this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
1235 points (99.6% liked)

News

23406 readers
3135 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

President also says presidential immunity for crimes should be removed and ethics rules for justices should be stricter

Joe Biden has called for a series of reforms to the US Supreme Court, including the introduction of term limits for justices and a constitutional amendment to remove immunity for crimes committed by a president while in office.

In an op-ed published on Monday morning, the president said justices should be limited to a maximum of 18 years’ service on the court rather than the current lifetime appointment, and also said ethics rules should be strengthened to regulate justices’ behavior.

The call for reform comes after the supreme court ruled in early July that former presidents have some degree of immunity from prosecution, a decision that served as a major victory for Donald Trump amid his legal travails.

“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States,” Biden wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 56 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The trick with an amendment is even if you get the House and Senate, you still face ratification from the states.

So 38 out of 50 state legislatures need to ratify the amendment.

To put that in perspective... in 2020, Biden and Trump split the states evenly. 25/25, Biden also took D.C.

To get to 38, you'd need ALL 25 Biden states + 13 Trump states.

Even getting all 25 Biden states isn't guaranteed because of those, 6 have Republican controlled state houses.

So now you're looking at needing as many as 19 Trump states?

[–] [email protected] 61 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Exactly. The path to an amendment is super difficult, and Conservative states have no incentive to do so while they have so thoroughly captured the Supreme Court. That's why you pack the Court first. Appoint 4 liberal justices in their early 40s to lifetime appointments, and you will see much more of a push from those Conservative states for reforms.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The democrats have no intention of getting this to pass. They just want to use it to get out the vote. The constitutional ammendment process was created to expect both parties to work together, that just isn't the way things are anymore. So passing a constitutional ammendment is pretty much impossible.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Right. The only way to get Republicans to consider an amendment is to make the status quo untenable to them, so they prefer change.

That's why you pack the court with 4 40-yr-old Liberals who can use the current rules to push the Court leftward for 30+ years . That will get them to change the rules quickly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'm not from the US so sorry if this is a dumb question, but why would this push the court leftwards for 30+ years? Wouldn't the republicans just pack the court at the next opportunity to swing it back in their favour?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Appointing a justice can be very difficult to do if your party doesn’t control the Senate. If Democrats control the Senate or the presidency, then Republicans won’t be able to stack the court.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Packing the court requires an act of Congress, which the President would then need to sign. So it's not practical to do in a partisan fashion unless one party has the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. If Democrats get that in the next Congress, and expand the Court, then Republicans need to win them all back at the same time to mess with it.

And without an amendment, the only practical way to mess with the court is to increase it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, but then the dems won't want the change since they control the court at that point. Both sides are in this for themselves, that is the nature of a system based on popularity.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

The constitutional amendment system was created without parties in mind at all.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unless it's to patch a massive oversight in the Constitution like the 25th amendment.

Or to prevent Congress from raising their own salaries with immediate effect, like with the 27th amendment.

I think demonstrating how this is a massive oversight first will get MANY states on board with fixing the supreme court.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

The last ammendment was in 92. The political landscape has changed since then. Both sides run mainly on opposing the other, which means bipartisan anything is very unlikely. They couldn't even pass an immigration reform bill because the conservatives didn't want to give Biden a win. This would be even harder.