If I understand the supreme court correctly, Biden could just shoot Roberts, Alito and Thomas and call it court reform, right? That makes it an official act?
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
794 points (99.3% liked)
News
23600 readers
3307 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ironically if he did that and appointed new liberal justices, there's a good chance the new Court would overturn this Court's decision, and he could be convicted of murder and probably violating several other federal laws for that act.
I think there is something in the constitution about not being able to charge someone criminally for something retroactively, that wasn't a crime at the time it was committed.
Found it! Article 1, section 9, clause 3.
Ex post facto is for if a new law is passed making something a crime, and the act was committed before its passage. This is all about interpretation of already passed law. It's basically the justices saying that this was against the law the whole time. Ex post facto doesn't apply here.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
No, because he's not a Republican.
However, the justices that make that distinction relevant would no longer be able to do so?
load more comments
(1 replies)
So, to answer seriously: if it's an explicit presidential power he gets total personal immunity, although the office can still be restricted. If it's an official act, he's presumed to have personal immunity unless the prosecutor can argue that there's no way that not having immunity could get in the way of doing the job of president, and they're not allowed to use motivation to make the case.
The president isn't given the explicit power to reform the courts.
He's given explicit power to command the armed forces, but the rules of the armed forces are decided by Congress.
So it's a question arguing how "the president can't kill members of the judiciary" doesn't hinder the power of the executive branch without referencing why the president is killing them.
Biden is allowed to kill Supreme Court justices because he might need to Navy SEAL people for security reasons. Allowing litigation on Biden's SEAL powers would irreparably restrict Biden's agency as commander in chief and would literally cause a 9/11
I'm horrified to agree that that's actually a valid argument.
Judicial review of the established presidential power to direct the military to kill, ahem, "designate as a clear and immediate threat", specific individuals in an emergency to protect the country would legitimately undermine the presidents power to defend the integrity of the nation.
Goddamn was that a stupid fucking ruling.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
I was hoping for that.
He's a lame duck now. That means he's free to pursue policies that will add to his legacy, and without having to give even the tiniest shit about what the establishment and the donor class might think about it.
Come on Biden. Go to fucking town. Let your legacy be crazy ass fights.
load more comments
(1 replies)
You can tell the repubes were
A. Caught of guard by this and
B. Have no idea how to handle it.
I'm even wondering if the timing was intentional. Right after the RNC convention and they took all the momentum from Trump in one single announcement. Maybe they lined to the donors to pump up the donations right after the announcement to gain more momentum. If so, it was really genius.
That's not entirely true with Kamala being tied to his administration. I still think it would only make her more popular, but his actions aren't truly lame duck.
I agree in sentiment, but the lame duck doesn't start until November 6th. And we need to stop normalizing otherwise because the republicans have already weaponized it.
Add 2 seats to the bench, and then add 13 total judges. 11 of 22 judges are selected at random to determine the case. The non voting judge opinion becomes part of the case law, as well as an intercollegiate constitutional scholar opinion
This matches the broad strokes of the approach I favor as well.
There are 13 Federal circuits. Expand to one justice per circuit, then double that.
But the core of the approach, regardless of the exact number, is to shift to having cases heard by randomized panels of judges. The amount of power wielded by individual justices right now is just insane. Dilute it down so that the power rests with the body rather than individuals.
Further, randomizing who hears any given case would help curtail the current environment where test cases get tailored to the idiosyncracies and pet theories of individual judges.
SCOTUS should be deciding cases based on rational reading of the law, not entertaining wing nut theories that Thomas or Alito hinted at in previous decisions. That sort of nonsense becomes a lot less feasible if there's no guarantee a case will actually end up in front of Thomas or Alito.
So what happens when the judges chosen for a case interpretation end up being 7-2 in one party's favor? Conservatives would be sitting at the slot machines in a diaper pulling the lever until they hit a jackpot. It's not like making them sit out of some cases based on a lottery is going to make them any less hypocritical or prone to power tripping and bribery. They'll just wait their turn.
Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications. That way members of the public that are still well versed in law are able to hold them accountable.
I think you're missing the point.
As things stand now, you get cases that are tailor made to the whims of specific people because there's a 100% chance it ends up in front of those specific people. That's an absolutely massive problem.
The point is that you're less likely to have cases that are specifically aimed at stroking any given individual's brand of crazy when there's only a ~1 in 3 chance they'll even hear it. A panel of 9 from a pool of 26 means that you go from a 100% chance that, say, Alito and Thomas, hear a case together to around 12%. That's a huge gamble when it takes years and a massive amount of money to get a case in front of SCOTUS.
No, it doesn't solve all conceivable problems with the court. But it'd help address the fact that SCOTUS justices are entirely too powerful as individuals and it can be done via simple act of Congress.
Appointees should just be subject to term limits and yearly affirmation votes by members of the BAR association to renew or revoke their qualifications
Not going to happen. SCOTUS terms are life appointments constitutionally. That means you've gotten into amendment territory which just plain is not realistic right now.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
A modern day Cincinnatus, the Supreme Court just made him a consul and he just chose to go back to being a common man for the good of the republic.
If this plays out, he’ll go down in history books as the man who sacrificed himself to save Democracy.
From what I understand Cincinnatus gave up his dictatorship because he just liked to farm, and while he was an effective and generally good leader, he just liked to farm.
Give it up for Jimmy Carter
Who wouldn't?
Out in the fresh air, soil in your hands, working the land to bring forth food.
Or
Court intrigue, back stabbing (literally sometimes), mountains of paperwork, assholes attacking your country at times. That shit would get old quick.
Don't be so quick to rush into farming. I went from IT to farming and just spent 3 hours in the ER getting stitched back up, for about the 4th time in 5 years, and I'm probably ahead of most.
It ain't a safe occupation. I should do something less hazardous like being a cop.
load more comments
(2 replies)
He should work on all of these:
Term limits for Supreme Court
Abolish Electoral college
Restrictions on corporate real estate investing
Forgive student loans
Restrictions on members of government trading stocks
The first two of those will require constitutional amendments. That's a years-long process.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
He can call for whatever he wants, but with a Republican house and less than 60 votes in the Senate, it goes nowhere.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Coulda done this in the first months in office, and actually made a difference, but I guess doing it for votes during an election is better than nothing?
He's not running tho
load more comments
(1 replies)
"call for"??? FUCK THAT! just issue a few "official presidential acts" drone striking the corrupt ones, and also anyone who refuses to approve the replacements he appoints.
I'm hoping he makes a bunch of executive decisions, make a few crazy ones, pardons himself and bounce.
Especially if he invites the supreme court to correct their presidential immunity mistake as his last act. Of course, shit that wasn't illegal when you did it can't (usually) legally be charged after it's made illegal. Ex post facto laws are a hard sell.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Oh boy, he'll call for it! Great! Thanks!
In his final months... Not now, but, you know, get ready for it. I guess.
"Call for". What does that even mean? Flex those executive muscles.
It’s more “thoughts & prayers”
load more comments
(1 replies)
But he has no power to do that, right? Congress would have to go along, and the Supreme Court is not gonna just do it themselves.
Yeah. Specifically, Mitch "too close to an election" McConnell would block the confirmation.
Or so I assume. I had to go see if he was still alive, because I hadn't heard from him in a while. Seems he got booed at the RNC.
He can have the CIA assassinate them, and keep it top secret. The Judiciary is it's own section and without a true act of congress or Constitutional Amendment nothing can change without the Supreme Court going in on it.
That Supreme Court case just set in stone what all Presidents have had for what they did in office. George W. never spent time in jail for war crimes, Reagan never went away for arming paramilitary groups, and Nixon didn't go to jail for spying on the DNC.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Would have been awesome if he did this at the start when it was obvious where things were headed before they destroyed our government, but I'll take it.
I declare reform!
view more: next ›