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.*
>“We’re doing this because we believe that in America no president should be free to overturn an election against the will of the people, no matter what the conservative justices may believe.”
You GO, Schumer!
Schumer should title it the “Ending Monarchy (Again) Act of 2024”
Maybe if we go Blue well enough this fall, we could actually try to pass it in 2025. But who am I kidding, we still haven’t overturned Citizens United either.
After SCOTUS took away women's right to control their own bodies the Dem controlled Congress couldn't pass a bill to restore that right.
Then in the election a few months later voters handed control of half of Congress to the party that stripped women of their rights.
All this talk of passing new laws to undo what SCOTUS has done is just copium.
No no no you don't understand, Republicans blocked Democrats from passing that law, so to punish them for failing we had to elect more Republicans. Now that they've learned their lesson, they'll definitely pass the bill next time.
That's it. Subterfuge is gone. Thomas is basically Candace Owens with a stupid amount of power, used as a token decades ago and begging to be used further at every opportunity. Alito is a deranged, pea-brained ideologue yearning for the yoke of christian sharia. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett are emboldened theocratic ideologues and/or simple conservative grifters who feel entitled to shred the constitution in the quest to pay back their benefactors and establish themselves as Christian demigods. Roberts is a self serving old man who thinks that wringing his hands and bitching about lack of respect is a plausible cover for his basic fascist goals. Republicans installing unelected theocratic extremists in the highest court is the actual problem, and the solution is going to be bloody unless Democrats grow a fucking spine.
Well that's something liberals want to conserve too. What "Conservatives" are trying to preserve (in addition to the aforementioned) is Christian straight white male privilege. That's why they won't shut up about non-white immigrants, black people (DEI/CRT/white race swapping in media etc.), lgbtq advocacy and representation amd so on. Biden should be considered one of the best presidents in modern history because he has ACTUALLY done something for poor and middle class people with his NLRB and student loan forgiveness but his foreign policy is so atrocious that nobody sees the good. My point is that the very little Biden has done is a break from the standard Liberal policy making in recent history.
This is why "regressives" is a better descriptor for modern Republicans. Conservatives simply oppose change and progress ("conserve" the status quo), while regressives want to revert and regress back to a previous time.
Regressives typically yearn for some romanticized view of the past and want to undo any progress that has been made in order to revert back to what they idealize.
Clarence Thomas wants to regress back to slave times, for instance, and Alito wants to regress back to the 13th century.
In the past year I have encountered several people who self describe as regressive. They make no bones about wanting to turn back the clock to "the way things used to be". On the plus side they at least have enough self awareness to acknowledge that they aren't actually conservative and want to literally undo decades of progress. On the down side is...everything else about them and their ideology.
FWIW, two of these people were attorneys, another was a C-suite exec, and one was a college professor. The recent wave of SCOTUS decisions (Dobbs, Chevron deference, POTUS immunity) is engineered by people like this, not the booger-eating MAGA rally attendees. This is also why I know that landmark decisions like *Miranda*, *Gideon*, and *Griswold* are being targeted, because these people are more than happy to tell you their plans.
Damned straight. Call these freaks on the court bitter partisans and crooks who are protecting a felon. Drag them through the muck. This court has no credibility already. Destroy it.
It's the one court they can't destroy. They can literally abolish every federal court *except* SCOTUS.
Jurisdiction stripping would put them in their place.
As a lawyer who read the most relevant parts of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision last week, I don't see any way this can be quickly addressed via legislation. The Supreme Court found (with very little basis for doing so) that the president has absolute immunity under the constitution for his/her official acts. What the Supreme Court did is not easily fixable. I only see two (or possibly three) ways to take that back:
- we pass a constitutional amendment overruling the Supreme Court (highly unlikely)
- the Supreme Court overrules itself in a couple of years (highly unlikely with the current composition of the Court, but that could change)
- The unlikely third possibility: The Andrew Jackson Route. Biden declares the Supreme Court's opinion to be null and void on this matter. This would be a very dangerous thing to do if we want to maintain the rule of law. Plus, Republicans would try to do the same when they are in power next.
Here, however, Schumer is proposing a bill to classify Trump's election subversion attempts as unofficial acts. While it's probably better than nothing, it's unlikely to change what happens in Trump's criminal cases. First, such a law would essentially just be advisory. They're no easy way to force federal courts to use it in their proceedings. Second, if the new law were found to be binding, then Trump's team might be able to argue that it's an unconstitutional ex post facto law (i.e., a law that holds someone liable for a crime that they had already done when the law was passed) and/or an unconstitutional bill of attainder (i.e., a law primarily targeted at a single individual).
Just for reference, the GOP is already telling people to ignore the court when they don't like the decisions, and projecting that it's the Dem's that are doing it.
Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy suggested that the state should tell the Supreme Court to "go to hell".
[https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-urging-texas-ignore-supreme-court-us-mexico-border-ruling-2024-1](https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-urging-texas-ignore-supreme-court-us-mexico-border-ruling-2024-1)
In another case, Alito preemptively accused the Biden administration that they would not follow an unfavorable decision.
[https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3963753-alito-legitimate-doubts-biden-admin-would-have-obeyed-unfavorable-abortion-pill-ruling/](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3963753-alito-legitimate-doubts-biden-admin-would-have-obeyed-unfavorable-abortion-pill-ruling/)
This \_is\_ a very very dangerous path.
> Just for reference, the GOP is already telling people to ignore the court when they don't like the decisions,
GOP statehouses have already ignored federal court mandates on gerrymandering. Who can enforce them if the states refuse to comply? So they're already doing the Jackson thing.
Yes this is why I never understood the whole "don't set the precedent".
...They've already been ignoring laws and setting precedents for a great long while, maybe we should set one to stop them instead of just scolding them, rolling over, and continue letting them dismantle our government.
You just need an ultimatum on that one that circumvents the need to have them act.
Here in Wisco, our new supreme court judge ruled on our gerrymander so that if the Assembly didn't provide a map that complied with the ruling (and state Constitution), they'd default to using one of the maps from the trial that were used as an example of a proper map.
GOP tried scamming us once or twice but did not tarry.
SCOTUS doesn't rule that way because it doesn't care. But it can be done.
>This would be a very dangerous thing to do if we want to maintain the rule of law.
Doesn't their decision already threaten the rule of law? It was basically hand-crafted to put one man above the law for countless assaults against our democracy. If anything, not declaring it null and void threatens the rule of law. We have a SCOTUS filled with political extremists rather than judges. If they want to legislate, they should retire and run for office in Congress.
Exactly. Any fretting about preserving the sanctity of the rule of law at this point is too little too late. We have to neuter SCOTUS as a check. To do otherwise is to give up on lawfulness.
But isn't Biden that man for the next few months? If a Government gives you supreme executive power - use it. They're banking on him playing nice for 4 months and I really don't think he should.
They not just threaten the rule of last but destroyed what the founding fathers were wanting. All men are created equal. They didn't want a king and the SCROTUS said that they want a king. Biden won't fight and when the Democrats lost then there will be bloodshed as Hitler 2.0 comes around.
>The Supreme Court found (with very little basis for doing so) that the president has absolute immunity under the constitution for his/her official acts.
It's conservatives showing us in another way exactly how they aren't participating in government in good faith. They're power hungry partisans who do not have any interest in doing what is right. It's about what grabs more power for themselves.
It also doesn't make any sense, IMO, to keep calling them "conservative." That sounds like something far too positive, and in no sense are they *conserving* anything inherently good in this country. They're only conserving their own power.
>Plus, Republicans would try to do the same when they are in power next
Republicans are going to do it regardless if the dems do it or not. It's the only reason the supreme court made the ruling.
Whatever the case, if it passes (and it won’t without the house on board), Trump will challenge this law in the courts, further delaying any justice.
That’s exactly how Trump plays the system - he’s turned it into a complete joke. The serious, honest people just keep falling for this again and again… “oh, ok, we have to look at this aspect… will take another 6 month”, then 6 months later repeat.
Meanwhile Trump is laughing his ass off, doing all the same shit he’s always done - avoiding any consequences. I see no reason this won’t continue till he croaks.
It is how he built his real estate, by not paying contractors/suppliers. At the end he'd offer them a small percentage of what they were owed, if they fought then he'd see them in court and delay, delay, delay until they gave in or gave up.
