Biden delivered remarks from the Oval Office outlining his decision not to seek reelection, his first on-camera remarks since making that announcement on Sunday. In addition to explaining why he is ending his candidacy, he listed off his priorities for his remaining time as president.

“And I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform, because this is critical to our democracy,” Biden said.

Multiple outlets have reported that Biden is considering proposals to establish term limits for Supreme Court justices and an enforceable ethics code for those on the high court.

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    219
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    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?

    • ignirtoq@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      136
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

        • ignirtoq@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          79
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

        • ignirtoq@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          No laws have been changed. Court decisions are not considered the passage of a law, so ex post facto doesn’t apply. Changes to how laws are interpreted don’t factor into ex post facto considerations.

      • nul9o9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        However, the justices that make that distinction relevant would no longer be able to do so?

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      No need to do it himself. Order assassins to do it as an official act, then immediately pardon them.

      • Nurgus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think it’s traditional to say “Seal Team 6” rather than “assassins” at this point.

    • xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      That is only for very specific people. That part is a secret and they don’t tell you who. But I’m certain Biden isn’t on that list.

  • WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

      • machinin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

    • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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

    • commandar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      65
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

  • wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • Todd_cross@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • ikidd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

  • venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    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

      • AIhasUse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        What’s the average amount of student loan forgiveness that students have received? Do you think it is more or less than a months rent?

        • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          Unfortunately blanket student loan forgiveness keeps getting blocked by republicans in congress or judges they’ve appointed. They’ve only been able to provide relief to those who need it most. I know I haven’t gotten any. But that’s why average isn’t a great metric to use here-- I don’t need it, others do. Not to mention, average in terms of what-- absolute monetary value? Proportion of money received compared to total loan balance? Compared to original loan balance before interest?

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Because I’m bored though, I’ll humor you.

            Total direct loan forgiveness (not counting repayment pauses during covid or other relief measures): $167 billion

            Total US outstanding student loan debt: $1.77 trillion

            Total US outstanding student loan borrowers: 42.8 million

            Average student loan debt per outstanding borrower: ~$40k (same source as above)


            Total percentage of debt cancelled: 167m/1770m = 9.4%

            Average debt relief per person: $3,900 (!)

            So yes, it’s paid for multiple months worth of rent, and relieved about 10% of everyone’s debt on average! Better than I expected.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The first two of those will require constitutional amendments. That’s a years-long process.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    5 months ago

    He can call for whatever he wants, but with a Republican house and less than 60 votes in the Senate, it goes nowhere.

      • irreticent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        If I remember right, he called Kim Jong Un and professed his love and admiration of him. Oh, wait… that was Trump.

          • irreticent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Not shitting on Biden in that comment

            Neither was I. I was trying to join in on the “If I remember right” train and make a joke at Trump’s expense.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    “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.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      They didn’t give him unlimited power to compel things, just the apparent ability to legally break laws. So unless he is sending people with guns and or handcuffs to compel things, nothing would happen.

      For example if he made an Executive Order outlining corruption consequences, the Supreme Court would just say “Lol no!” He could send in people to arrest them I guess, but he would have to suspend their constitutional rights to a trial. I don’t think people would feel good watching people get no due process.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    5 months ago

    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.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • Crismus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Continuing to behave as if there’s a few brushfires that need put out, instead of a massive forest fire going on around him…well, it just sums the man up for me.

  • AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

  • bitwolf@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    Crazy. Ive been thinking about enforceable ethics codes for companies. This would be a great start towards that.