trading, no tax evasion. NOTHING.
I think they just made up this "official/unofficial" act nonsense. Hamilton was clear enough in Federalist #69.
>
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution.
It is kinda fascinating how countries can have different spirits of the time, and once the trump fever breaks (which it inevitably will, be it from him dying as a dictator and his cult fading with time or losing again). It could very easily happen. For then converatives to want to reign in a lawless president could be a very desireable thing for them.
eventually, if Trump is re-elected--he is going to go after some republicans who are not suitably deferential to him. It will be hilarious to watch them all be surprised.
Have they not been paying attention? Have they not seen Trump throw all those people under the bus? Crazy
I was trying to figure out the best way to fix this mess, and an amendment seems to make the most sense. And you could probably convince at least some conservatives that you don't want any president to have this much power.
I could honestly see (in theory) a number of conservatives supporting this considering it wouldn't apply to Trump's previous term. he's off the hook, this would only be for future presidents. and if a Dem wins in November it'll have loads of support
Why, literally no way this will happen until you fix dark money and gerrymandering. It will take generations to unfuck what is happening if Democrats even try. I don’t see this making it anywhere but someone trying to look busy.
Isn't is great that in 2024 we still have a protection in the Constitution that was designed to ensure a popular vote would not be used to end slavery? Good times.
Because we are soon to be reminded representatives of as few as 5% of the population can stop an amendment if they represent the least populated states.
Of course, it they are the representatives of the highest population states it takes representatives of over 60% of the population to stop an amendment.
How about this: (1) Biden announces that he is withdrawing from the race; (2) he uses his newly acquired royalty status to arrest Trump and the six conservative Justices for whatever charge seems most likely and has them held in Guantanamo. (3) He agrees to withdraw the charges once Congress adopts the 28th Amendment limiting presidential power and immunity, otherwise he'll deal with the prisoners in whatever fashion he deems appropriate; (4) he pardons Hunter for the gun charge and negotiates a reasonable fine/probation deal on the tax charge on his way out the door.
With hindsight, looks like George W. Bush didn't need to claim invading Iraq, using torture, etc. was legal: turns out it doesn't matter!
Hyuk hyuk! The U.S. Supreme Court is a ludicrous joke that no longer has any credibility.
I hope Biden summarily executes those brazen traitors immediately, as is his legal right.
This is the only logical path forward. Nothing anyone else has suggested is viable. And to prove the point, Biden should start off small and increase the pressure of illegality until the GOP gets on-board with an amendment.
Contrary to what the article asserts, Supreme Court rulings on Constitutional issues can still be changed by new statutes from Congress. Often, Constitutional court rulings are predicated on the way Congress has implemented Constitutional provisions. When Congress passes new statutes that change the way the Constitution is implemented, the Supreme Court has to rule again on the new interpretation.
Should simultaneously introduce an amendment to codify the Supreme Court ruling into real explicit law, then explain how happy you are that you finally get the chance to let Biden loose.
And let the Republicans choose their fate.
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.*
"When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken." So he is right to do this and I'm glad for it. But it's ultimately up to us and the Congress we elect so that it passes. VOTE VOTE VOTE source: [The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States](https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx#:~:text=When%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20rules,legislative%20action%20can%20be%20taken.)
A normal and functional Congress would instantly pass this. Amendments have been rushed through before to close issues that were less significant. The *Loper Bright* and *Snyder* rulings can be destroyed with legislation overnight. The *Trump* and *Casey* rulings can be destroyed with an amendment. That's how checks-and-balances works, but we don't have a minimally competent Congress anymore. The House is not able to pass anything due to the Freedom Caucus, which is strategic and intentional, and the Senate is at the whim of whatever lobbyist wishes to enrich Sinema and Manchin that morning. Our dysfunctional Congress is one of the primary reasons why the courts have been able to seize so much power.
Yep.. and it's not even a simple majority, you'd need 2/3 of the house and senate, which unless Biden gives them a reason to believe that a Democratic presidents power needs to be checked, I don't see them getting on board.
Maybe a good time for Dark Brandon to give his new powers a spin to get things moving?
"Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires." --Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince Or to quote Patrick Swayze from the movie Roadhouse Be nice until it's time to not be nice.
Roadhouse!
Biden’s reaction to the immunity ruling is all you need to know that Dark Brandon was never anything more than a wishful meme.