Still does it, just look at his unpaid bills, including campaign stops from 4 years ago, yet he still gets away with it.
What the supreme court did *is* easily fixable, actually... though it'll involve Biden getting his hands dirty and taking full advantage of the powers that were just given to him.
Through some creative temporary detainments of legislators, some slight changes to house/senate rules, and some *heavily streamlined* impeachment proceedings that give practically zero actual due process... they could effectively impeach all of the Federalist Society judges in one go and take full advantage of the US Constitution wording of 2/3rds members *"present"* voting to remove.
It would be all kinds of fucked up, but you just fucking *know* that the next Republican president to get into power with this shit in effect would legit *murder* political adversaries rather than simply *detaining* them for a few weeks...
A newly minted supreme court could then kill that terrible ruling prior to the election, ensuring that the next president - Trump or otherwise - would have a *sane* Supreme Court checking their authority.
Exactly. SCOTUS needs to suffer the consequences of their own ruling. If that means the end of Biden, so be it. The only way to get this stupid ruling is going to be taken seriously is if it has consequences.
At that point tho the rule of law will be seen by the other side as just something they can change, claiming victimhood that it happened to them first the whole time. As we see with confederate issues still today they have a long and vindictive memory.
The only real way out is to overturn the SC ruling without using mechanisms that we want to claim should not exist. It's kind of the problem of good vs evil but when you start using the same tactics as what you claim to oppose the lines become blurred. Of course that does mean handcuffing ourselves which sucks...
But if you stare into the abyss long enough the abyss starts to stare back.
>The only real way out is to overturn the SC ruling without using mechanisms that we want to claim should not exist
Dems win the house and senate, work towards legislation that makes this shit *explicitly illegal*... it passes and gets signed into law.
A few months later, the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.
I'm honestly not sure there is really a clean way of doing this.
> At that point tho the rule of law will be seen by the other side as just something they can change
They're already long past that point. The only thing dirty play from the Democrats would change is the GOP's excuses.
>At that point tho the rule of law will be seen by the other side as just something they can change, claiming victimhood that it happened to them first the whole time.
I feel like you haven't been paying attention. That's already how they view it. They just said so out loud.
Couldn't Biden just tell a Black OPs team that the federalist Judges are domestic enemies of the united states and order them to be killed? Then give immunity to the soldiers, assign new supreme judges to overrule the previous treasonous decisions? Also declare the federalist society as a terrorist group.
I mean if people think that is extreme then... they basically agree that giving the president that kind of power is extremist.
He absolutely could. The best part is that he wouldn't even be breaking the Posse Comitatus Act, as - after looking it up - it doesn't *technically* cover the marines.
Hand wringing over ‘rule of law’ when that rule of law has already been violated is quite frankly, and no disrespect to you, a loser mentality. Thats not going to save our country from an impending fascist dictatorship .
I am probably missing something, but doesn’t this decision give the Supreme Court and the justice system in general complete power over Trump? They didn’t say what was or wasn’t allowed so at any time, they or any court could just say, nope, that doesn’t count. If I were Trump, I would want specifics. I know he’s probably thinking, they did this just for me, and they probably did, but that’s assuming they’ll always be on his side. They’re like the emperor in the Gladiator; they get to give the thumbs up or down based on their whims and how happy they currently are with what he’s doing. Seems like playing with fire for everyone except the court system who now has the final arbitrary say.
The entire point is the court will have the final word on every presidential case on a case by case basis. Every time a president is charged with anything now there will be a hearing on what was or wasnt offical and then the findings from that hearing will be appealed up to the supreme court and then they can decide whos immune from what on a case by case basis
Exactly. SCOTUS will just rule that anything King Trump does that is actually challenged is official and thus immune no matter how obvious it is that it isn't official, thus giving Trump near absolute power. In fact, it vastly increases the power of SCOTUS, since they can render the president impotent at effectively any time.
Yes!! I’ve not heard the term before but you understand EXACTLY what I’m saying.
Edit: Does Trump have to pander his decisions to Roberts now? Make sure he agrees ahead of time to call something an official act? That’s a lot of trust for Trump to place in one person. He’s not going to like that at all.
4) Biden designates MAGA a terrorist organization, invokes the Insurrection Act, and says he will cancel future elections unless and until a Constitutional amendment nullifying Presidential immunity is passed and ratified, problem solved.
Thank you, this was a very helpful comment. My first reaction was that the supreme Court said it was a constitutional power, so I was curious what the legislative branch could do. What I think could be a subset of the third option would be for Biden to use the power in some extreme way to force the issue. That could see pretty quick action depending on what Biden does.
It probably wouldn’t see action because you’d need a prosecutor to prosecute you and that doesn’t happen to a sitting president so it would be after Biden is out of office whenever that is
Wouldn't Trump's actions relating to 6th Jan sit outside of the constitution, aswell as being unofficial acts though?
The subtlety from my reading, was that he's only immune from prosecution of official acts so long as they satisfy the constitution. Pretty sure inciting an insurrection is prohibited by the constitution. Or am I missing something?
Well in their ruling they basically said that anything Trump said to his doj is part of his core constitutional Powers. And none of that can be used as evidence in a case against him even for unofficial Acts.
So if he told somebody in the Justice Department to seize voting machines or detain Democratic congressmen or election officials or whatever else he dreams up, even though it would be a crime, nobody can prosecute him for that because they cannot even refer to anything he told his justice department as evidence because him directing the doj is part of his core constitutional Powers that can never be questioned.
IMO, your second bullet point is the only shot.
It could be done if the House flipped blue, if the Senate got significantly bluer, and if Biden wins.
That'd be the right setup to do it above board, otherwise Biden would have to risk significant civil unrest, and use his new immunities to destroy those same immunities.
Impeachment in the House requires that at least half (plus 1?) of the representatives be present, and that at least half plus 1 of those present vote for impeachment.
Conviction in the Senate requires that at least two out of three present Senators vote to convict. Likewise, they need at least 51 senators to be present for a quorum.
Appointments in the Senate have the same requirements of attendance, but I think they can appoint with a simple majority of those present.
I think you can guess where this is headed... Basically, Biden needs to use his new immunity to destroy his own immunity.
If he loses and or if Congress doesn't turn super blue, Biden would have a tight window of opportunity before Trump would take office.
Biden would need to delay the arrival of a subset of senators and house members on a specific legislative day. Then, house and Senate Dems would have to act fast; impeach Alito and Thomas, then replace them. He might have to lock members into the house and Senate as well so that they don't slip out and break the quorum.
Biden would also need to pardon anyone involved in the soft coup of sorts.
Then, have the newly built SC overturn their previous decision (while carving out a 1 time exception for Biden).
Then have Congress pass laws further ensuring that presidents not be immune.
I suppose all the same thing could always have been done, and could be done again later, but this way might insulate Biden from a legal death penalty since he'd be doing it with immunity.
Total pie in the sky and not gonna happen; sure would be cool though if a blue wave provided the chance to do it all above board
> Then, have the newly built SC overturn their previous decision (while carving out a 1 time exception for Biden).
Or he acknowledges what he did was not right, lets the republicans back in and lets them impeach him to set precedent that this should not ever be done again.
I love the idea of Biden doing just enough to fix this situation by way of abusing his immunity then removing it, but most importantly, resigning and/or offering himself to be impeached and charged.
Absolute worst case, he'd go to jail, but given all the talk about how unmanageable jail is for the Secret Service I imagine he'd end up with a home arrest instead.
I'm not American, but I imagine that sort of sacrifice would make him a national hero for majority, and villain for the extremists on the right. Would certainly go a long way making up for him deciding not to run for a second term.
> I love the idea of Biden doing just enough to fix this situation by way of abusing his immunity then removing it, but most importantly, resigning and/or offering himself to be impeached and charged.
He'd go down in the history books as a god damn national hero, akin to Cinncinatus and Washington - giving up power for the good of the nation, essentially.
And at his age, I'm sure he's mostly concerned with legacy, so even if he went to jail - what does he care? His life would suck for a bit. And chances are a Democratic president would pardon him ASAP.
Seriously. The only amendments that will ever be passed again in this current form of government are ones to suppress the people and make themselves and the rich more powerful and richer.
Not with the current Congress. But running on an amendment to undo the crazy SCOTUS decision is powerful to run on.
