A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

  • sarcasticsunrise@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Finally someone with the fucking stones to call this fascistic slow crawl out for what it is, we can still stop this. If I’m a single issue voter who’s only concern is not wanting to “live” under the yolk of a tyrannical monarch (me, but not single issue), then this has my attention. The clock is ticking, I hate it too.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Yay! I will have a garbage plate in Joe Morelle’s honor the next time I am in Rochester.

    (Although I do admit, I was probably gonna order the plate regardless)

  • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    For years the Supreme Court had a liberal majority and now that they don’t, they claim every decision they make is the end of the world and they want to lock everyone up and stack the courts. This is just more of the same

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The Supreme Court hasn’t had a liberal majority since the 80s. The difference is that until the Trump appointments, the nakedly partisan political hacks were a minority on the court.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Reversing decades of settled law in multiple rulings is not “more of the same”. Lie to yourself, don’t lie to those of use with open eyes.

    • mashbooq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because the liberal Supreme Court largely supported democracy, while the conservative one isn’t even trying to hide its promotion of fascism. There is no both sides here

    • Rimu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      An amendment requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

      It’s worth a try but don’t pin all your hopes on it.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I propose Biden start having the military shoot those that oppose the amendment and see how long it takes to get it passed.

          • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I think the Democrats need to do a much larger PSA about what exactly this means. I’m not sure 100% of Trumps cult, or many moderates, would be cool with knowing that Biden right now could have his DOJ lock up basically anyone in the US, with no reason needed, and then pardon them. This would all be actions that cannot be questioned, or used against the President as he has full immunity to:

            1. pardon anyone for anything
            2. command his DOJ

            Those are the 2 examples that the Supreme Court majority gave as examples in their “ruling”, and they gave both a completely made up unconstitutional condition of immunity that cannot be used against the President, or questioned/debated in any way. These 2 items are a gift to Trump in their hope that he takes the white house and will allow him to round up everyone he wants and put them in death camps if he wanted. He orders his DOJ to do it, pardons them all, and it’s all above the law with no possible oversight available. But I think if more people on the right knew that Biden has this power right now, BUT!, if some on the left get their way and they replace Biden on the ballot, and they win, that person would now wield this absolute power.

            Edit - Extra words =(

            • Rinox@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Think if he did this to a supreme court judge, do you think they’d reverse the ruling? 🤔

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              The most effective way to get the word out would be a demonstration on Biden’s part. He could show how dangerous the power is and get rid of the traitorous fascists who created it at the same time.

              • alchemist2023@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                yeah like go round them up and put them in a room. you gave me this power. now resign. all of you, or seal team 6 takes you out. boom. then Biden chooses the judges he wants, reverts the immunity and rolls back all the recent crap. fixes everything. easy. no more of a coup than the Nazis have done. but now it’s legal do it. for your very lives, do it, coz you guys are real real real close to fucking it up for everyone else too

      • frickineh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        What we need is for a Democratic president to do something bananas and claim immunity. I bet at least the less crazy Republicans would suddenly see how that could be a problem. Maybe if Joe set one of the conservative justices on fire as an official act.

        But seriously, they have no problem with hypocrisy so that probably still wouldn’t help.

      • Fedizen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        it will happen easily if biden wins. If the court majority becomes 5-4 liberal republicans will absolutely hop on board. Thats why dems should also float an electoral college reform and an amendment to ban gerrymandering. Even a ban on courts creating “immunity rules” should be floated since immunity is something that shouldn’t be handed out as often as the supreme court does it.

        The amendment process is long and difficult and honestly being just willing to go through the extra steps makes good headlines.

        • pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          The supreme court has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. To propose one you need a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and senate (or 2/3 of states calling a constitutional convention, but no amendment has gone through this process). Then, it requires that 75% of the states ratify it.

          There’s no chance the amendment will even get 2/3 of the congressional vote, much less 75% of states agreeing to it.

          • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Unfortunately you are right on this one. They couldn’t even get Equal Rights Ammendment passed and it was proposed in 1923. It got tossed around and talked about and got close to being ratified over the past century but ultimately didnt make it through.

            Then in 2019 Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota actually sued to prevent ERA from bring ratified when it was brought up again. That’s how much some states hate progress.

            It’ll be interesting to see how this one plays out though. Will they kill it immediately or will it sit around in limbo for a century?

          • Fedizen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            to change some of the rules around the court you need an amendment because they’re in the constitution (lifetime appointments, for instance.)

            The 11th amendment was explicitly also added to overturn a supreme court ruling, so historically passing an amendment was not always a problem and if its a problem now maybe some effort should be placed into fixing the difficulty problem as well.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              to change some of the rules around the court you need an amendment because they’re in the constitution (lifetime appointments, for instance.)

              Or the President would need to use the new powers the court gave him on it, until the remaining justices decided to change the rules themselves.

  • jordanlund@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    House Democrat… Great, so it’s dead on arrival then.

    Republicans control the House and they will never allow a vote on this.

    • Hackworth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Do you not believe they’re preparing an amendment, or do you not believe it will pass?

      • SeattleRain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think they’ll sabotage it or compromise it so much it will be meaningless like the Dems always do.

        • Hackworth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          You believe it’s the Dem’s that do the sabotaging, and that they are compromising to…themselves? Interesting.

          • shikitohno@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            For some of their more conservative members, they’ve certainly done so in the past, but I’m pretty sure that @[email protected] is just talking about the self-defeating obsession that Democrats have with appearing non-partisan. Yes, they do need to compromise to an extent to get something through the house at the moment, but they have essentially self-sabotaged in the past when they had the majorities to not need to do so, yet insist on negotiating with the Republicans anyway because they hope moderate Republicans will give them credit for not ramming legislation through in a one-sided fashion.

            This really only works when the other party is engaging in negotiations in good faith, which the Republicans do not. As a result, the Democrats give the GOP initiative on steering bills and policies as they like, winding up with compromised legislation that doesn’t please their actual base, while also not getting credit from the Republicans they’re hoping to sway in some sense.

            For an easy example of this, look at talks about eliminating the filibuster earlier in Biden’s presidency. Manchin and Sinema made it a dead idea, but even before that, Biden has been opposed because of his obsession with reaching across the aisle in an age where trying to do so only serves to stop his agenda dead in its tracks. Rather than get their elbows out and bully the two hold outs into falling in line (which was supposed to be what Manchin was good for, at least. I kept hearing, “He disrupts things, but he falls in line when it counts,” but pretty much never saw evidence of this), they just shrugged and collectively let the agenda die or get neutered, because to do otherwise would not be bipartisan.

            • Hackworth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I appreciate one of the most concise explanations of that perspective I’ve ever read! This is actually the one I’d like to believe, but not the one I do. I disagree with the idea that “both sides are the same,” but I won’t go so far as to imagine Democrats are truly concerned with integrity to the degree that they’d sacrifices strategy. I’m afraid they’re just people, and people are all fucking stupid in their own way. It’s just some are fucking stupid and malicious.

              • shikitohno@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                10 months ago

                I don’t think it’s necessarily being so concerned with integrity as to deliberately self-sabotage, but rather that this was a potentially viable strategy 40-50 years ago, and many of the eldritch horrors in party leadership, Biden included, just haven’t gotten the message that the situation has changed in the interim. Part of Biden’s campaign pitch was that he’s worked in Congress for so long and has the relations that would let him reach out to the other side to get stuff passed, and he just gets taken advantage of when trying to do so. The Republicans have long since moved on to a strategy of “Ram through whatever you can while you’re in power, and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct when you aren’t.” They generally aren’t concerned at all with what non-GOP voters think of them and their actions, which lets them just bulldoze their way through the process while racking up points with their base for being effective at advancing the agenda, regardless of how hypocritical/immoral they are in the process. Just see Mitch McConnell when Obama tried appointing a justice to the Supreme Court near the end of his term versus his response to Trump doing the same.

