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

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.

  • ccunning@lemmy.world
    141·
    3 months ago

    In an op-ed published on Monday morning, the president said[…]

    I’ve seen the “Fact Sheet” published on whitehouse.gov, but I feel like I’m going crazy. I can’t find the op-ed referenced in the article. Or even who published it.

    Are they calling the Fact Sheet an op-ed or is there something more, directly from Biden, published somewhere?

  • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    128·
    3 months ago

    Another example of Dem half-assery… You KNOW the Republicans are going to obstruct everything you do… So why half ass it? Propose these changes sure… But also come in swinging… Use that immunity they gave you to fucking come through with a sledge hammer. Instead what they do is little piddling bullshit that they know won’t pass… After 40 years of it, I have to believe they don’t actually want the changes to succeed… They just want to be able to pretend they tried so they can blame the Republicans for doing what they knew all along they were going to do (while their corporate daddies don’t lose a penny of profit). Get in the ring, pack the court, black site any Republican who says anything promoting insurrection or violence even just a little… Arrest the justices for corruption… it’s all legal for Biden right now. SHOW them why they don’t want the president to have unlimited power. Same goes for the insulin bill thing someone posted earlier. If you know it’s going to be blocked, at least be fighting for universal single payer… Stop wasting time

    • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
      16·
      3 months ago

      If he “comes in swinging” before the election he will seriously damage the Democrats chances. Most voters won’t be able to stomach Biden acting like a dictator, even if it’s in the best interest of the republic. His best course is to use every legal mean at his disposal to push for this, and only break out the hammer after Harris is voted in. While I’m skeptical he will do that, it’s worth giving the benefit of the doubt right now.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      161·
      3 months ago

      No, that’s dumb. There’s no way this would actually pass any time soon, so it’s better to get as much positive press as possible.

      Steps:

      1. Announce your idea in an opinion piece

      2. Propose something to Congress when they ignore your opinion piece

      3. Do something along these lines with an Executive Order when Congress ignores your proposal

      4. Defend your Executive Order in court when someone sues you

      You just proposed doing number 3. But there are way more steps you can take to get attention on your proposal.

      • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
        23·
        3 months ago

        Sure… Do all the steps… But go for the throat… Enough of these weak half-assed proposals

        And nothing would get more attention than starting to arrest judges and reps fomenting violence

    • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
      141·
      3 months ago

      It’ll still be nice to get the “small government” party saying in writing that they support the presidency having unlimited power.

      • Ferrous@lemmy.mlEnglish
        32·
        3 months ago

        What kind of thinking is this? That it’s better to lose as long as you have the moral high ground? Maybe that thinking works for little league, but not when healthcare, women’s rights, and climate are on the line.

        “Sure the fascist uprising happened in record time, but at least we put it on the record that the fascists have occasional issues with intellectual honesty!”

        Only in the liberal mindset does intellectual honesty come with more primacy than physically protecting people who are actually vulnerable.

        The fact that it appears we are 1 or 2 years away from door-to-door gestapo visits, and liberals are still circle jerking about their epic, pragmatic, civil, patriotic, “play by the rules” mindset, means we are most likely doomed.

        • 5C5C5C@programming.dev
          3·
          3 months ago

          I don’t know what got your goat but you’re projecting an enormous amount of non sequitur into my very innocuous remark.

          I was pointing out one itty bitty silver lining of an effort that’s doomed to fail. I never suggested that we should be satisfied with that silver lining and call it a day.

          I’m fully supportive of all actions, including those outside the realm of politics, to defend against fascism. But that’s no reason to stop taking political actions, even those which we estimate to be doomed.

          Porque no los dos?

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 months ago

        They’ve been saying that for decades. It’s not been the Democrats pushing the “unitary executive” theory.