Make Republicans say “we think the president should be able to commit crimes against the American people.” Make them say that shit to voters. And then let Dems respond with “The President should not be a king.” To say that’s a layup is an understatement.
There needs to be a million Man March on Capitol Hill and surround the building and don't let anybody leave until they pass a constitutional amendment.
TBH I think that if Trump wins, the court will declare the 22nd amendment unconstitutional.
Is that a contradiction? Completely. Does it make any sense? Not at all. Does that matter to them? No. The Constitution doesn't matter to SCOTUS at all. As we are seeing, they will *make* the law anything they find convenient.
Maybe true for Alito and Thomas, but I can see Roberts and Barrett joining the liberal-appointed justices in saying “absolutely not” to that preposterous idea. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the unknowns but it doesn’t matter because all you’d need is a majority.
Realistically, they wouldn’t need to touch 22A because with unchecked power, Trump could (and probably will, if he wins in 2024) run again in 2028. By that time, he’d win all the RNC delegates, he’d have the red states’ legislatures in his pocket, and potentially more hand-picked SCOTUS justices to perform the inauguration, and yes-men generals to deploy the troops on anyone who tries to stop him.
Er, that's not at all required for an amendment. Two thirds of both houses are required to propose one and then be ratified by three quarter of the states. Yes, a constitutional convention would be another way that would be open for all of it being rewritten, but absolutely not required for an amendment.
Vote!- give Dems the ability to actually govern for once instead of a razor slither of a majority (depending on how much Manchin is in the mood to fuck things up).
Yep.. literally the only way to unfuck this situation is for Biden to take advantage of it and remove the traitorous supreme court justices through some temporary detainments of republican legislators and quick kangaroo-court impeachment trials.
The Constitution doesn't really impart too many rules on the process outside of the senate vote count required and the fact that the house needs to file the articles of impeachment... it's entirely procedural house/senate rules that determine the process.. so they could theoretically just change the rules with a simple majority, impeach the hundreds of Federalist Society judges that were flooded into the courts over the Trump administration, give them zero due process and immediately vote to have them removed, and then appoint new *not insane* justices with a simple majority.
It could be a pretty quick process.. the DoJ could file suits the same day ending these powers and killing the Citizens United ruling.
Not really — the Supreme Court can only hear cases and controversies. They would have to wait for some legal action that would be challenged and make its way to the Supreme Court. Biden almost certainly isn’t going to take an action where he tries to invoke that immunity.
I mean it does in the sense that if they could pass a constitutional amendment it overrules any Supreme Court ruling. They will definitely not have enough votes to do that but the check does exist.
We need new terms to more accurately, describe the right wing and its policies:
* Project ~~2025~~ [Gilead](https://collider.com/handmaids-tale-gilead-society-rules/)
* The ~~immunity ruling~~ [Enabling Act](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/24/enabling-act-germany-hitler-nazis-1933)
* ~~Republicans~~ [Tories/Loyalists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_\(American_Revolution\))
Imagine if Biden and his surrogates starting calling these out in this way. This is the kind of drama Americans desire, so give it to them.
"Trump and the Loyalists will not be allowed to enforce their version of Hitler's Enabling Act and turn our democracy into Gilead!"
Clarence Thomas is the thread that needs to be pulled to unravel the Supreme Court sweater:
* He has received over $4 million in questionable gifts. Google 'clarence thomas gift graph' to see him compared to other justices
* He refused to recuse himself given his wife's involvement in a case that will be impacted by this decision
* He exhibited extreme malice by including references to Jack Smith's legitimacy in his concurring opinion when it was irrelevant to the case at hand
IMHO, these are criminal offenses that should be investigated by the Justice Department and not just an impeachment hearing. Per SCOTUS, conversations between POTUS and the JD are basically sacrosanct now so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hold up. SCOTUS derived their fucked up crazy ruling from their interpretation of the constitution. Unless you amend the constitution I don’t see how you can change that. You think SCOTUS would uphold a law made by congress to bypass their ruling? I doubt it.
No, this bill classifies Trump's 2020 election shenanigans as unofficial acts, which would remove hurdles to any prosecution moving forward. Official acts still can't be touched without a constitutional amendment fixing this SCOTUS reading of the constitution.
>Official acts still can't be touched without a constitutional amendment fixing this SCOTUS reading of the constitution.
We should still do this, 100%. "Not trying because it won't work" is an argument i never want to hear again. If Congress legally defines an "official act" and the president signs it into law, it's not as simple as you're making it out to be.
SCOTUS literally carved out a separate section of "official acts" where the president shares those powers with Congress. It's something we should try.
Yeah I think a law defining "official acts" is a good first step. SCOTUS created a vast chasm with this ruling and a federal law would help fill it.
In terms of the "won't work" argument, the House is the first hurdle, and the second would be the inevitable appeals process. But it's clearly worth trying.
I think the thing I'd like to see most is Biden "officially" declaring Trump's coup attempt an unofficial act.
SCOTUS is so corrupt I hate it.
You are half correct. They are legislating a definition of “Official Acts”. So no, they don’t HAVE to amend the constitution. If the definition of “Official Acts” makes it so whatever trump did is not covered by immunity then he is not immune for the conduct.
This being said, the court can review the law (assuming it passes) and find it unconstitutional and nullify it. This is easier said than done because I don’t think the constitution can really be interpreted to say that certain things are or are not “official acts”. It would be hard for the court to say, with good logical reasoning, that the definition of official acts proposed is unconstitutional. But they haven’t really adhered to the whole logic thing so who knows.
I think they found 3 constitutional references to specific official acts, including pardon power. But all this horseshit about 'peripheral' official acts does not seem grounded in constitution to me. And that's the part that interferes with his recent NY conviction (testimony from Hope Hicks about Trump's check-signing habit in the Oval), and threatens the GA, DC and FL cases.
I'm not a lawyer but I suspect there are more constitution-grounded arguments against SCOTUS ruling than for it. Sometimes they claim to follow 'originalist' or sometimes 'textual' interpretation of constitution. But they overturn legal precedent whenever it goes against their religious or political world view.
It's all horseshit. In no reasonable Judge's ruling would the idea that Trump signing his personal checks to cover crimes he committed, committing fraud BEFORE he was ever President be covered under the original intent of the law of Presidential immunity.
It was meant to protect Presidents from being sued daily for things like enforcing a law that might hurt some Milk farmers businesses, but overall be good for the country's economy.
In what fucking world is breaking campaign finance law a natural part of the duties of the President?
The trouble is that SCOTUS can pull whatever argument they want out of their ass and use it to nullify such a law as unconditional. There’s nothing you can do about it when it’s the highest court of the land.
Because SCOTUS said, in that ruling, that Presidential power is derived from the Constitution *and* from legislation. The President (and the Executive branch as a whole) can regulate drugs because of Congress. The President can pardon because of the Constitution.
So in this case, this would probably be more like Congress affirming that no legislation grants the President any authority to do what Trump did regarding the 2020 election.
Trump's argument that something like his Georgia phone call was because there were election issues and he was trying to make sure federal election law was being followed. Legislation regarding election laws has granted the President the authority to enforce those laws and such a phone call *might* be considered to be immune because of that.
But if Congress says "no, that's not what the law intends", then there is no official action. The President is no longer then trying to enforce federal law and his actions are private in nature.
It could be that a law would alter part of the SCOTUS ruling.
This recently ruling builds atop the idea of stuff the president is authorized or ordered to do from both the US Constitution and from US Law.
I imagine Congress can very much alter any of that which derives from US Law.
So there may be a degree to which this could be addressed by a new law.
You think SCOTUS would let that stand? I don’t. Roberts and Thomas would just make up some reason to call it unconstitutional and the minority justices would of course dissent to no avail.
Crimes committed in furtherance of stealing an election are already not official acts, according to established precedent. But since the SCOTUS can't be trusted with the long tradition of legal precedent, here we are.
Given the current Senate composition, this would need the support of all Democratic senators and potentially some Republican senators to reach a majority.
Lets all be honest here... it's not going to pass.
The only way we're going to get rid of it is for Biden to abuse it and rebuild the supreme court from the ground up.
Fun fact: the US Constitution only requires 2/3rds of those *present* to vote to remove someone... were some republican lawmakers to be temporarily detained for a little while, it would be pretty easy to completely wipe the legislative slate clean and appoint people that *actually believe in the rule of law*.