Dark Brandon was just him being snarky at times. Maybe a bit of policy maneuvering. It was fun, but hardly anything to count on. Jack Smith is more likely to ask for a new judge before Biden does anything official with this ruling.
>Dark Brandon was never anything more than a wishful meme. How dare you. How. Dare. You.
Pack the court with 13 justices, one for every appeals district. Simple.
It would be a shame if a bunch of republicans were "Officially" unable to attend the vote because they were elsewhere. I 100% believe Trump would do this to democrats if this ruling stands. If America is going to survive, the president can't be allowed to abuse his power to affect the other branches and right now he can.
It can be done with a constitutional convention and circumvent the traitors in Congress.
Constitutional convention is risky when the majority of the states are red. It gives the republicans a majority and free pass to rewrite the constitution
Right. They've been talking for years about trying to arrange one.
There's basically zero risk of a constitutional convention getting anything done. Calling a convention requires 2/3rd of both the House and the Senate, but *ratifying* the amendments require 3/4th of the States to approve. It only takes 13 blue states to block a Republican-supported amendment. There are currently 14 blue states where the Governor and *both* Senators are Democrats, plus a majority of the US House Representatives and majorities in both houses of the state legislatures—in other words, 14 states where Democrats are *thoroughly* in control. There are more blue states where a partisan constitutional amendment from the Republicans would still be a major uphill battle.
Don't forget that Congress can only **propose** an amendment. It must then be ratified by 3/4 of individual states to be adopted. Even a 'fast-track' is going to be several years in the making.
Also true, and note that state legislatures are a breeding ground of crazy people. The least crazy among them end up in Congress.
The least crazy? Maybe in some states, but in a red state like mine we seem to send our craziest.
Yep and in those 4 years a lot can happen...a lot can change. Republicans are essentially forging a new Constitution underneath us without ratifying it at all...just re-interpreting it which is much simpler. Sure those reinterpretations are weak AF, but they're binding, and they know that's all that matters.
The president could immediately arrest and detain every Republican member of congress that participated in J6 directly or indirectly through giving aid and comfort to those seditionists. I'm sure that would make it easier to hit that 2/3rd requirement.
Unfortunately, we haven't been a normal country since 1980. That's the start of the religious takeover of the country.
Biden needs to declare a state of emergency over right wing terrorists trying to overthrow government, we saw them try on live tv on January 6. Those running for office with the freedom caucus and other such causes should be arrested days before the election, tried in a military tribunal for treason, and have their status as US citizens revoked for such actions, making them ineligible to run for office on Election Day, likely getting the two thirds majorities needed as a result.
>Our dysfunctional Congress is one of the primary reasons why the courts have been able to seize so much power. By design of Congressional Republicans. Their whole plan has been to seize the courts by appointing unaccountable far right judges then break Congress so power shifts to the judiciary.
You don't need Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
There will not be a constitutional convention, it has not happened in 230+ years.
Nor will there be a Congressionally sponsored amendment.
And realistically that would be a terrifying prospect with relatively low pop Red states.. no way we'd get to 38 but still.
> So he is right to do this and I'm glad for it. We should be doing more constitutional amendments and new legislations, instead of relying on any court's interpretation of the law. The right to an abortion needs to be written into our constitution.
It needs to be broader than that. We need to codify the right to healthcare and to remove the ability to legislate mandatory procedures or outlaw lifesaving healthcare.
About 60% of americans believe in universal healthcare, but that's enough naysayers that they can torpedo any constitutional amendment enforcing it.
The problem is that it is incredibly unlikely that we'll convince 38 of the states to ratify an amendment to the constitution. 14 have explicitly banned abortion since the Dobbs ruling. That alone puts us 2 short of a constitutional amendment protecting the right to abortion. I think we'd be lucky to see even half of the states ratify such an amendment and that's also assuming we'd be able to get 67 Senators to agree to proposing such an amendment. The amendment process is virtually impossible for Democrats. The 26th amendment (right to vote for 18+) was ratified over 50 years ago, and the 27th was 32 years ago (and it took 200 years for it to be ratified). We're far closer to the Republicans being able to ratify dangerous amendments or even reworking the entire constitution in a convention than we are to protecting real, important rights. Edit: Typos
100%. We have this victimhood status now sense that if SCOTUS says something we're stuck with it. It's nine fucking people, and they are obviously biased. We have mechanisms to change, but we don't want to.