                I would also say there’s just a fundamentally different level of at least the appearance of integrity necessary on the Democratic side, and Democratic voters are less willing to accept that the ends justifies the means. This is clearly illustrated just by looking at the fallout for pretty much any Republican having a sex scandal, versus it happening to a Democrat. In his initial scandal, Anthony Weiner didn’t even engage in a criminal act, having sent a 21-year old woman a sexually explicit photo. In less than a month, Nancy Pelosi had called for an investigation into it and he’d resigned his seat. In contrast, Trump has been found liable for sexual abuse in a civil case and has had heaps of sexual assault and harassment accusations brought against him, yet the party of family values, good, Christian morals, and law and order is still completely behind him.

  • gmalette@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    The patriotic thing to do for Biden is to go on a crime using his newly found immunity. All crimes must be part of core acts or official acts. See how long that takes

    • Baron Von J@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Seriously, he needs to “no not like that” this shit so far that the Republicans have no choice but to reign in their bullshit.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          I think this is unironically how they need to spin it. Convince the Republican base that this ruling is actually better for Biden than it is for Trump by repeating their own false narratives back to them - that the Biden Crime Family will get away with everything. Albeit, the things he could actually get away with are limited to what the court determines is an official act, and givent he current makeup of the SCOTUS it’s unlikely that they would side with him even if there were precedent, but he would be still almost untouchable under this new ruling no matter how you spin it.

          Have a case against Joe Biden? Sorry, all of that evidence is now inadmissible in a court of law because it happened while he was president. Too bad, Republicans! Maybe if you were to… I dunno, pass a constitutional amendment that revoked that privilege. But oooooh nooooo, that would be horrible! Please, anything but that! All our nefarious plots would be undone and Biden would go to prison!

      • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        That’s the insidious part. People advocating for Biden to go on a crime spree are assuming that the Supreme Court is aiming to be consistent, and apply this ruling fairly to both parties. They’ve INTENTIONALLY left it unspecified what counts as an “official” act, so that any question that comes up just goes right back to them, and they can rule however they see fit. Also, people are assuming the Court won’t just directly contradict their own rulings, the moment it’s convenient. This entire thing just shows that the Court can and will give itself final say on any questions of law or policy, I.E. anything anyone in the government does. This doesn’t make the President a king, it makes the Court the king.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          People advocating for Biden to go on a crime spree are assuming that the Supreme Court is aiming to be consistent, and apply this ruling fairly to both parties.

          The SCOTUS doesn’t have a DOJ or an FBI to arrest and prosecute anyone with. That’s the big catch in all this arguing.

          If Biden seriously wanted to be a sassy bitch, he’d have Trump extraordinarily renditioned to a prison in Iraq and tried for bombing the Iraqi airfield that hosted the Iranian ambassadors.

          The SCOTUS gets to pound sand, Americans can heal a gapping foreign policy wound between the US and Iran, and Trump gets a taste of living as an illegal.

          But he’s not going to do that. He’s not going to impound Trump’s assets or freeze his accounts. He’s not going to treat Trump in any way like an asset of an enemy power.

          Because he’s terrified of violating the Norms that dictate presidents can, in fact, do whatever the hell they want.

    • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      People keep making this dumb joke over and over and over again. Biden isn’t going to do anything trump wants to do with this newfound immunity

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Joke? We know that Biden won’t. But he should, if only just to show how farcical this ruling is. Maybe, start small. Make mail-in voting mandatory and the election a national holiday, via executive order. Then, officially allow all prisoners to vote. Next, make DACA recipients citizens allowed to vote. As long as he doesn’t ruffle the feathers of the capitalist class, eventually Republicans will be begging for a Constitutional Amendment.

  • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    IMO the only valid move for Biden right now asap, is to use his new immunity powers to invalidate his immunity powers, as a display of self checkmate.

    Declare the full supreme court under threat of death has to go back and redo the decision, and all of them must vote to reverse it and remove the presidential immunity, or be hung.

    This of course means “if you dont remove my ability to kill you, you will die”.

    Its the ultimate display of being handed ultimate power, and rejecting it through the power itself.

    I cant think of any other move that makes sense really. It would be a headache in court but thats what the supreme justices get for making such a stupid ass decision.

    • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      As far as I understand the decision (IANAL!), the definition of what constitutes an “Official Act” is left intentionally undefined, so in effect you can only claim this ultimate power if the courts like you in order to declare what you’re doing official.

      This means, if I understand it correctly, king powers for Trump and nothing for Biden. They’d just rule everything Biden is doing as not an official act.

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Would still end with him getting arrested/impeached though, I guess he could do it as a self-sacrifice thing and leave Harris to run

    • twistypencil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      You realize immunity doesn’t mean declare what you want, and you get it?

      Also It’s not illegal for Biden to say he is invalidating his immunity powers, it’s just meaningless. Now if he punched Stormy Daniel’s until she agreed to give syphilis to the court, that might be illegal acts that fall under his official duties.

      Also, you need the courts behind whatever illegal thing you are going to do.

      • sudo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago
        1. Declare new rules
        2. Use any method, legal or otherwise, to enforce said rules
        3. Claim immunity

        Congratulations. You’ve successfully used immunity to declare whatever you want.

      • Carrolade@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        The idea that you actually need courts behind you is laughable. Power is enforced through the threat of violence, this is how law enforcement functions. Courts do not have soldiers.

        Know who does? Commander-in-Chief, now with full immunity for any official act, like, giving orders to the military.

        One could say perhaps the soldiers themselves would be afraid of prosecution and would disobey orders, since they don’t get immunity. Until the President pardons them anyway.

        Otherwise only one last line of firm defense remains: the oath each serviceman takes to defend the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. That might make someone disobey an illegal order.

        • zephyr@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          There’s a quote from Andrew Jackson when he ignored the Court where he basically told them to enforce their decisions themselves.

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        You realize, no…

        Immunity here means declare whatever you want, and then mandate that the military eliminate anyone who opposes your new mandate. This “fun” hypothetical is a president invalidating their immunity powers and then having that decree reinforced by death, that second part is the illegal you want in this equation.

        It’s done to “Save America”, so it’s an official act.

        “If a president couldn’t freely do rapes, bribes, frauds and incite violence without repercussions, who would way to be president?”

        • one of the two candidates for US President probably
    • mister_flibble@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      That was my thought too. This is sweeping and broad enough there’s honestly likely multiple ways to just use the ruling to undo the ruling.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      *hanged.

      “Hung” is a… different thing, which the male justices might see as a positive.

  • machinin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Do this in tandem with Biden taking full advantage of the current immunity to utterly destroy the Trump campaign since it is a threat to democracy. We’ll get that amendment passed in no time.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The only way to destroy Trump is through a long series of viral propaganda documentaries.

      Not good ones. Shittily produced ones that get hosted on Vimeo.

      • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Or just order the assassination of Trump and anyone that supports him without trial, in the name of “national security”. Immunity, official act, etc. See how fast the justices rescind their ruling.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    ADDING an Amendment to a Document that the Supreme Court is IGNORING is the PERFECT way to Fix this!

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Use amendment 14 section 3 to remove most of the Republicans from office.

    Get rid of the idea of judicial review.

  • fubarx@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Say this gets passed, and it’s signed. Forget the higher bar for an amendment. It will get challenged and end up in front of the very same court.

    The system has an inherent flaw that was not anticipated by the Founders. Smart, legal people need to get into 4D puzzle-solving mode.

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      This isn’t a law that has to be signed but a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by a certain number of states.