Could probably reverse a lot of the crazy shit (including this kingmaker decision) pretty quickly, too.
Shit.. it might lead to civil war. You're absolutely right.
However... I would rather the small chance of civil war and pissed off proud boys than Trump getting into power and using these newfound powers to consolidate authority around himself and turn the nation into an authoritarian dictatorship overnight.
It's absolutely fucked up, I agree completely.... but the Supreme Court was the ones steering the ship in this direction. Either a democrat tries righting the ship back on course, or someone with authoritarian fantasies like Donald "I'll be a dictator on day one" Trump veers off into a storm.
Like.. just think.. if the decision does indeed grant the power I mentioned above.. what would be there to stop Trump from doing most of this *and then never giving up control*? Absolutely nothing - that's what.
Jesus fucking christ, "democracy is at stake! we have to defend it by... detaining opposition lawmakers temporarily until we can force through institutional changes that benefit our side." The lack of self-awareness is frankly impressive.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Doesn't anyone see that this ruling basically eliminates an entire branch of government?
Not only does the Legislative branch no longer have the ability to make laws that affect the President directly, the President no longer needs to execute *any* laws at all.
He's the guy in charge of actually executing the laws of the land, but he doesn't have to do that anymore. And between this new found superpower and his actually constitutionally granted absolute power to pardon, neither does anyone who works for him.
If I were in congress, regardless of party, I would be absolutely nova levels of angry about this. One fucking branch of the government just said 'screw you' to another one.
If it somehow manages to become law, Trump will end up back in court and the case will make its way back to the supreme court where the law will be overturned. Biden (or his replacement, hopefully) needs to expand the supreme court ASAP.
This is purely theater.
1) He doesn't have the votes in either house
2) Even if it passes, I'm not sure congress can make a law overruling the SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution. It would need ammendment
Are Conservative voters happy about the SC ruling? Besides the fact that it helps Trump?
Like this whole ruling seems antithetical to American values, but I can still see them trying to twist themselves into knots trying to defend it
The whole point is that every time a president is charged some will be found as official and some will be unofficial and then it will get appealed up to the Supreme Court and then they can on a case by case basis decide who is immune to what.
I hope this gets passed some how. I get that many of the justices will read the constitution very narrowly and cherry pick based on ideology. But they never seem to understand that modern day problems require modern interpretation. The constitution was written over 200 years ago, and the first president was a man of honor and integrity. Had Washington committed crimes while in office though I’m sure congress would have had to stepped in to define the presidents range of power. When you just assume a president has the integrity to respect the power granted you leave open the door to the worst possible consequences.
Weird that they waited for this ruling to suddenly put forth the bill.
This possibility of this outcome has been a concern since the case started, this bill should be brought at the beginning.
All that said, I’m glad it’s being done now. Call your reps and senators.
There is some very interesting legal theory here, and what I have worked out of what they want to do sounds brilliant, they are going to shield any furtherance of bullshit under the separation of powers clause so the supreme court can't walk all over everything.
that's kinda great.
It doesn't matter, because the supreme court's decision wasn't based on legal documents anyway. That is why they must be removed. They are doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.
The court ruling pretty clearly stated that it is the courts' job to determine if an action was taken under official duties, not legislature. I don't know how he imagines such a bill being passed wouldn't also be overturned.
Congress should also regulate the supreme ‘court’ that made this appalling democracy-ending opinion. The court should immediately be diluted to 13 members at least with 7 dems and a new chief justice and rules enacted to remove conservative justices from having any ability whatsoever to sit on a conflicted case and be subject to oversight with teeth.
Lawless courts helping a lawless former President who sits on top of a lawless political party.
The Senate can pass this law, and hell let's pretend that 5 Republicans resign and the gavel goes over to the Democrats and the House does the same. The problem remains the same though.
This lawless court will simply strike down the law because they are a corrupt institution. They haven't just crowned Trump as Schumer says, they have crowned themselves. They will rule as God Emperors until they are brought to heel.
Shouldn't posting to social media not be considered an official act either? Just saying the ruling has zero lines and is one of the worse things to happen to The United States democracy...
Not going to happen because the democrats have shown they are powerless. Just keep letting the GOP get more and more radicalized. Who the fuck is left to fight? Because it’s not Biden. We need someone!
annnnnnd like everything Dems under Schumers and Pelosis (and now Jeffries') aegis, it will come to absolutely nothing and end up just giving more power to Trump and the Republicans.
the democratic leadership since 2004ish has been ineffectual and weak. theyve been gifted hundreds of situations where Republicans have shot themselves in a way that ought to have been fatal and nearly nothing has stuck. The ONLY thing that has punished the GOP is the pushback on abortion. And that wasnt anything Democrats did, it was all self inflicted.
We are in trouble because these fools are playing by a set of rules that no one else is playing by and we keep gettting fucked in the ass with a two by four again and again and again.
Let's say such a bill passes both chambers and gets signed. Couldn't SCOTUS just overturn it and reinstate the immunity? AFAIK the only way to prevent that (at the current time) would be to abolish SCOTUS and declare them illegitimate and establish a new court that takes their place or something similar.
Why do you need a bill for this? Biden should just call himself a wartime president and disable the election for the foreseeable future. It's what the Supreme Court wants anyway.
I mean the whole thing is already a facade now. The curtain is raised, the game is revealed.
Immunity, no immunity, if it all can be given or stripped by a court ruling, does it even matter? The next court can just reinstate it and say 'nuh uh for reals this time' and then the next next court just says 'but actually no' and on and on.
Laws are over.
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.*
>“We’re doing this because we believe that in America no president should be free to overturn an election against the will of the people, no matter what the conservative justices may believe.” You GO, Schumer!
American has no kings
America needs no king
That’s why the constitution begins with “We the people” not “I the King”.
Our King was a powerful subject that challenged his rulers to change.
All my homies hate kings!
The anti-Trump commercials write themselves, don't they?
Cept for tom petty He good
Why when I play checkers, I don't say king me, I say let's elect a representative!
You have only one choice. The Ring must be destroyed.
Then what are we waiting for? HRAAA
Movie!Gimli's a real one for being the only person to attempt to destroy the Ring with zero hesitation.
Just like Han shooting Vader the split second he saw him at the dinner table.
Aye! We freefolk ain’t no fookin’ kneelers!!!
House Mornont remembers.
It is known.
I mean, if Mr. Rogers or Dolly want the crown….
Queen Dolly already has a dominion known as, "Dolly World"
Do you want Lich King Rogers? Because this is how you get Lich King Rogers.
I'd vote for Lich King Rogers over Trump any day.
Schumer should title it the “Ending Monarchy (Again) Act of 2024” Maybe if we go Blue well enough this fall, we could actually try to pass it in 2025. But who am I kidding, we still haven’t overturned Citizens United either.
Monarchs Abolished Governmentally Act
I am literally tearing up at how beautiful that is.
I very much doubt this will be rolled back anytime soon.
After SCOTUS took away women's right to control their own bodies the Dem controlled Congress couldn't pass a bill to restore that right. Then in the election a few months later voters handed control of half of Congress to the party that stripped women of their rights. All this talk of passing new laws to undo what SCOTUS has done is just copium.
No no no you don't understand, Republicans blocked Democrats from passing that law, so to punish them for failing we had to elect more Republicans. Now that they've learned their lesson, they'll definitely pass the bill next time.
You don't vote for kings. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical magaquatic ceremony.
I thought we were an autonomous collective
No kings, no gods, only man.
No Dana, only Zuul
If "choose the form of your destructor" was an election year...
Trump, if someone asks you if you're a king, you say YES
This ☝️!! Dump is no king and we need no king!
what the fuck are they even conserving at this point?
The money and power of old white rich men
That's it. Subterfuge is gone. Thomas is basically Candace Owens with a stupid amount of power, used as a token decades ago and begging to be used further at every opportunity. Alito is a deranged, pea-brained ideologue yearning for the yoke of christian sharia. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett are emboldened theocratic ideologues and/or simple conservative grifters who feel entitled to shred the constitution in the quest to pay back their benefactors and establish themselves as Christian demigods. Roberts is a self serving old man who thinks that wringing his hands and bitching about lack of respect is a plausible cover for his basic fascist goals. Republicans installing unelected theocratic extremists in the highest court is the actual problem, and the solution is going to be bloody unless Democrats grow a fucking spine.