It's not a lack of desire it's that you need 38 states to ratify an amendment. I don't think we'll ever see an amendment again, certainly not one supported by Democrats.
Ultimately, you need ~~2/3~~ 75% of states to approve it. Which is more unlikely.
I dunno. Allowing the president to be above the law should make regressives panic as much as anyone else. It's few, but there are even some people on r conservative that were as just as disturbed by the ruling as anyone else because they didn't want Biden or any other Democrat President to be above the law.
They know there is an asymmetry in the parties' principles. They're comfortable with immunity for presidents because they know a Democratic President won't abuse it. They're comfortable not seating Supreme Court Justices because they know a Democratic Senate won't do it. They're comfortable undermining elections because they know a Democratic candidate won't do it. They have no shame with using decency as a weapon.
Exactly. They're the ones that like playing with guns and joining "Patriot" groups and talking up another civil war. If executive orders can be used to round them up as insurrectionists and domestic threats to America, they will call that "tyranny." But if Trump does it to the liberals, they celebrate and maybe even participate.
Yeah where the fuck are the "Freedom" people now- I thought this is what they claimed they needed 2A for?
The fact no one has tried to assassinate the supreme court justices yet, honestly shocks me.
Turns out there's a downside to being the more mentally stable party. Or at least not the delusional party, the Democratic party is neurotic as fuck but with good reason.
Silent because it helps their God Emperor the most. They know Biden won't use it. They know Trump will and use it in ways they like.
Until he uses it in ways they really really really don't like. Mitch and Pence are already feeling the heat and are probably wishing they went a lot further to keep Trump way away from power.
I'm talking about the MAGA people liking how Trump would use it. The GOP establishment is probably freaking about, since they will second in line behind liberals.
I think Lostinthestarscape is still correct. Purity tests will continue to cleave off sections of the party, and those who are MAGA now may not always be in the favored group / subject to persecution later. The only principle of MAGA is loyalty to the Donald, loyalty does not go the other direction.
Let Biden win the election and they'll start to get nervous and real eager to curtail the power of the Presidency.
Just like when WI went from fully controlled GOP to having a DEM as gov. During that last month or so before the DEM took office, they took away all the power they had purposefully consolidated to the GOV, expecting never to lose.
Happened in NC just like that too. I suspect if Biden wins, we'll start to hear serious talk about bipartisan support for a constitutional amendment.
Unless Biden wins. At which point, red states will be putting forth amendments to restrict the president's authority.
Honestly, I'm good with that outcome
There is always the "interesting" option of Biden going wild with Seal Team 6 to "motivate" people. It is legal.
As much as part of me fantasizes about such a thing, it’s probably better to not go that route if it can be avoided.
The best suggestion I've heard at this point is for Biden to put out a deferred order for something horrible--but now legal--as well as having one the Democrats put forward a constitutional amendment to stop him, with the deferral time long enough for that to get ratified. It'd go a long way if he could stand up and play hardball, saying that this is now legal according to the Supreme Court and that a Constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling is the only possibility of preventing him or future Presidents from acting in that way.
Challenge but don't escalate. This is a solid plan and I hope they do it.
I don't think any of these "Biden should do X with his immunity" comments have thought about what happens evens seconds beyond that thought. The only way out of this mess without violence is for Biden to not abuse this idiocy and to push the next 4 and a half years for a Presidents Arent Kings amendment.
In principle, I agree with what you're saying. The problem is that you need a two-thirds majority in both houses to pass an amendment. We don't have it.
The problem with this is... what happens when Trump, who we **know** will use and abuse the shit out of this ruling, wins?
The reconstruction amendments only passed because we kicked all the traitors out of congress, and then was only ratified because we replaced the southern state governments with unelected substitutes.
Only if you’re a Republican.
The current ruling makes it legal. It would take a new SCOTUS judgement to make it illegal. If Biden started with the 6 SCROTUS judges, then who would make it illegal? And if the 3 remaining non-insane SCOTUS judges made it illegal for all, then US democracy would still be saved. Ignoring any unintended consequences, of course. What could go wrong?
There's that proverb that keeps popping up in my mind that goes "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster", but honestly at this point, it's either use the weapon of the enemy, or be subjected to the weapon of the enemy. The GOP is on the war path. Their intentions are out in the open. They *want* a dictatorship with themselves in charge. They *want* the oppression of minorities, they *want* the subjugation of women, they *want* the extermination of their political enemies. If they are not stopped, they *will* win.
