US president also to seek constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and various officeholders

Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday, Politico reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, adding that the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

Biden said earlier this week during an Oval Office address that he would call for reform of the court.

He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday and the specific proposals could change, the report added.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    165
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday

    Just twisting that knife in the wound. I love it.

  • Atom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    InB4 “WhY DiDn’t hE Do iT WhEn hE HaD ThE MaJoRiTy?” Because he’s calling for constitutional amendments that require a 2/3rds support in Congress and the SCOTUS may finally be disliked enough to get some GOP members to support reform, especially if it comes with limiting Biden’s own immunity.

    • ulkesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      5 months ago

      …and 3/4 of the states. Not only will it take years to accomplish, the uneducated people of the country won’t stand for any amendment that a “librul” came up with. And then everyone will forget or stop caring.

      There won’t be another amendment in the next fifty years, as long as MAGA morons exist.

      • ericatty@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        This requirement is what stalls almost all constitutional changes. The last three to pass were 25th 1971 about voting rights for 18 year olds (100 days to pass) the 26th in 1967 about presidential succession (just under 3 years to pass) The last last one (27th) was added 1992 after almost 203 years of meeting the other requirements (It has to do with sitting Congress not being able to raise their own salaries, increases are delayed to the next term. )

        There are 6 amendments still sitting out there awaiting ratification by the states.

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

      His first year:

      1. The American Rescue Plan Act and extending existing Covid-19 programs
      2. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
      3. Bills to avoid a government shutdown and keep the federal government running
      4. Juneteenth National Independence Day Act
      5. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act
  • oyo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    To be clear, this immunity obviously DOES NOT EXIST in the constitution and was invented out of whole cloth.

    • wischi@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s not like the constitution is some infallible magic text, it was also “invented” by some dudes.

      • Taako_Tuesday@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        5 months ago

        It was also, at least according to Jefferson, intended to be replaced on a regular basis to better reflect the needs of the country.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          5 months ago

          Jefferson did write he wanted it remade every ~20 years. But that was a personal belief of his not the general understanding when the constitution was adopted.

      • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        While technically true, countries with a proper constitution that is upheld by the judiciary, legislative and executive branch of government tend to be much more stable.

        It is good to amend the constitution if necessary, but the principle of there being a constitution and it being followed, is a very important thing for democracy.

        • wischi@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I guess that’s true and I certainly don’t have anything against the concept of a constitution, but as someone not living in the US I find it pretty strange that so many Americans treat the constitution like some holy religious text.

      • Zink@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s true, but I don’t think it invalidates anything about the post you replied to. It’s not a question of who invented what. The case is that the job of the founders WAS to invent the constitution and the structure of the government and all that.

        The second group’s job is to read what they wrote and follow it. And sometimes there’s wiggle room in interpretation and settling that is their job too. But they don’t get to make up new laws and amendments just because the result of doing so is desirable for them.

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

        There’s also the question of how a law that would criminalize an enumerated power could be constitutional as applied as. That’d be voiding the Constitution by statute rather than amendment.

        Which would require the president to sign off on but could be weaponized against an incoming president if one party has the legislature and executive.

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      What if we just made the limit 1 term? Then no presidents would be doing actions purely to get reelected?

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

      Can’t wait for him to flip the table on Israel

      any second now…

      aaaaaaaaannny second now…

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment

      Arguably, this is still pussyfooting since there’s no fucking way he has anything near the number of votes needed for this.

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

      Not entirely sure that matters here.

      I really don’t think there’s that many people towards the middle or left of the political spectrum that are going to be upset about this if he gets the changes through.

      Besides, any changes that might bother voters will still have an effect on Kamala’s campaign until the elections over in November.

  • Hildegarde@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    The problem is not presidential immunity. The problem is immunity and the president is just the highest profile job that has it. Politicians never do anything about the root cause, and only treat the symptoms.

    Police officers get away with murder because their job gives them immunity. Ceos, shareholders and other corporate staff have immunity as well.

    A president getting away with assassinating a political rival is just as unjust as letting a ceo get away with killing 346 people simply because their job gives them immunity for their actions.

    • turmacar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Perfect should not be the enemy of Good. Reforming the entire system is not something that just happens. It takes several steps in the right direction and you have to start somewhere.

      • RubyRhod@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        The entire system is beyond antiquated. Coupled with bureaucratic tendency to be self serving, leads me to believe “reformation” will look more like slow death, and further declining services.

        I see no reason for optimism along the lines of “system reform”, and history has no examples I can think of. Shit just gets worse and worse till people start killing people and try some new systems.

        • turmacar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Suffrage didn’t require violent overthrow of the entire system, neither did the New Deal, neither did the Civil Rights movement, neither did Medicare, neither did Gay Rights. No nothing is “solved”, but everything is better than it was in 1900.

          “IDK, maybe War will fix it” is far more unhelpful than working to make positive changes.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Ah, yes. The famously incrementalist New Deal and Medicare. The Civil Rights Movement? Incrementalism is setting a timetable for another man’s freedom. We only got gay marriage because the courts did what the legislature was too incrementalist to feel like doing.

          • RubyRhod@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Sufferage, civil rights etc aren’t institutions.

            'idk, war will fix it" is a lazy-ass takeaway, but ok.

            • turmacar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              You’re right, they’re fundamental changes across multiple institutions.

              “I can’t think of examples” is a pretty lazy justification for “the only way out is violence”.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    It appears he’s pushing to add official ethics guidelines, not pack the court or anything that would radically change the fuckpit we’ve got now.

    Public confidence in the court has slipped sharply in recent years.

    lol

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

      What’s he going to do? Remove kingly immunity from the presidency? Or how about use the senate to keep republicans from getting supreme Court nominees from even getting a hearing?

      • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You push an ethics review of the seating court. Make a solid case to impeach them if they did wrong. If you win the house and Senate with a majority then, you remove those that are extremely corrupt.

        Install term limits on the court as well. You correct the wrongs the Republicans have built in the last 20-30 years.

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

          If you win the house and Senate with a majority then, you remove those that are extremely corrupt.

          Democrats would need a supermajority in the Senate to achieve that. Anything less than 2/3rds and nobody gets removed.

    • 4lan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I think he should hire 15 more supreme Court justices. All 18 years old If they want to fuck around with our country we can too. Maybe that would lead to actual change in the rules surrounding supreme Court

  • dropped_the_chief@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    5 months ago

    When the republican senate started weighing how to get their way through the supreme court, during the Obama administration, don’t sound so surprised the Democrats aren’t forced to go low too.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m glad he’s not running anymore, because I don’t have to watch his supporters add “Reformed the Supreme Court” to the list of proposals they count as completed accomplishments.