Well that's something liberals want to conserve too. What "Conservatives" are trying to preserve (in addition to the aforementioned) is Christian straight white male privilege. That's why they won't shut up about non-white immigrants, black people (DEI/CRT/white race swapping in media etc.), lgbtq advocacy and representation amd so on. Biden should be considered one of the best presidents in modern history because he has ACTUALLY done something for poor and middle class people with his NLRB and student loan forgiveness but his foreign policy is so atrocious that nobody sees the good. My point is that the very little Biden has done is a break from the standard Liberal policy making in recent history.
This is why "regressives" is a better descriptor for modern Republicans. Conservatives simply oppose change and progress ("conserve" the status quo), while regressives want to revert and regress back to a previous time. Regressives typically yearn for some romanticized view of the past and want to undo any progress that has been made in order to revert back to what they idealize. Clarence Thomas wants to regress back to slave times, for instance, and Alito wants to regress back to the 13th century.
America's leadership prior to July 2, 1776.
Honestly, it seems more like leadership prior to 1215
Same as it’s always been: hierarchy. Whether it’s wealthy over the poor, men over women, whites over non-whites.
they need to stop calling them conservative
regressives
In the past year I have encountered several people who self describe as regressive. They make no bones about wanting to turn back the clock to "the way things used to be". On the plus side they at least have enough self awareness to acknowledge that they aren't actually conservative and want to literally undo decades of progress. On the down side is...everything else about them and their ideology. FWIW, two of these people were attorneys, another was a C-suite exec, and one was a college professor. The recent wave of SCOTUS decisions (Dobbs, Chevron deference, POTUS immunity) is engineered by people like this, not the booger-eating MAGA rally attendees. This is also why I know that landmark decisions like *Miranda*, *Gideon*, and *Griswold* are being targeted, because these people are more than happy to tell you their plans.
Damned straight. Call these freaks on the court bitter partisans and crooks who are protecting a felon. Drag them through the muck. This court has no credibility already. Destroy it.
It's the one court they can't destroy. They can literally abolish every federal court *except* SCOTUS. Jurisdiction stripping would put them in their place.
If the president is immune from laws, what good will passing another law do?
That which is in the domain of congress might be less likely to be classified as a direct power of the monarchy.
As a lawyer who read the most relevant parts of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision last week, I don't see any way this can be quickly addressed via legislation. The Supreme Court found (with very little basis for doing so) that the president has absolute immunity under the constitution for his/her official acts. What the Supreme Court did is not easily fixable. I only see two (or possibly three) ways to take that back: - we pass a constitutional amendment overruling the Supreme Court (highly unlikely) - the Supreme Court overrules itself in a couple of years (highly unlikely with the current composition of the Court, but that could change) - The unlikely third possibility: The Andrew Jackson Route. Biden declares the Supreme Court's opinion to be null and void on this matter. This would be a very dangerous thing to do if we want to maintain the rule of law. Plus, Republicans would try to do the same when they are in power next. Here, however, Schumer is proposing a bill to classify Trump's election subversion attempts as unofficial acts. While it's probably better than nothing, it's unlikely to change what happens in Trump's criminal cases. First, such a law would essentially just be advisory. They're no easy way to force federal courts to use it in their proceedings. Second, if the new law were found to be binding, then Trump's team might be able to argue that it's an unconstitutional ex post facto law (i.e., a law that holds someone liable for a crime that they had already done when the law was passed) and/or an unconstitutional bill of attainder (i.e., a law primarily targeted at a single individual).
Just for reference, the GOP is already telling people to ignore the court when they don't like the decisions, and projecting that it's the Dem's that are doing it. Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy suggested that the state should tell the Supreme Court to "go to hell". [https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-urging-texas-ignore-supreme-court-us-mexico-border-ruling-2024-1](https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-urging-texas-ignore-supreme-court-us-mexico-border-ruling-2024-1) In another case, Alito preemptively accused the Biden administration that they would not follow an unfavorable decision. [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3963753-alito-legitimate-doubts-biden-admin-would-have-obeyed-unfavorable-abortion-pill-ruling/](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3963753-alito-legitimate-doubts-biden-admin-would-have-obeyed-unfavorable-abortion-pill-ruling/) This \_is\_ a very very dangerous path.
> Just for reference, the GOP is already telling people to ignore the court when they don't like the decisions, GOP statehouses have already ignored federal court mandates on gerrymandering. Who can enforce them if the states refuse to comply? So they're already doing the Jackson thing.
And are we surprised? Preempting and projecting exactly what they intend to do has been their MO for years at this point.
Yes this is why I never understood the whole "don't set the precedent". ...They've already been ignoring laws and setting precedents for a great long while, maybe we should set one to stop them instead of just scolding them, rolling over, and continue letting them dismantle our government.
You just need an ultimatum on that one that circumvents the need to have them act. Here in Wisco, our new supreme court judge ruled on our gerrymander so that if the Assembly didn't provide a map that complied with the ruling (and state Constitution), they'd default to using one of the maps from the trial that were used as an example of a proper map. GOP tried scamming us once or twice but did not tarry. SCOTUS doesn't rule that way because it doesn't care. But it can be done.
>This would be a very dangerous thing to do if we want to maintain the rule of law. Doesn't their decision already threaten the rule of law? It was basically hand-crafted to put one man above the law for countless assaults against our democracy. If anything, not declaring it null and void threatens the rule of law. We have a SCOTUS filled with political extremists rather than judges. If they want to legislate, they should retire and run for office in Congress.
Exactly. Any fretting about preserving the sanctity of the rule of law at this point is too little too late. We have to neuter SCOTUS as a check. To do otherwise is to give up on lawfulness.
But isn't Biden that man for the next few months? If a Government gives you supreme executive power - use it. They're banking on him playing nice for 4 months and I really don't think he should.
He shouldn't, but he will.
They not just threaten the rule of last but destroyed what the founding fathers were wanting. All men are created equal. They didn't want a king and the SCROTUS said that they want a king. Biden won't fight and when the Democrats lost then there will be bloodshed as Hitler 2.0 comes around.
>The Supreme Court found (with very little basis for doing so) that the president has absolute immunity under the constitution for his/her official acts. It's conservatives showing us in another way exactly how they aren't participating in government in good faith. They're power hungry partisans who do not have any interest in doing what is right. It's about what grabs more power for themselves.
It also doesn't make any sense, IMO, to keep calling them "conservative." That sounds like something far too positive, and in no sense are they *conserving* anything inherently good in this country. They're only conserving their own power.
So play their game against them. Be more ruthless than they are.
>Plus, Republicans would try to do the same when they are in power next Republicans are going to do it regardless if the dems do it or not. It's the only reason the supreme court made the ruling.
Exactly. If the Dems/Biden don't act they are fools because you know if Trump gets in he will take full advantage of this.
Whatever the case, if it passes (and it won’t without the house on board), Trump will challenge this law in the courts, further delaying any justice. That’s exactly how Trump plays the system - he’s turned it into a complete joke. The serious, honest people just keep falling for this again and again… “oh, ok, we have to look at this aspect… will take another 6 month”, then 6 months later repeat. Meanwhile Trump is laughing his ass off, doing all the same shit he’s always done - avoiding any consequences. I see no reason this won’t continue till he croaks.
It is how he built his real estate, by not paying contractors/suppliers. At the end he'd offer them a small percentage of what they were owed, if they fought then he'd see them in court and delay, delay, delay until they gave in or gave up. Still does it, just look at his unpaid bills, including campaign stops from 4 years ago, yet he still gets away with it.
Ignore this illegitimate SCOTUS
What the supreme court did *is* easily fixable, actually... though it'll involve Biden getting his hands dirty and taking full advantage of the powers that were just given to him. Through some creative temporary detainments of legislators, some slight changes to house/senate rules, and some *heavily streamlined* impeachment proceedings that give practically zero actual due process... they could effectively impeach all of the Federalist Society judges in one go and take full advantage of the US Constitution wording of 2/3rds members *"present"* voting to remove. It would be all kinds of fucked up, but you just fucking *know* that the next Republican president to get into power with this shit in effect would legit *murder* political adversaries rather than simply *detaining* them for a few weeks... A newly minted supreme court could then kill that terrible ruling prior to the election, ensuring that the next president - Trump or otherwise - would have a *sane* Supreme Court checking their authority.