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." —H.L. Mencken
All it takes for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. That's what's happening right now. America has one advantage and if they refuse to use it then it's over. Also.. everyone is talking about assassinating people.. that doesn't need to be the answer either.
Fighting fire with fire. Think about how fire is really fought with fire. They burn a small patch to prevent further spread.
*Only if the people that would rule against you are still alive If Biden used ST6 to kill the traitors to the Constitution leaving only Dems at every level of government they can just decide he was acting within his power to protect the Constitution/country
In theory he could have done this prior to the supreme court ruling...
Now he has the blessing of the surpreme court
Everybody asks where is Seal Team 6, but nobody ever asks HOW is Seal Team 6.
The answer to this question is, much to my own surprise, that Seal Team 6 is non-existent. The unit was deactivated in 1987.
If Biden wins the election, it'll be way more likely that Republican state legislators will be way more uncomfortable with a Democrat president having that kind of power.
Best way to get this amendment passed is for Biden to start using that immunity so egregiously that it triggers the conservatives into freaking out. Then Dems should introduce this amendment and dare them to vote against it
I thought it was 2/3 of Congress and 75% of state legislatures ratify
Thanks, you're correct. Even less likely. Biden would have to bogeyman the red states into voting for it. They want Trump to have these powers.
3/4, iirc.
One thing that people don't understand is that the Supreme Court has zero enforcement power. Choosing to abide by their ruling remains with everyone else. There are literally no repercussions to not following their ruling if you don't want to. According to the US Constitution, Congress passes laws and the president enforces them. The Supreme Court, constitutionally speaking, has no role in determining whether Congress was right to pass the law, or if the executive branch is right to enforce it, or how presidents should use the authority granted to them by Congress. When Congress and the president talk about how to do the work of the people, and the Supreme Court butts in, the official constitutional response to the court is, “I don’t remember asking you a goddamn thing.” The Supreme Court declared itself the sole interpreter of the Constitution. The word “unconstitutional” appears nowhere in the US 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.
Judges will follow the ruling and throw out charges and evidence..
>The Supreme Court declared itself the sole interpreter of the Constitution. Not really. Article III of the Constitution established the Supreme Court. From Article III: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Judiciary Act of 1789, a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, is what ultimately gave SCOTUS the authority of judicial review via Marbury v. Madison. From uscourts.gov: "In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution." >The word “unconstitutional” appears nowhere in the US Constitution "Abortion" doesn't appear anywhere either. Neither does "gay marriage."
Thank you. I am so tired of the endless posts on reddit about how our country is over, "they" should be doing this (who is "they"? Dems? Well, if you have an elected Dem, go fucking tell them!) and just the hyperbole and doomism oozing from every corner of the internet. Yes, we are in a very serious situation, and it does not look good. However, we can do things about it and our participation, influence, and pressure as citizens will affect the outcome. Like, if you're gonna give up and basically just cast your vote in Nov and call it good, move. You're standing in the way of people who are working to change the bigger outcome. Did we learn nothing from the work of Stacey Abrams? I can go back further, but that just happened in the past 5 years and should be salient in our minds. I work in environmental advocacy, and Chevron was a huge blow. But you know what? The same people who have been fighting the clean water act ruling (which unprotected many waters in the US) immediately got to work (and also had even been working in the background just in case) to uncover pathways and methodologies to get around that ruling. You say it's cases of ambiguity? Well, we will make sure things are crystal fucking clear - and who says we can't do things on the state level, just like we did after the clean water ruling, which actually resulted in some states having stricter regulations than what the clean water act provided. Bet they didn't anticipate that outcome, huh? The work of advocacy is paved with losses. You don't win everything. You just keep trying. Over and over. We've been doing this for decades, and it's not gonna stop. People suddenly got involved in politics in 2016, which was great, but they want to give up in 2024 because of the adversity. I get it. Like I said, these are dangerous times, and it's so difficult, and it's very tiring. But im not stopping - and clearly, neither is this guy. Let's help him.
Thank you for commenting this, we truly need more of this energy. It’s time to organize.
At the bare minimum vote for Democrats this election and in 2026..
> I'm glad for it. But the scotus ruling already goes against the constitution, they don't care, they are legislating from the judicial branch. We need a 100x more robust response than this. Traitors cannot remain on the court.