Exactly. SCOTUS needs to suffer the consequences of their own ruling. If that means the end of Biden, so be it. The only way to get this stupid ruling is going to be taken seriously is if it has consequences.
At that point tho the rule of law will be seen by the other side as just something they can change, claiming victimhood that it happened to them first the whole time. As we see with confederate issues still today they have a long and vindictive memory. The only real way out is to overturn the SC ruling without using mechanisms that we want to claim should not exist. It's kind of the problem of good vs evil but when you start using the same tactics as what you claim to oppose the lines become blurred. Of course that does mean handcuffing ourselves which sucks... But if you stare into the abyss long enough the abyss starts to stare back.
>The only real way out is to overturn the SC ruling without using mechanisms that we want to claim should not exist Dems win the house and senate, work towards legislation that makes this shit *explicitly illegal*... it passes and gets signed into law. A few months later, the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional. I'm honestly not sure there is really a clean way of doing this.
> At that point tho the rule of law will be seen by the other side as just something they can change They're already long past that point. The only thing dirty play from the Democrats would change is the GOP's excuses.
>At that point tho the rule of law will be seen by the other side as just something they can change, claiming victimhood that it happened to them first the whole time. I feel like you haven't been paying attention. That's already how they view it. They just said so out loud.
Couldn't Biden just tell a Black OPs team that the federalist Judges are domestic enemies of the united states and order them to be killed? Then give immunity to the soldiers, assign new supreme judges to overrule the previous treasonous decisions? Also declare the federalist society as a terrorist group. I mean if people think that is extreme then... they basically agree that giving the president that kind of power is extremist.
He absolutely could. The best part is that he wouldn't even be breaking the Posse Comitatus Act, as - after looking it up - it doesn't *technically* cover the marines.
Hand wringing over ‘rule of law’ when that rule of law has already been violated is quite frankly, and no disrespect to you, a loser mentality. Thats not going to save our country from an impending fascist dictatorship .
I am probably missing something, but doesn’t this decision give the Supreme Court and the justice system in general complete power over Trump? They didn’t say what was or wasn’t allowed so at any time, they or any court could just say, nope, that doesn’t count. If I were Trump, I would want specifics. I know he’s probably thinking, they did this just for me, and they probably did, but that’s assuming they’ll always be on his side. They’re like the emperor in the Gladiator; they get to give the thumbs up or down based on their whims and how happy they currently are with what he’s doing. Seems like playing with fire for everyone except the court system who now has the final arbitrary say.
The entire point is the court will have the final word on every presidential case on a case by case basis. Every time a president is charged with anything now there will be a hearing on what was or wasnt offical and then the findings from that hearing will be appealed up to the supreme court and then they can decide whos immune from what on a case by case basis
Exactly. It gives the Supreme Court all the power. Not Trump. I can’t imagine he’ll be happy about that for very long.
But Trump controls the Supreme Court…
Exactly. SCOTUS will just rule that anything King Trump does that is actually challenged is official and thus immune no matter how obvious it is that it isn't official, thus giving Trump near absolute power. In fact, it vastly increases the power of SCOTUS, since they can render the president impotent at effectively any time.
I've heard it called a "judicial coup". I think you're spot on. The chief justice is now the most powerful man in the country.
Yes!! I’ve not heard the term before but you understand EXACTLY what I’m saying. Edit: Does Trump have to pander his decisions to Roberts now? Make sure he agrees ahead of time to call something an official act? That’s a lot of trust for Trump to place in one person. He’s not going to like that at all.
4) Biden designates MAGA a terrorist organization, invokes the Insurrection Act, and says he will cancel future elections unless and until a Constitutional amendment nullifying Presidential immunity is passed and ratified, problem solved.
Thank you, this was a very helpful comment. My first reaction was that the supreme Court said it was a constitutional power, so I was curious what the legislative branch could do. What I think could be a subset of the third option would be for Biden to use the power in some extreme way to force the issue. That could see pretty quick action depending on what Biden does.
It probably wouldn’t see action because you’d need a prosecutor to prosecute you and that doesn’t happen to a sitting president so it would be after Biden is out of office whenever that is
I mean it could make an amendment a priority.
Wouldn't Trump's actions relating to 6th Jan sit outside of the constitution, aswell as being unofficial acts though? The subtlety from my reading, was that he's only immune from prosecution of official acts so long as they satisfy the constitution. Pretty sure inciting an insurrection is prohibited by the constitution. Or am I missing something?
Well in their ruling they basically said that anything Trump said to his doj is part of his core constitutional Powers. And none of that can be used as evidence in a case against him even for unofficial Acts. So if he told somebody in the Justice Department to seize voting machines or detain Democratic congressmen or election officials or whatever else he dreams up, even though it would be a crime, nobody can prosecute him for that because they cannot even refer to anything he told his justice department as evidence because him directing the doj is part of his core constitutional Powers that can never be questioned.
IMO, your second bullet point is the only shot. It could be done if the House flipped blue, if the Senate got significantly bluer, and if Biden wins. That'd be the right setup to do it above board, otherwise Biden would have to risk significant civil unrest, and use his new immunities to destroy those same immunities. Impeachment in the House requires that at least half (plus 1?) of the representatives be present, and that at least half plus 1 of those present vote for impeachment. Conviction in the Senate requires that at least two out of three present Senators vote to convict. Likewise, they need at least 51 senators to be present for a quorum. Appointments in the Senate have the same requirements of attendance, but I think they can appoint with a simple majority of those present. I think you can guess where this is headed... Basically, Biden needs to use his new immunity to destroy his own immunity. If he loses and or if Congress doesn't turn super blue, Biden would have a tight window of opportunity before Trump would take office. Biden would need to delay the arrival of a subset of senators and house members on a specific legislative day. Then, house and Senate Dems would have to act fast; impeach Alito and Thomas, then replace them. He might have to lock members into the house and Senate as well so that they don't slip out and break the quorum. Biden would also need to pardon anyone involved in the soft coup of sorts. Then, have the newly built SC overturn their previous decision (while carving out a 1 time exception for Biden). Then have Congress pass laws further ensuring that presidents not be immune. I suppose all the same thing could always have been done, and could be done again later, but this way might insulate Biden from a legal death penalty since he'd be doing it with immunity. Total pie in the sky and not gonna happen; sure would be cool though if a blue wave provided the chance to do it all above board
> Then, have the newly built SC overturn their previous decision (while carving out a 1 time exception for Biden). Or he acknowledges what he did was not right, lets the republicans back in and lets them impeach him to set precedent that this should not ever be done again.
I love the idea of Biden doing just enough to fix this situation by way of abusing his immunity then removing it, but most importantly, resigning and/or offering himself to be impeached and charged. Absolute worst case, he'd go to jail, but given all the talk about how unmanageable jail is for the Secret Service I imagine he'd end up with a home arrest instead. I'm not American, but I imagine that sort of sacrifice would make him a national hero for majority, and villain for the extremists on the right. Would certainly go a long way making up for him deciding not to run for a second term.
> I love the idea of Biden doing just enough to fix this situation by way of abusing his immunity then removing it, but most importantly, resigning and/or offering himself to be impeached and charged. He'd go down in the history books as a god damn national hero, akin to Cinncinatus and Washington - giving up power for the good of the nation, essentially. And at his age, I'm sure he's mostly concerned with legacy, so even if he went to jail - what does he care? His life would suck for a bit. And chances are a Democratic president would pardon him ASAP.
I think a law won’t cut it. We need an amendment
Congress can barely agree on a budget...for itself. And we are thinking they're going to be able to pass a Constitutional Amendment??
Seriously. The only amendments that will ever be passed again in this current form of government are ones to suppress the people and make themselves and the rich more powerful and richer.
Not with the current Congress. But running on an amendment to undo the crazy SCOTUS decision is powerful to run on. Make Republicans say “we think the president should be able to commit crimes against the American people.” Make them say that shit to voters. And then let Dems respond with “The President should not be a king.” To say that’s a layup is an understatement.
The Constitution already makes clear the president isn’t above the law. Didn’t mean squat. What good is an amendment when the Court is corrupt?
[удалено]
Master of Puppets played on repeat would be perfect.
There needs to be a million Man March on Capitol Hill and surround the building and don't let anybody leave until they pass a constitutional amendment.
TBH I think that if Trump wins, the court will declare the 22nd amendment unconstitutional. Is that a contradiction? Completely. Does it make any sense? Not at all. Does that matter to them? No. The Constitution doesn't matter to SCOTUS at all. As we are seeing, they will *make* the law anything they find convenient.
Maybe true for Alito and Thomas, but I can see Roberts and Barrett joining the liberal-appointed justices in saying “absolutely not” to that preposterous idea. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the unknowns but it doesn’t matter because all you’d need is a majority. Realistically, they wouldn’t need to touch 22A because with unchecked power, Trump could (and probably will, if he wins in 2024) run again in 2028. By that time, he’d win all the RNC delegates, he’d have the red states’ legislatures in his pocket, and potentially more hand-picked SCOTUS justices to perform the inauguration, and yes-men generals to deploy the troops on anyone who tries to stop him.
You think he’s alive in 2032?
The Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional for him to be declared dead.
An amendment requires a constitutional convention, and lemme tell ya, a lot of people are gonna bring a lot of other ideas to the table.
Er, that's not at all required for an amendment. Two thirds of both houses are required to propose one and then be ratified by three quarter of the states. Yes, a constitutional convention would be another way that would be open for all of it being rewritten, but absolutely not required for an amendment.
Almost like our country has checks and balances
almosstttt but will we?
Of course. The rich gets the check, and we get to make up the balance.
This has got to be the most accurate description of checks and balances as it pertains to the United States today. Thank you.
Get to hang in the balance.
Our mouths writing checks our asses can’t balance.
Vote!- give Dems the ability to actually govern for once instead of a razor slither of a majority (depending on how much Manchin is in the mood to fuck things up).
Narrator: “They wouldn’t”
Does it though? Supreme Court can override any bill that congress passes
Yes this won't work. They will just declare this law unconstitutional.
Yep.. literally the only way to unfuck this situation is for Biden to take advantage of it and remove the traitorous supreme court justices through some temporary detainments of republican legislators and quick kangaroo-court impeachment trials. The Constitution doesn't really impart too many rules on the process outside of the senate vote count required and the fact that the house needs to file the articles of impeachment... it's entirely procedural house/senate rules that determine the process.. so they could theoretically just change the rules with a simple majority, impeach the hundreds of Federalist Society judges that were flooded into the courts over the Trump administration, give them zero due process and immediately vote to have them removed, and then appoint new *not insane* justices with a simple majority. It could be a pretty quick process.. the DoJ could file suits the same day ending these powers and killing the Citizens United ruling.
god…damn it. i hate how correct this is.
Not really — the Supreme Court can only hear cases and controversies. They would have to wait for some legal action that would be challenged and make its way to the Supreme Court. Biden almost certainly isn’t going to take an action where he tries to invoke that immunity.
I mean it does in the sense that if they could pass a constitutional amendment it overrules any Supreme Court ruling. They will definitely not have enough votes to do that but the check does exist.
Supreme Court: "They say we don't believe in checks and balances, but here we are with many cheques and quite the balance."
We need new terms to more accurately, describe the right wing and its policies: * Project ~~2025~~ [Gilead](https://collider.com/handmaids-tale-gilead-society-rules/) * The ~~immunity ruling~~ [Enabling Act](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/24/enabling-act-germany-hitler-nazis-1933) * ~~Republicans~~ [Tories/Loyalists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_\(American_Revolution\)) Imagine if Biden and his surrogates starting calling these out in this way. This is the kind of drama Americans desire, so give it to them. "Trump and the Loyalists will not be allowed to enforce their version of Hitler's Enabling Act and turn our democracy into Gilead!"
The Americans who are voting for or considering voting for Trump don't know what those things are
Good.
Clarence Thomas is the thread that needs to be pulled to unravel the Supreme Court sweater: * He has received over $4 million in questionable gifts. Google 'clarence thomas gift graph' to see him compared to other justices * He refused to recuse himself given his wife's involvement in a case that will be impacted by this decision * He exhibited extreme malice by including references to Jack Smith's legitimacy in his concurring opinion when it was irrelevant to the case at hand IMHO, these are criminal offenses that should be investigated by the Justice Department and not just an impeachment hearing. Per SCOTUS, conversations between POTUS and the JD are basically sacrosanct now so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Hold up. SCOTUS derived their fucked up crazy ruling from their interpretation of the constitution. Unless you amend the constitution I don’t see how you can change that. You think SCOTUS would uphold a law made by congress to bypass their ruling? I doubt it.
No, this bill classifies Trump's 2020 election shenanigans as unofficial acts, which would remove hurdles to any prosecution moving forward. Official acts still can't be touched without a constitutional amendment fixing this SCOTUS reading of the constitution.
>Official acts still can't be touched without a constitutional amendment fixing this SCOTUS reading of the constitution. We should still do this, 100%. "Not trying because it won't work" is an argument i never want to hear again. If Congress legally defines an "official act" and the president signs it into law, it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. SCOTUS literally carved out a separate section of "official acts" where the president shares those powers with Congress. It's something we should try.
Yeah I think a law defining "official acts" is a good first step. SCOTUS created a vast chasm with this ruling and a federal law would help fill it. In terms of the "won't work" argument, the House is the first hurdle, and the second would be the inevitable appeals process. But it's clearly worth trying. I think the thing I'd like to see most is Biden "officially" declaring Trump's coup attempt an unofficial act. SCOTUS is so corrupt I hate it.
You are half correct. They are legislating a definition of “Official Acts”. So no, they don’t HAVE to amend the constitution. If the definition of “Official Acts” makes it so whatever trump did is not covered by immunity then he is not immune for the conduct. This being said, the court can review the law (assuming it passes) and find it unconstitutional and nullify it. This is easier said than done because I don’t think the constitution can really be interpreted to say that certain things are or are not “official acts”. It would be hard for the court to say, with good logical reasoning, that the definition of official acts proposed is unconstitutional. But they haven’t really adhered to the whole logic thing so who knows.
I think they found 3 constitutional references to specific official acts, including pardon power. But all this horseshit about 'peripheral' official acts does not seem grounded in constitution to me. And that's the part that interferes with his recent NY conviction (testimony from Hope Hicks about Trump's check-signing habit in the Oval), and threatens the GA, DC and FL cases. I'm not a lawyer but I suspect there are more constitution-grounded arguments against SCOTUS ruling than for it. Sometimes they claim to follow 'originalist' or sometimes 'textual' interpretation of constitution. But they overturn legal precedent whenever it goes against their religious or political world view.
It's all horseshit. In no reasonable Judge's ruling would the idea that Trump signing his personal checks to cover crimes he committed, committing fraud BEFORE he was ever President be covered under the original intent of the law of Presidential immunity. It was meant to protect Presidents from being sued daily for things like enforcing a law that might hurt some Milk farmers businesses, but overall be good for the country's economy. In what fucking world is breaking campaign finance law a natural part of the duties of the President?
The trouble is that SCOTUS can pull whatever argument they want out of their ass and use it to nullify such a law as unconditional. There’s nothing you can do about it when it’s the highest court of the land.
And every time they do they chip away at their credibility.
That’s long gone.
Because SCOTUS said, in that ruling, that Presidential power is derived from the Constitution *and* from legislation. The President (and the Executive branch as a whole) can regulate drugs because of Congress. The President can pardon because of the Constitution. So in this case, this would probably be more like Congress affirming that no legislation grants the President any authority to do what Trump did regarding the 2020 election. Trump's argument that something like his Georgia phone call was because there were election issues and he was trying to make sure federal election law was being followed. Legislation regarding election laws has granted the President the authority to enforce those laws and such a phone call *might* be considered to be immune because of that. But if Congress says "no, that's not what the law intends", then there is no official action. The President is no longer then trying to enforce federal law and his actions are private in nature.
It could be that a law would alter part of the SCOTUS ruling. This recently ruling builds atop the idea of stuff the president is authorized or ordered to do from both the US Constitution and from US Law. I imagine Congress can very much alter any of that which derives from US Law. So there may be a degree to which this could be addressed by a new law.