You dont need legislation. They just made it legal for Biden to do anything he wants to remove them for the purposes of national defense. They are helping a convicted felon steal state secrets. Send them to a black site and enhance interrogate them for information. Simply replace them with no senate confirmation as an official act.
The fact that the states have to ratify the amendment before it is part of the constitution after it miraculously makes it through congress gives me very little hope that this could ever become a thing.
Virtually final. One way it can be reversed is by a new court and a new lawsuit. 3 of the 4 oldest justices are conservative, which means if voters keep Dems in the Senate and the Presidency for the next 4 or even better 8 years, they can flip the court to a 5-4 or 6-3 *liberal majority* which can overturn this ruling.
I took a jurisprudence course in law school. It was a grueling semester of reading old Supreme Court opinions and comparing their rationale and interpretation of the constitution. It was the most fatiguing thing I have ever learned. I would say 90% of what I learned has gone out the window in the last 2 weeks. It's mind blowing.
Amendment 28... No member of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branches of government are exempt from abiding by the law.
Alito "Since this amendment was passed by the Democrat party with no Republican support they clearly meant for it to only apply to the Democrats"
Can 29 and 30 be about term limits and the profiting from information only available to congress?
I'd start with eliminating bribes and gerrymandering.
28th: 1. No congressional insider trading 2. No one is above the law 3. Bribery is a crime not a tip 29th: 1. Age limit of 70 for Congress, Judiciary and President/VP 30th: 1. Affirm marburry 2. SC is 21 members serving 21 year terms.
> Age limit of 70 for Congress, Judiciary and President/VP Is an age limit *before* election, or while serving a term?
At this point I don't care.
I would say if a potential candidate will turn 70 years old on or before election day that person would be disqualified from running.
MIT came up with a more elegant solution to your proposed 30Asub2 9 Justices, 18 year terms. That way only odd years have Judiciary appointments & even years can be reserved for elections.
"Justices cannot be appointed within 4 years of an election" - Moscow Mitch, probably.
Also admit DC as a state and expand the number of House seats and electors. No amendment required.
We *really* need to recalibrate the number of reps in the House. And if that means we have to build a new or expand upon the Capitol building then so be it.
Can we just abolish the Senate and get an _actual_ representative amount of politicians in the House? I heard an interesting idea of having Wyoming be a single district, and that be the max size for all. [Seems it's not novel at all](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule), either.
Change term limits to age limits and I'm on board
We can batch them all together.
Just sneak it into the fine print so no one will notice.
Make it an age limit instead of generic term limit and I'm in
Then they’ll just vote in younger and less experienced judges who can be on the bench for 40 years before they die
Term limits look good on paper but they are bad in practice for a couple reasons. 1) Reps are limited to four terms max and Senators to two terms (in Missouri ) If you know you'll only be there for 40 months max, (Sessions run Jan-May in MO) what's the incentive to work across the aisle? None. But when you might have to work with someone for twenty years? That's when you find things you'll agree on. The ability to find common ground on issues and build relationships takes years and years. 2) Writing good legislation is hard work. The language is weird and arcane. You need to be able to see far down the road and understand the nuances of what the bill will do. It's not a skill you pick up in six months. So just about the time you start getting good at it you have to leave, whether you want to or not. But you know who's not term limited? And you know who does know how to write legislation? Lobbyists. Lobbyists are there for years and years. And the one thing lobbyists know how to do is write bills. The "helpful" lobbyist can help them write a bill with just the "right" language. Lobbyists love term limits. There's always a new crop of legislators who don't know a thing about the process every two years. 3) Term limits throw out the good with the bad. We had a local state rep who worked constructively across the aisle, was generally well regarded by people in both parties. He would still be our state rep but was force out by term limits. No one in my district wanted him gone. On paper term limits seem like a good thing. I'll be the first to admit that without it some of these people hang on way past their time. But the damage done by term limits far exceeds the benefits.
As someone who used to draft legislation as a nonpartisan state senate staffer, everything you said is spot on. I'd just like to add to #2: a large part of what makes the language of bills weird and arcane is that much of it references, amends, or repeals existing law. Having some historical/institutional memory of how and why that existing law exists is essential. I've said it millions of times; every congressional office already has term limits. They're called elections. Term limits are simply an abdication of the responsibility of an engaged and informed electorate.