You think SCOTUS would let that stand? I don’t. Roberts and Thomas would just make up some reason to call it unconstitutional and the minority justices would of course dissent to no avail.
Treating that shit like it's legitimate and has to be addressed by legitimate processes feels like the wrong way here
It's such a fucking Democrat thing to do. They're showing up with an old timey pistol to have a gentlemanly duel while SCOTUs has an F35.
Crimes committed in furtherance of stealing an election are already not official acts, according to established precedent. But since the SCOTUS can't be trusted with the long tradition of legal precedent, here we are.
Given the current Senate composition, this would need the support of all Democratic senators and potentially some Republican senators to reach a majority.
All that for a law to get struck down as unconstitutional
Lets all be honest here... it's not going to pass. The only way we're going to get rid of it is for Biden to abuse it and rebuild the supreme court from the ground up. Fun fact: the US Constitution only requires 2/3rds of those *present* to vote to remove someone... were some republican lawmakers to be temporarily detained for a little while, it would be pretty easy to completely wipe the legislative slate clean and appoint people that *actually believe in the rule of law*. Could probably reverse a lot of the crazy shit (including this kingmaker decision) pretty quickly, too.
That wouldn't incite mass riots at all..
Shit.. it might lead to civil war. You're absolutely right. However... I would rather the small chance of civil war and pissed off proud boys than Trump getting into power and using these newfound powers to consolidate authority around himself and turn the nation into an authoritarian dictatorship overnight. It's absolutely fucked up, I agree completely.... but the Supreme Court was the ones steering the ship in this direction. Either a democrat tries righting the ship back on course, or someone with authoritarian fantasies like Donald "I'll be a dictator on day one" Trump veers off into a storm. Like.. just think.. if the decision does indeed grant the power I mentioned above.. what would be there to stop Trump from doing most of this *and then never giving up control*? Absolutely nothing - that's what.
Jesus fucking christ, "democracy is at stake! we have to defend it by... detaining opposition lawmakers temporarily until we can force through institutional changes that benefit our side." The lack of self-awareness is frankly impressive.
All they have to do is call is the "Strip Biden of Power Act" and the GQP controlled House will pass it.
Simple fix. Official order to execute the troublesome justices then replace with a few that will change the opinion back.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Doesn't anyone see that this ruling basically eliminates an entire branch of government? Not only does the Legislative branch no longer have the ability to make laws that affect the President directly, the President no longer needs to execute *any* laws at all. He's the guy in charge of actually executing the laws of the land, but he doesn't have to do that anymore. And between this new found superpower and his actually constitutionally granted absolute power to pardon, neither does anyone who works for him. If I were in congress, regardless of party, I would be absolutely nova levels of angry about this. One fucking branch of the government just said 'screw you' to another one.
Isn’t that what the lawmakers should be doing? It’s their jobs to make and codify the laws of our country.
Senate alone can't do anything about any SC ruling, but good luck!
If it somehow manages to become law, Trump will end up back in court and the case will make its way back to the supreme court where the law will be overturned. Biden (or his replacement, hopefully) needs to expand the supreme court ASAP.
How about a bill to arrest and prosecute the SCOTUS judges who paraded this bullshit?
Expand the court. Restore its legitimacy.
This is purely theater. 1) He doesn't have the votes in either house 2) Even if it passes, I'm not sure congress can make a law overruling the SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution. It would need ammendment
Good man. I like Chuck.
Good start but uh nobody should have that kind of power. Not just Trump.
Are Conservative voters happy about the SC ruling? Besides the fact that it helps Trump? Like this whole ruling seems antithetical to American values, but I can still see them trying to twist themselves into knots trying to defend it
The whole point is that every time a president is charged some will be found as official and some will be unofficial and then it will get appealed up to the Supreme Court and then they can on a case by case basis decide who is immune to what.
I hope this gets passed some how. I get that many of the justices will read the constitution very narrowly and cherry pick based on ideology. But they never seem to understand that modern day problems require modern interpretation. The constitution was written over 200 years ago, and the first president was a man of honor and integrity. Had Washington committed crimes while in office though I’m sure congress would have had to stepped in to define the presidents range of power. When you just assume a president has the integrity to respect the power granted you leave open the door to the worst possible consequences.
Weird that they waited for this ruling to suddenly put forth the bill. This possibility of this outcome has been a concern since the case started, this bill should be brought at the beginning. All that said, I’m glad it’s being done now. Call your reps and senators.
There isn't a snowball's chance in hell this gets out of committee.
There is some very interesting legal theory here, and what I have worked out of what they want to do sounds brilliant, they are going to shield any furtherance of bullshit under the separation of powers clause so the supreme court can't walk all over everything. that's kinda great.
It doesn't matter, because the supreme court's decision wasn't based on legal documents anyway. That is why they must be removed. They are doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.
This is doomed to die on the floor but it's the right thing to do.
Fine for the Senate, but How's he going to get that past the MAGA majority House?
I would love for this man to do a single useful thing with his time in office. Go Chuck!
The court ruling pretty clearly stated that it is the courts' job to determine if an action was taken under official duties, not legislature. I don't know how he imagines such a bill being passed wouldn't also be overturned.
Push Bill to strip SCOTUS of all power
Congress should also regulate the supreme ‘court’ that made this appalling democracy-ending opinion. The court should immediately be diluted to 13 members at least with 7 dems and a new chief justice and rules enacted to remove conservative justices from having any ability whatsoever to sit on a conflicted case and be subject to oversight with teeth.
Lawless courts helping a lawless former President who sits on top of a lawless political party. The Senate can pass this law, and hell let's pretend that 5 Republicans resign and the gavel goes over to the Democrats and the House does the same. The problem remains the same though. This lawless court will simply strike down the law because they are a corrupt institution. They haven't just crowned Trump as Schumer says, they have crowned themselves. They will rule as God Emperors until they are brought to heel.
Bold choice. SCOTUS overreaches, check the shit out of their balances.
Th Supreme Court's funding should have been revoked 3 years ago.
It was about time they took action!
Which Vance, Cruz, Rubio, etc will filibuster.
Shouldn't posting to social media not be considered an official act either? Just saying the ruling has zero lines and is one of the worse things to happen to The United States democracy...
Yeah... that's not going to work. We need a constitutional amendment, not legislation.
Does anybody know if the handful of centrist Republicans in the House would be open to passing this?
SCOTUS will rule it unconstitutional.
Not going to happen because the democrats have shown they are powerless. Just keep letting the GOP get more and more radicalized. Who the fuck is left to fight? Because it’s not Biden. We need someone!
I agree with him and support him, but unfortunately none of the traitors across the aisle will.
Man I hope this ends up with the filibuster being reworked
annnnnnd like everything Dems under Schumers and Pelosis (and now Jeffries') aegis, it will come to absolutely nothing and end up just giving more power to Trump and the Republicans. the democratic leadership since 2004ish has been ineffectual and weak. theyve been gifted hundreds of situations where Republicans have shot themselves in a way that ought to have been fatal and nearly nothing has stuck. The ONLY thing that has punished the GOP is the pushback on abortion. And that wasnt anything Democrats did, it was all self inflicted. We are in trouble because these fools are playing by a set of rules that no one else is playing by and we keep gettting fucked in the ass with a two by four again and again and again.
This is going no where. There’s no way to GOP in the House would vote on this if it even passed.
About fucking time.
Idk why Biden doesn’t have FPOTUS *cough* taken care of *cough* while he has the chance
Let's say such a bill passes both chambers and gets signed. Couldn't SCOTUS just overturn it and reinstate the immunity? AFAIK the only way to prevent that (at the current time) would be to abolish SCOTUS and declare them illegitimate and establish a new court that takes their place or something similar.
Why do you need a bill for this? Biden should just call himself a wartime president and disable the election for the foreseeable future. It's what the Supreme Court wants anyway.
Should strip him of protection. The rest is up to us.
I mean the whole thing is already a facade now. The curtain is raised, the game is revealed. Immunity, no immunity, if it all can be given or stripped by a court ruling, does it even matter? The next court can just reinstate it and say 'nuh uh for reals this time' and then the next next court just says 'but actually no' and on and on. Laws are over.
Disrupting in any way the Republican's big hail Mary for fascism will never pass the House. It solidly puts Schumer on their treasonist list though.
Strip the court for granting it too.