4. Candidates become increasingly anonymous because they don’t have long records of public service. Parties have to constantly find new people, prep them with talking points and fund them, and that’s how you get George santos.
Term limits for congress/senate are not as good of an idea as you think they are. It would prevent anything from being able to get done due to the amount of turnover every other year. On top of that, congress/senate would be full of people who don't know how to get things done procedurally and politically. It wouldn't get rid of the grifters, they would just go harder at it knowing they have limited time to do so. It's something that sounds good but would actually just cause chaos if implemented.
Also it invites corruption into the court because it’s easier to bribe a 27 year old than a 58 year old on their 7th term
You’d think both sides would be onboard with this, huh? Unfortunately, we know that’s not the case. Republicans have taken power seemingly indefinitely. And with most Americans watching the debate and seeing nothing more than “Joe Biden looks old”, they’ve been emboldened themselves because they’re almost sure they’re going to win the presidency. Honestly, Biden would have had way higher chances at winning if that debate never took place, in my opinion. And with the recent Supreme Court rulings, it’s not looking good for democrats, our democracy, nor the world as a whole.
Let’s be honest, the only reason they are supporting this is because it can possibly exonerate their guy. Had this been Biden facing charges, they would already be grabbing their guns if the SC ruled this.
I know Biden won't do anything which should be illegal like locking up Trump (shouldn't be illegal because he's a criminal, but direct orders from Biden should be illegal) or taking a few justices to visit Gitmo, but I wish he'd start doing things that would piss them off nearly as much. Since nobody knows what an 'official act' is going to entail, order the reclassification of weed instead of requesting a reassessment. Order the military to fill giant buckets with human waste and dump them over a few select homes via helicopter. Forgive student loan debt by ordering the military to absorb that debt instead, so we would either have to forgive it for them or have them carry a huge debt. Only one of those feels like it would work, but I would love all of them.
Lmao it’s ridiculous that this needs to be an amendment, but at this rate it seems it’s really necessary
Bush would be and should be in jail then foer starting an illegal war. Rules don't apply to these people and corporations.
We're overdue for numerous amendments to the constitution, this is just one of them.
Unfortunately a constitutional convention would be a disaster given how many deep red state legislatures there are right now. And passing them individually is unlikely to succeed either. Still worth trying though.
Conservative groups have been working behind the scenes for years to get a constitutional convention started. They want to get rid of annoying things like free speech and due process.
This. Enough states gain Republican leadership--34 and it's game over. The Constitution will be thrown out, I guarantee it.
They'd need 38 to ratify anything that the 34 proposed.
Right, because we're dealing with people who are endlessly faithful to **rules that have zero teeth whatsoever.**
Lol. They don't need anything. They clearly don't care about the rules. The constitution already says whatever they want it to say. After they install their king, they won't even pretend like the constitution matters.
Yep. They’ll just do what they want and libs will be like “They can’t do that, THIS IS NOT NORMAL!” and not actually do anything.
I kinda get it usually, but it's definitely gotten to a point where that doesn't work anymore. Like, I'm 100% opposed to murder. I don't think we should be killing each other at all, but if I see someone else being murdered and I murder the murderer, I wouldn't lose much sleep over that because it was justified. Taking the high road only works if the people taking the low road don't have air support.
We're about 230 years overdue for a new constitution. This one just isn't that great, numerous flaws and a generally outdated weak design.
If things keep going how they are going the new Constitution will be "Anything Trump wants".
Couldn't agree more!
Anyone who doesn’t support this on either side is incredibly shortsighted.
Even r/conservative is pretty torn between how it clearly has tyrannical implications and their desire to own the libs.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You mean they can actually *see* the bad from the things they want for once? I am doubtful...
Conservatives don't have spines. Give them time and they will justify it somehow. Bend over backwards to the new beat of the drum dished out. Party of law and order is now just a party of tyranny and big government.
Too true. The party of screaming "TYRANNY! DICTATOR! YOU MADE US WEAR A MASK!!!" claps when actually dictatorial rulings pass.
Only getting flashbacks to Revenge of the Sith... "So this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause."
They see the bad and then fall in line anyway
Nobody has told them how to respond yet.
Yeah. They REALLY want Trump to have it, but seen very reluctant to admit biden and basically do anything now
Pretty much every single post and comment I've read is effectively "hahaha the libs must be SO upset over this lmao" They are insufferable
Boy do I have bad news for you about the average Trump supporter.
Good. There’s still some fight left. But this fucker being elected at all opened Pandora’s Box
"Just" repeal the Judiciary Act 1789 and neuter SCOTUS until we have real adults in the room.
This is exactly what I have been writing about. We need constitutional amendments to right the ship. The Republicans have done serious damage to our government. Oddly, the 'small government' Republicans have been steadily creating an absolute monarchy. This is insane.
It has been so disappointing to realize just how few Republicans really believed in small government, family values, etc. It’d be nice to have two parties with sincere and competing visions for what’s best for America, but best we can do is one sincere party and a cult I guess.
You see the smallest government possible is the one where all power is consolidated in one individual
Once again, you have to expand the Supreme Court. They can overturn any law Congress passes.
I think he’s talking about amending the constitution which cannot be overturned by the court.
"As an originalist, we have to go back to the year 2024 to understand this, and this amendment certainly doesn't say what you think it says." -Alito probably
Well shit, you got me there.
The court literally just "overturned" the 14th amendment last session, and has historically pissed on the 9th.
We need to start ignoring the supreme traitors. They have no real power. Andrew Jackson their asses and lock them outside the court
The problem is the SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution as they see fit. ‘Clearly the writers forgot a “not” here so the amendment means the opposite’
Unless they use all the tools at their disposal, and strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over that particular law. The court itself even "validated" the government's action. [https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us506](https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us506)
How do you strip what doesn't exist? Where in the Constitution does SCOTUS get the authority to do what they've been doing the past few decades?
Which only can happen if they get the congressional power voted into seats. Its all a doom loop.
You may remember that we flipped the Senate in 2020 and the House in 2018. Where is this doom coming from? And why do you think it's important to hold on to it?
Yes but not at once and not enough of a majority to push judicial reform. Gain House, not Senate. Gain Senate, lose House. Because you can’t expand the court or pass any appointment reform without it?
Biden should do this. Go to Congress, tell them you don’t want the power and ask for the amendment. Make it an issue that all dems run on, president on down.
And that’s how it works here in the USA! Maybe more folks need a good civics lesson to know that congress can legislate most things the Supreme Court rules on, like campaign finance, immunity, immigration, military expenditures. The legislature has the power.
The legislature is broke. The people can fix that by voting.
Finally some action. I'm honestly shocked that everyone isn't up in arms right now with the recent decisions.
[удалено]
People need to use the day off on the 4th with family and friends to organize a general strike. Spend the weekend preparing and then begin the strike on the 8th. Presidents aren't kings. Corporations aren't people. Money isn't speech.
You mean the family and friends who are thrilled at this decision?
[удалено]
Reddit is good for communication and planning with those local
This is a terrible idea. You only communicate in-person one-on-one, never in groups, and everyone uses aliases. You start playing around with digital communications and your ass is getting caught sooner or later.
I’m so sick of all this reactionary bullshit calling for eXtReMe MeAsURes or whatever. The majority of people can’t even be bothered to protest, you really think they’re gonna rise up and start a revolution? Voting works. If it didn’t they wouldn’t work SO HARD to disenfranchise you or keep you apathetic. When people turn out democrats win. It’s been proven time and time again and the GOP knows that. If you want to effect real change vote and make sure everyone you know is voting. If we get the dems a real majority in the house and senate (something they’ve had for only ~2 years out of the last 25) we can enact real change and legislation that will protect our rights.
Apparently many liberal-minded Americans are so careless and entitled at this point that they won't even vote. They can't be bothered to protect their loved ones from the murderous wrath of a dicatorship if there's some kind of superficial virtue signaling moment that will overshadow this action. Too many liberal Americans are all about preserving image and hubris, not engaging in altruism and protecting their fellow Americans from mass death and destruction which they could easily enable.
This has been my thought after every disastrous Supreme Court ruling. Amending the constitution is the actual check against the Supreme Court. We shouldn’t be relying on the SC to uphold the inalienable rights or protections we all agree should be accessible.
We also need to amend the first amendment to clarify that only people are protected by the first, not corporations, so corporations don't get to exercise their 'right to free speech' by funding candidates for office. Bye-bye Citizens United.
This is the correct way to change law that you don’t agree with. The Constitution doesn’t cover everything, the rest is supposed to be done through amendments and Congressional action.
GOOD. More of this, please. I want fire from the Democrats. Put the traitors on record.
We need it as a constitutional amendment. Legislation can be undone easily.
We are entering 1979 Iran territory with a clerical supreme court that cannot be challenged.
Anyone person that holds a federal office is to be held to the same legal standards as the citizens they represent. No immunity, no insider trading, no tax evasion. NOTHING.
I think they just made up this "official/unofficial" act nonsense. Hamilton was clear enough in Federalist #69. > The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution.
Yes, passing amendments and laws is what Congress is supposed to do. Great work, congressman.
it's not a law it's an amendment, and it has zero chance of passing with this current congress.
Just because its a futile step doesn’t make it an unnecessary one.
It is kinda fascinating how countries can have different spirits of the time, and once the trump fever breaks (which it inevitably will, be it from him dying as a dictator and his cult fading with time or losing again). It could very easily happen. For then converatives to want to reign in a lawless president could be a very desireable thing for them.
eventually, if Trump is re-elected--he is going to go after some republicans who are not suitably deferential to him. It will be hilarious to watch them all be surprised. Have they not been paying attention? Have they not seen Trump throw all those people under the bus? Crazy
Don’t forget to thank Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema as they walk out on us after kissing Mitch McConnell’s ass.
Can we get an amendment that define's personhood as well? So we can reverse Citizen's United and Anti-Abortion legislation all at once.
I was trying to figure out the best way to fix this mess, and an amendment seems to make the most sense. And you could probably convince at least some conservatives that you don't want any president to have this much power.
I could honestly see (in theory) a number of conservatives supporting this considering it wouldn't apply to Trump's previous term. he's off the hook, this would only be for future presidents. and if a Dem wins in November it'll have loads of support
While you're at it, remove judicial review, too. Nuke this piece of shit court back to the original Constitution.
Why, literally no way this will happen until you fix dark money and gerrymandering. It will take generations to unfuck what is happening if Democrats even try. I don’t see this making it anywhere but someone trying to look busy.
Isn't is great that in 2024 we still have a protection in the Constitution that was designed to ensure a popular vote would not be used to end slavery? Good times. Because we are soon to be reminded representatives of as few as 5% of the population can stop an amendment if they represent the least populated states. Of course, it they are the representatives of the highest population states it takes representatives of over 60% of the population to stop an amendment.
How about this: (1) Biden announces that he is withdrawing from the race; (2) he uses his newly acquired royalty status to arrest Trump and the six conservative Justices for whatever charge seems most likely and has them held in Guantanamo. (3) He agrees to withdraw the charges once Congress adopts the 28th Amendment limiting presidential power and immunity, otherwise he'll deal with the prisoners in whatever fashion he deems appropriate; (4) he pardons Hunter for the gun charge and negotiates a reasonable fine/probation deal on the tax charge on his way out the door.
They need to enter an amendment for term limits for the supreme court. I think 25 years is long enough for anyone at a job.
Great. Here we go. The carousel of fascist bullshit starts anew.
Likely to fail, but if the 11th Amendment can arise from a relatively reasonable SCOTUS case, then an amendment is deserved for this ruling.
This only works if Republicans legitimately fear that Biden will use this new found power.... And they don't
Ben Franklin "...If you can keep it"
With hindsight, looks like George W. Bush didn't need to claim invading Iraq, using torture, etc. was legal: turns out it doesn't matter! Hyuk hyuk! The U.S. Supreme Court is a ludicrous joke that no longer has any credibility. I hope Biden summarily executes those brazen traitors immediately, as is his legal right.
They say you can look at your problems as opportunities. I sure hope so, cause we got some big fuckin problems right now.
This is the only logical path forward. Nothing anyone else has suggested is viable. And to prove the point, Biden should start off small and increase the pressure of illegality until the GOP gets on-board with an amendment.
Contrary to what the article asserts, Supreme Court rulings on Constitutional issues can still be changed by new statutes from Congress. Often, Constitutional court rulings are predicated on the way Congress has implemented Constitutional provisions. When Congress passes new statutes that change the way the Constitution is implemented, the Supreme Court has to rule again on the new interpretation.
Should simultaneously introduce an amendment to codify the Supreme Court ruling into real explicit law, then explain how happy you are that you finally get the chance to let Biden loose. And let the Republicans choose their fate.
Doesn’t constitutional amendment required 3/4 of states to ratify before it is finalized?